Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Paul in the Gospels

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jim West <jwest AT highland.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Paul in the Gospels
  • Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:53:15 -0400


At 06:24 PM 4/18/00 +0300, you wrote:
>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?

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...

>
>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? 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 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.

>
>with kind regards,
>
>Sakari
>

Best,

Jim

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jim West, ThD
jwest AT highland.net
http://web.infoave.net/~jwest






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page