Q and Pauline epistles?

[SolaSaint]

I didn't want to derail the current "Q" thread with this, so I have a question for all you textual critics. If many theologians believe in Q and that it was a source doc for the gospel writers, what about Pauline epistles. Don't some of them pre-date the gospels, is it plausible that Luke, Mark or Matthew read some of Paul's letters? I'm probably way out in left field here so please reply with kindness. Thanks

 

[Yeshua1]

I didn't want to derail the current "Q" thread with this, so I have a question for all you textual critics. If many theologians believe in Q and that it was a source doc for the gospel writers, what about Pauline epistles. Don't some of them pre-date the gospels, is it plausible that Luke, Mark or Matthew read some of Paul's letters? I'm probably way out in left field here so please reply with kindness. Thanks

great Question! the other Apostles would have no doubt been quite aware of paul Epistles being written and circulated around, as peter testified to them being scripture!

Perhaps all of the Gospels were penned much earlier than we think , maybe?

 

[Greektim]

I didn't want to derail the current "Q" thread with this, so I have a question for all you textual critics. If many theologians believe in Q and that it was a source doc for the gospel writers, what about Pauline epistles. Don't some of them pre-date the gospels, is it plausible that Luke, Mark or Matthew read some of Paul's letters? I'm probably way out in left field here so please reply with kindness. Thanks

I think it is very likely that Paul was aware and perhaps even read Matthew or Mark (depending on which one caused the other; so to speak) and obviously had a part in Luke if he is the apostolic authority behind the text (if such a thing is necessary in Luke's case).

David Alan Black also thinks this to be a very likely possibility.

But that is not to say that Matthew (assuming Matthaen authorship) didn't read Paul. They were certainly contemporaries, so there is every reason to believe that their writings traversed as much as their writers.

 

[SolaSaint]

I think that is probably correct. No reason to think the Apostles didn't read each others writings. I think this is very interesting, that is until liberals try to remove inspiration from them.

 

[John of Japan]

I didn't want to derail the current "Q" thread with this, so I have a question for all you textual critics. If many theologians believe in Q and that it was a source doc for the gospel writers, what about Pauline epistles. Don't some of them pre-date the gospels, is it plausible that Luke, Mark or Matthew read some of Paul's letters? I'm probably way out in left field here so please reply with kindness. Thanks

As Yeshua1 mentioned, Peter mentioned Paul's writings and considered them to be Scripture. Here is the quote from 2 Peter 3: "15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

I think the apostles communicated quite a lot with each other as witness the joint effort to help the believers in the Jerusalem famine, the conference to determine if believers needed to follow the law, etc. So I have no doubt that the 12 followed the career of Paul and read his writings.

Having said that, note that none of the Gospels, general epistles or Revelation quote Paul. So it may be that most of the rest of the NT was already written before Paul wrote his epistles. (I've never read a scholarly source on this theory, so just blame me for it if it's all wet.)

 

[Yeshua1]

As Yeshua1 mentioned, Peter mentioned Paul's writings and considered them to be Scripture. Here is the quote from 2 Peter 3: "15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

I think the apostles communicated quite a lot with each other as witness the joint effort to help the believers in the Jerusalem famine, the conference to determine if believers needed to follow the law, etc. So I have no doubt that the 12 followed the career of Paul and read his writings.

Having said that, note that none of the Gospels, general epistles or Revelation quote Paul. So it may be that most of the rest of the NT was already written before Paul wrote his epistles. (I've never read a scholarly source on this theory, so just blame me for it if it's all wet.)

Believe that there is also a quote made by paul where he places isaiah saying merged with Lukan statement, so that would have Luke and isaiah equally inspired by God!

Doing this from memorary, maybe where paul address not muzzling the Oxen, laborer worth his due?

 

[preachinjesus]

It is certainly likely that the Gospel writers new of the Pauline literature, they just don't seem to care much about it for their works.

One of the issues to seeing this is that Paul is never referenced by the Gospels. Even Luke, who was hanging out with him for a long time, doesn't quote from his letters and such.

Two observations are important here:
1. The genres of the Gospels and epistles are completely different and have a different task. It is hard to overlap.

2. If we grant Paul is writing from about AD 45 until about 65 he is writing to specific churches and the letters then begin their circulations. The Gospels aren't begun until the early 60s. We forget that the transmission of the NT was extraordinarily slow and with a few exceptions there is no reference or acknowledgement of other letters in any of the books.

 

[Greektim]

It is certainly likely that the Gospel writers new of the Pauline literature, they just don't seem to care much about it for their works.

One of the issues to seeing this is that Paul is never referenced by the Gospels. Even Luke, who was hanging out with him for a long time, doesn't quote from his letters and such.

Two observations are important here:
1. The genres of the Gospels and epistles are completely different and have a different task. It is hard to overlap.

2. If we grant Paul is writing from about AD 45 until about 65 he is writing to specific churches and the letters then begin their circulations. The Gospels aren't begun until the early 60s. We forget that the transmission of the NT was extraordinarily slow and with a few exceptions there is no reference or acknowledgement of other letters in any of the books.

Interesting that you mention Luke not quoting Paul when in fact Paul quotes Luke in 1 Tim. 5:18. What would that mean, especially if Luke was the 3rd synoptic written? Probably that Paul had access to all 3 synoptics at this point. But as stated, the synoptics never quote Paul. Is there anything to be made of that?

 

[preachinjesus]

Interesting that you mention Luke not quoting Paul when in fact Paul quotes Luke in 1 Tim. 5:18. What would that mean, especially if Luke was the 3rd synoptic written? Probably that Paul had access to all 3 synoptics at this point. But as stated, the synoptics never quote Paul. Is there anything to be made of that?

Seems the only points of "biblical" citation for the Gospels are the OT...and those are a rambling set of allusions, indirect quotations, and ranging paraphrases. (Which probably has more to do with oral tradition and lack of scrolls with the biblical texts. Also, who has time to unfurl Isaiah's scroll to quote from his last chapter?)

The Pastorals are notoriously difficult to date (I accept Pauline authorship) but they are clearly among the last. Paul seems more open to quoting sources other than the OT. The Gospel writers seem only to pull from the OT. How that works would be a great dissertation topic.

Maybe that is it though, and it reinforces my first point, the nature of epistolary literature vs. ancient biography and their sources for authority. Wow, makes me want to apply to a European school for a second PhD...and apparently a new marriage since my wife has refused such requests on grounds of her sanity.

The genric difference are likely the key. The epistles of the NT quote from within and without. The Gospels, and Acts, don't do this. Then we get to Revelation and all rules and thoughts go out the window.

It would be interesting to see what Beale has to say about all of this.

 

[Greektim]

Seems the only points of "biblical" citation for the Gospels are the OT...and those are a rambling set of allusions, indirect quotations, and ranging paraphrases. (Which probably has more to do with oral tradition and lack of scrolls with the biblical texts. Also, who has time to unfurl Isaiah's scroll to quote from his last chapter?)

The Pastorals are notoriously difficult to date (I accept Pauline authorship) but they are clearly among the last. Paul seems more open to quoting sources other than the OT. The Gospel writers seem only to pull from the OT. How that works would be a great dissertation topic.

Maybe that is it though, and it reinforces my first point, the nature of epistolary literature vs. ancient biography and their sources for authority. Wow, makes me want to apply to a European school for a second PhD...and apparently a new marriage since my wife has refused such requests on grounds of her sanity.

The genric difference are likely the key. The epistles of the NT quote from within and without. The Gospels, and Acts, don't do this. Then we get to Revelation and all rules and thoughts go out the window.

It would be interesting to see what Beale has to say about all of this.

I'm trying to even think of a place in Beale's written work where he would address something like that.

And are you thinking for a dissertation idea to answer a question (that has hardly ever been asked) "Why do the gospel accounts only quote or allude from the OT rather than other established ecclesial documents existing and in circulation at the time such as the NT epistles?"

I think it could be limited to just Luke and his relationship to Paul. If Paul was the authority behind Luke, but they wrote consecutively, then why wouldn't Luke make use of Paul (perhaps he does since only Luke mentions "justification" in some sense or another) since Paul made small use of Luke or at least the Jesus tradition he had access to (like for example 1 Cor. 7:10, 12).

You'd have a lot to defend just with authorship and dating of documents. Got any other dissertation/thesis ideas? I'm trying to find something.

 

[Greektim]

As a caveat, I think it is quite likely that James and 1 Peter do allude to Matthew (especially the Sermon on the Mount). Example: compare Matthew 5:11-16 with 1 Peter 2:12. I think Peter understood 5:11-16 as a thematic unit connected together (more to it than that but just a brief example) and condensed it in his epistle. If true, it gives the meaning of salt and light an added emphasis of suffering and rejoicing in suffering.

Now the question could be altered to ask if these epistles are citing the gospels or just a received Jesus tradition... something that has been posed already.

 

[SolaSaint]

I was listening to Frank Turek today and he had Phil Fernandes on and he was saying there is scholarship now that believes Clement of Rome had written some early stuff that talks about the Temple still standing and also alludes to scripture. I'll have to check that out. This would mean something by an early church father(but before he was a church father) written in 70AD or earlier that gives credence to scripture . If authentic it will just add more evidence to early autographs.

 

[preachinjesus]

Clement isn't the earliest non-apostolic father out there nor is 1 Clement the only, or earliest, post-apostolic work. It is likely that the Didache is earlier and possibly the Shepherd of Hermas and some gnostic sources (which are incourgable for this study.) Though there is a recent work, published within a month or two, suggesting a pre70 dating for 1 Clement I doubt that early of a date.

There isn't enough internal evidence to warrant that kind of dating and the external authorities contemporary this time seem to push 1 Clemen to at least 90 or 95. The late NT documents show no familiarity with Clement of Rome.

 

[John of Japan]

As a caveat, I think it is quite likely that James and 1 Peter do allude to Matthew (especially the Sermon on the Mount). Example: compare Matthew 5:11-16 with 1 Peter 2:12. I think Peter understood 5:11-16 as a thematic unit connected together (more to it than that but just a brief example) and condensed it in his epistle. If true, it gives the meaning of salt and light an added emphasis of suffering and rejoicing in suffering.

Now the question could be altered to ask if these epistles are citing the gospels or just a received Jesus tradition... something that has been posed already.

Well, since Peter walked with Jesus for 3 years, I go for the "received Jesus tradition." :jesus:

 

[Greektim]

Well, since Peter walked with Jesus for 3 years, I go for the "received Jesus tradition." :jesus:

I think it is more complex than that. A certain "tradition" was going around that was the measure of orthodoxy. Paul mentions it a few times. Could it be that this tradition was developed by the apostles? Nevertheless, the verbal parallels are uncanny possibly suggesting a textual allusion rather than just a common or shared Jesus tradition between the gospels and epistles.

 

[John of Japan]

I think it is more complex than that. A certain "tradition" was going around that was the measure of orthodoxy. Paul mentions it a few times. Could it be that this tradition was developed by the apostles? Nevertheless, the verbal parallels are uncanny possibly suggesting a textual allusion rather than just a common or shared Jesus tradition between the gospels and epistles.

I assume you mean paradosis mentioned by Paul in several places. I'm not sure how that is anything but the sum of Paul's teaching, judging by its usage. What basis do you have for this being a tradition developed by the apostles? (Remembering that it doesn't mean "tradition" in the same range of meaning as the English word by any means.)

 

[Greektim]

I assume you mean paradosis mentioned by Paul in several places. I'm not sure how that is anything but the sum of Paul's teaching, judging by its usage. What basis do you have for this being a tradition developed by the apostles? (Remembering that it doesn't mean "tradition" in the same range of meaning as the English word by any means.)

Thinking more of something like 1 Cor. 15:3 and the thing which he recieved implying a gospel/Jesus tradition. But yes, the "tradition" is what I'm referring to when it was something "received". Another example of Paul having access to a Jesus tradition is 1 Cor. 7:10 and 12.

 

[SolaSaint]

Clement isn't the earliest non-apostolic father out there nor is 1 Clement the only, or earliest, post-apostolic work. It is likely that the Didache is earlier and possibly the Shepherd of Hermas and some gnostic sources (which are incourgable for this study.) Though there is a recent work, published within a month or two, suggesting a pre70 dating for 1 Clement I doubt that early of a date.

There isn't enough internal evidence to warrant that kind of dating and the external authorities contemporary this time seem to push 1 Clemen to at least 90 or 95. The late NT documents show no familiarity with Clement of Rome.

Sorry, didn't mean to cause confusion, Fernandez said it wasn't 1 Clement but somekind of writing that was early. He wasn't saying 1 Clement was written in 70 AD.

 

[John of Japan]

Thinking more of something like 1 Cor. 15:3 and the thing which he recieved implying a gospel/Jesus tradition. But yes, the "tradition" is what I'm referring to when it was something "received". Another example of Paul having access to a Jesus tradition is 1 Cor. 7:10 and 12.

Okay, I can track that, though I think the typical scholarly term of "tradition" for this is outmoded. I mean, how can you have a tradition (in the modern lexical sense of the English word) when it is eyewitnesses telling other believers what they saw and heard?

 

[Greektim]

Okay, I can track that, though I think the typical scholarly term of "tradition" for this is outmoded. I mean, how can you have a tradition (in the modern lexical sense of the English word) when it is eyewitnesses telling other believers what they saw and heard?

The telling of what they saw and heard is the tradition. And actually, the term is still in common usage when referring to the Jesus tradition or pre-gospel Jesus stories and etc.

Here's an example: The Jesus Legend, A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (written in 2007; just did a quick search and came up with this; actually been meaning to read this too).

Another example: http://paulinetheology.blogspot.com/2007/07/jesus-and-paul.html

SEYOON KIM. "The Jesus Tradition in 1 Thess 4.13–5.11." New Testament Studies, 2002, vol. 48, pp 225-242.