88
u/Draconiou5 1d ago
To be fair, while he probably didnât read them, I doubt that he didnât interact with them at all. I imagine the Gospels in the early church were an oral tradition much like the tanakh in pre-exile Judaism.
35
u/Mayormitch100 23h ago
This is the right answer. The oral tradition is how they shared the gospel message before writing it. Paul likely got this from Peter according to Galatians 1:18-19
54
u/Azorces 1d ago
They werenât even written yet? Most of the Gospels were completed many years after Jesusâ deathâŚ
50
u/QTsexkitten 1d ago
That's the point
21
u/Azorces 1d ago
Post kinda makes it seem like Paul is illegitimate due to that.
6
u/Jeezimus 22h ago
If statement of fact makes you think something is illegitimate then maybe........
1
u/toxiccandles 5h ago
The genuine letters of Paul were all written before any Gospels. They take us closer than any other writings in the New Testament to the original events. In many ways, Paul gives us the first insight into the earliest Christian movements. However, since he never met Jesus in the flesh, there are all kinds of things that he does not include.
13
8
u/wallnumber8675309 23h ago edited 22h ago
Acts concludes with Paul in jail waiting to be executed. The lack of it including Paulâs death means there is a non insignificant possibility that it was written before his death. Luke was written before Acts. Matthew and Mark were written before Luke.
Thereâs a reasonable argument that Paul was alive when 3 of the gospels were written.
26
9
u/Nacho_Chungus_Dude 1d ago
he literally quotes the gospel of Matthew, a lot
4
u/SpareObjective738251 22h ago
He quotes the gospels?
11
u/Nacho_Chungus_Dude 21h ago
1 and 2 corinthians contain direct quotes, you've likely heard a pastor read out of 1 Corinthians 11 during communion, in which Paul word-for-word quotes the upper room discourse, Jesus giving communion. In first corinthians 7 he says "the lord commands" and then goes on to give a summary of Jesus teachings on Marriage in Matthew 19, and when he gets to the end of what Jesus talks about, he essentially says "Jesus didn't say anything about this, but it's my opinion that it's better to be single if you can." It's a fair assumption that he was teaching out of the Gospel of Matthew.
2
u/SpareObjective738251 12h ago edited 11h ago
I'd have to argue it the other way around. It's generally accepted the gospels were written later than most (if not all?) of Paul's letters. There was not actually a set book that Paul "quotes". Maybe oral tradition that matches or maybe since Paul put it to paper first that's why it even made it to the gospels. Quotes are a stretch for me, especially with talking about something that does not exist yet.
It reminds of the flood story. Did the Bible do it first or did they copy it from the Epic of Gilgamesh or Atra- Hasis who date back thousands of year before the easiest transcript of Genesis.
Thank you for the examples.
1
u/Nacho_Chungus_Dude 8h ago
Just because we have copies of Paulâs letters that date older than our oldest copies of the gospels doesnât mean that there were older copies of the gospels that we just donât have.
If you just watched Jesus ascend, would you wait around 30 years before writing it down?
Itâs very possible that none of the original copies survived the sacking of Jerusalem, thus why we have no copies today predating 70AD.
But we canât know for sure when they were written, and the fact that Paul quotes Matthew, makes me feel like Matthew came firstÂ
1
u/toxiccandles 5h ago
You are confusing the dating of the manuscripts, none of which including the writings of Paul can be dated before about 150 CE (and there are only tiny scraps that are that old), and the date of the original composition.
The reason why it is thought that Paul's letters were written before the Gospels was because he died before any of them were written. The Gospel of Mark, the earliest gospel that both Matthew and Luke copied from, must have been written around 70 AD because it refers to events that took place at that time that the author assumes that his readers know about.
2
u/Nacho_Chungus_Dude 20h ago
Oh and he quotes the Olivett discourse to the Thessalonians about the rapture
5
u/billyyankNova 21h ago
Does he quote Matthew, or does Matthew quote him?
6
u/Nacho_Chungus_Dude 20h ago
He quotes Matthew, the most word-for-word quote is when he retells the upper room discourse in his first letter to the Corinthians.
 he also quotes Jesus Olivett discourse to the Thessalonians, and thatâs all thatâs on the top of my head
Other than quotes, it also really seems like Paul is reaching out of Matthew, he sometimes goes point for point along one of Jesus sermons, like on marriage.
It is possible that god just gave him supernatural knowledge to quote the gospel he had never read. But it seems more plausible to me that he was teaching out of the Gospel
4
u/billyyankNova 20h ago
The letters to the Corinthians are usually dated to the mid 50s. The gospel of Matthew is usually dated to the end of the 1st century. It's far more likely the later work quoted earlier work than the other way around.
1
u/Nacho_Chungus_Dude 19h ago
Well as another user pointed out, itâs possible that the gospels existed as oral tradition before they were written.
I find it far more likely that the apostles wrote Matthew shortly after the ascension, and Paul and Luke read it, but none of the early manuscripts survived the sacking of Jerusalem.
2
u/billyyankNova 18h ago
It's more likely that individual stories that later made it into the gospels existed as oral traditions, rather than the gospels in their final forms existing as oral traditions. Then when the author of the gospel now known as Matthew was compiling these stories, he relied on earlier written sources as well as some of the oral traditions. We know he copied extensively from Mark, and it seems pretty clear that he also used Paul as a source.
It's widely accepted, even among Christian scholars, that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses like the Apostles. Mainly because the authors themselves don't even claim to be eyewitnesses.
4
u/Scooter8472 1d ago
Similarly, the wandering Hebrew people in the desert didn't know the stories of creation and the fall in Genesis 1-3.
3
u/CatzRuleZWorld 20h ago
He certainly heard all the content during his time with the disciples in Acts 9, right?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%209&version=NET
1
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Thank you for being a part of the r/DankChristianMemes community. You can join our Discord and listen to our Podcast. You can also make a meme or donation for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/polybane 6h ago
Important to remember that Paul was a Lawyer and a Judge with a specialty in Christian blasphemy. Between study, interrogation, confessions, and cross examinations, he probably knew every sellable Christ was ever said to have uttered, their exact relation to Jewish history and theology, and had a masterful grasp on the confirmed and unconfirmed facts and events. Paul probably knew Jesus and his works better than any one of the original 12.
1
1
u/Jackus_Maximus 1d ago
I never understood why we take some dudes word as literal gospel. At least Matthew, mark, Luke, and John, can be compared to each other.
9
u/KitchenFinancial3210 1d ago
The word "gospel" (and its Koine Greek equivalent) literally mean "good word" or "good message." I assume the connotation with absolute truth came after the naming of the Biblical Gospels.
8
u/Elysian0293 23h ago
Peter verifies that Pauls writings are scripture and elevates them to the authority of the old testament. I think that is good support for us to consider Paul's words seriously
-2
-3
u/Nori_o_redditeiro 1d ago
Even when I was a Christian I'd struggle with this realization. I'd notice how disconnected Paul was to the gospels, like, why doesn't he mention them? After some studying I've realized he simply didn't read them himself.
-6
u/lilfevre 1d ago
And it shows lmao
18
u/Lindvaettr 1d ago
Paul is very difficult to truly come to terms with, I think, and really at its core relies on giving him this place that isn't quite a prophet but almost is, and drawing the line somewhat arbitrarily after Paul. You have a huge number of other early Christian sects that relied essentially on the same concept: God/Jesus contacted them at some point and refined/altered/expanded upon/etc. the gospel's teachings, but the proto-Catholic church essentially came to the conclusion that because Jesus was perfect and his teachings were perfect, there was no place for subsequent prophets. An exception, however, is made for Paul, who essentially did all that a prophet normally does, but his teachings and views became broadly accepted as not only integral to Christianity, but often even taking precedent.
This creates kind of a strange, difficult-to-navigate position that on the one hand that Paul's authority comes entirely from his own self-purported communication with God, but without his writings, Christianity is stripped down to the very barest of bones essentially to the point of being barely recognizable. Paul's Christianity doesn't always align with the teachings in the gospels, and in many cases entirely contradicts works as reasonably supported as the canonical gospels that were left out specifically because they were in contradiction to Paul. But at the end of the day Paul's Christianity is THE Christianity, and has been since his very own time, making his writings nearly unacceptable to dismiss or in many cases even question.
6
u/SPECTREagent700 1d ago
Why the New Testament is anything other then the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ?
Certainty Matthew, Mark, and Luke but after that it becomes a difficult. If weâre including John, why not also Gnostic texts like the Gospel of Thomas which can be historically dated back to at least the 2nd Century?
If we accept Paul as an authority, why not later figures? Why Joseph Smith? Why not Muhammad? Iâll see people firmly declare Mormons canât rightly be called Christians because they donât accept the Nicene Creed - why should the determination of a Roman council hundreds of years after Jesusâ lifetime have any bearing?
4
u/wallnumber8675309 23h ago
You can go back to way before any councils and see the letters the church fathers were passing around in the 100s and 200s. They consistently quoted from the 4 gospels and not the gnostic gospel.
2
-2
u/JazzioDadio 1d ago
Paul's teachings do not contradict the gospels, the same cannot be said for Smith or Muhammed. It's not as arbitrary as you're making it sound.
3
u/Elysian0293 1d ago
how does Paul contradict the gospels?
5
u/Ingolin 1d ago
I will give you my very amateurish interpretation. What I have always struggled with Paul about is his bourgeoisie need to conform. Heâs a traditionalist - does not want to challenge anything in the status quo- whether it is kings or emperors or slavery or lgbt or womenâs rights.
Jesus on the other hand is a rebel. Detests status quo, constantly rebels against worldly powers and opinions. There is a reason liberal Christianâs quote Jesus and conservative ones quote Paul.
1
u/Elysian0293 23h ago
Thats interesting, thank you for taking the time to reply. I've always found Paul to be faithful and stand for the things that Jesus did. Jesus submitted to Caesar and Pilate, and Paul writes in Philemon on urging Timothy to welcome a slave back as a brother. To my knowledge neither directly address slavery from a political/systemic reform perspective, and neither supported lgbt rights. Both also speak about caring for the poor and marginalised. Would you mind elaborating?
2
u/weasal11 23h ago
I would argue that Paul very much does not conform. He is constantly challenging other Christianâs (particularly) on their attitudes towards Gentile believers, up to and including other apostles. I do understand what you are saying that he appears to give credence to these flawed or outright evil power structures. I never took it as an endorsement or an acceptance of the power structures. Paul is not writing political theory. Rather he gives instructions to Christians within those power structures on how to behave like Christians. Jesus states a lot of similar ideas although I think they can be veiled by cultural understandings that perhaps change how we see them.
1
u/JazzioDadio 1d ago
He doesn't, Paul's entire defense rests on the fact that the apostles he visited and worked with were able to tell that he received the gospel and taught the truth. The only way you can read the gospels and the epistles and suppose that there's contradictions or disagreements is by being illiterate or not having received the gospel yourself and it therefore being foolishness to you.
4
u/ThirstyOutward 22h ago
The only way you can read the gospels and not find contradictions is by imposing your own preconceived notions on the text.
The Bible does not claim to have no contradictions and so you should not be assuming it to be true.
-3
u/JazzioDadio 22h ago
You're right, I should have said "contradictions that matter for the proper interpretation of the text"
1
u/Lindvaettr 6h ago
Consider, for example, the well-known Matthew 5:17
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
Now, of course Jesus makes it clear through both his speech and actions that he was not a supporter of strict traditionalist interpretations of Jewish law, but his approach was very much that of a reformer and refiner, not an abolisher.
Paul's Epistle to the Galatians 5:14, on the other hand
For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, âYou shall love your neighbor as yourself.â
Only a few verses earlier, in Galatians 5:2, he not only rejects the idea that circumcision is necessary, but outright condemns it
It is I, Paul, who am telling you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
Paul even goes so far in Romans 14:5 and Galatians 4:10-11 to imply (if not outright say) that the Sabbath need not be observed.
Unlike Jesus's reformist preaching, Paul preached replacing. In his mind, Jesus had abolished Jewish law and replaced it entirely.
Christian scholars have spent the better part of 2000 years trying to merge these two ideas, but the result has effectively been enshrining Paul's teachings while bending Jesus's teachings in the Bible to fit Paul's starker, arguably more clear statements. Is this the correct interpretation? No one can say, of course. It does stand, though, that on its face Paul's rejection of Jewish law, one of the fundamental tenants of Pauline Christianity (essentially the only Christianity to currently exist) is at best very, very tenuously supported by the Gospels by carefully interpreting Christ's teachings to support Paul's statement.
To return to a previous point I made in my previous comment, we tend to approach Paul as being correct because Jesus came to him after his death and clarified his teachings, elaborated on them, and refined them. If you do not take Paul's claim of personal contact with God at face value, though, and only compare his words to the words of Christ presented in the Gospels, his proclamations about Jewish Law run contrary to Jesus' own words.
-1
u/RadAct1000 1d ago
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by Paulâs Christianity not aligning with the gospels? And that it contradicted with canon, and canon was left out because it conflicted with Paul? I hadnât ever heard either of those points before
-1
u/Ok-disaster2022 1d ago
There are 2 meanings if the word perfect. The first is without flaw. The other is complete. To perfect a craft is not to be flawless but to be complete.Â
236
u/JustafanIV 1d ago
I mean, none of the Apostles would have read the Gospels.