Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Vs: Re: Paul in the Gospels

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Sakari H�kkinen" <sakari.hakkinen AT sci.fi>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Vs: Re: Paul in the Gospels
  • Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:15:31 +0300


> >Considering Paul's influence to later Christianity, isn't
it
> >odd that he is not at all mentioned in the Gospels? Of
> >course the canonical gospels more or less reflect Pauline
> >doctrine (indeed, from Pauline point of view they are
quite
> >orthodox, aren't they?). Only the Gospel according to
> >Matthew does not fit well in Paul's theology - therefore
it
> >is quite strange that just this gospel was the first and
> >most valuable in the early church.
>
> This is a rather homogenized view of both Paul and the
Gospels. Luke is not
> like Paul in many respects. Matthew is not similar
either. Mark doesn't
> even sound like Paul. And John... well nothing need be
said here. Further,
> when you talk about Paul are you talking about the early
eschatological Paul
> of 1 Thess. or the later Paul of Romans?
>
What I meant was that the Canon was formed in a way where
Pauline letters had a firm place. Already this points to
some kind of _Pauline redaction_. I do not argue that the
canonical gospels are simply made by some paulinist authors,
but at least they passed the test of sound doctrine by the
same authorities who accepted the Pauline Corpus. And I am
not talking about historical Paul but Paul in his letters,
an influential authority to those who collected the corpus,
preserved and copied it and valued it high.


> Likewise, WE might think that Paul was a grand influence
on the early
> Church, but they didn't necessarily see it that way. In
Corinth itself, a
> Church ostensibly begun by Paul, there were folk who cared
nothing for him
> at all...
That is right. Paul was quite a controversial person even
long after his death. It may be so that in Corinth he losed
all...
Now we come to some interesting question: does the NT
reflect 1) Pauline view (opposite to Judeo-Christian
view/Petrines/Jacobeans or something) or 2) a synthetic view
that wanted to accept both lines into one church. The former
is something Goulder would perhaps agree to, the latter was
the famous view of Baur.

> >
> >In some of these scholarly lists there were discussion on
> >Mark 14,51-52, and I recall someone introducing the idea
> >that the NEANISKOS here was in fact Paul. I was not quite
> >convinced on this, but continue asking why Paul is not
> >introduced in any way in the Gospels,
>
>
> Because he doesnt matter. He fits no where in the story.
(and as an
> aside... its really impossible to describe him as the
young man of marks
> account).
>
> >only in Acts. As all
> >the gospels were written after Paul's death and counting
the
> >enormous influence he had,
>
> Again, what evidence is there for this massive influence?
> The Canon?
Just so. In addition to that the patristic writings. For
many Christian authors in the three first centuries Paul was
the Apostle. It was not necessary to use his name. For some
he was the most influential authority, others considered him
a liar and an apostate. In Pseudo-Clementine literature he
could have been introduced as Simon Magus.

>We value Paul because Augustine valued him and Luther
valued
> him. If it werent for Augustine and Luther's love for
Paul, perhaps James
> would have been viewed as the premier theologian. Paul
influenced Augustine
> and Luther... and we drink of their fountain. But perhaps
Luther and
> Augustine were wrong... and perhaps even Paul himself was
wrong in his
> apprehension of the meaning of the Gospel....
>
I am not taking any position to that who is/were right or
wrong. But Paul's letters were accepted to canonical
scriptures and used quite widely long before Augustine. I
suppose it was just because of this that Augustine and
Luther had so easily access to Paul's theology and used in
the center of their own theology.

> >I find it not a problem to the
> >authors of the gospels that Paul was not historically
with
> >Jesus in his lifetime. He could have been introduced some
> >other way - even as an unnamed young man, whose presence
is
> >not at all necessary otherwise to the story. Are there
any
> >other possible passages that refer to Paul in the
gospels?
>
> No.
>
> >How about the apocryphal Gospels?
>
> Dont know bout that. Cant recall a single apocryphal
text.
>
> >
> >I have been rereading the valuable work of H-J Schoeps
> >(Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums) and he
> >suggests that Paul could be referred to in Matth.
13,24-30,
> >where the EXQPOS perhaps signifies Paul as it also
signifies
> >him in Pseudo-Clementine literature. If this is right,
Paul
> >is referred to in negative sense in Matth.
>
> This is eisegesis pure and simple. A seeking for
something because one
> wishes it were there rather than any proof that it is.
>
If we can find possible references to Paul in the Gospels we
know something more about the authors and their positions to
Paul, to the Torah etc. That's one reason why you have to
read the gospels with an open eye. It is possible that there
are no such traces in the Gospels and for some reason the
authors did not want to introduce him. Perhaps they did not
want to present him there for historical reasons, perhaps
they did not know Paul. I accept that and I have nothing
against it. But I want to know if this is so.

All the best,

Sakari

Sakari Hakkinen, PhD
University of Helsinki
Department of Biblical Studies
sakari.hakkinen AT evl.fi
http://www.helsinki.fi/teol/hyel/henkilo/henkilo.html





  • Vs: Re: Paul in the Gospels, Sakari Häkkinen, 04/18/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page