Responding to a Challenger on Paul Knowing the Gospels: “A Frankly Crackpot Answer Completely Contrary to the Scholarly Consensus.”
Thursday Q&A
Often when I write articles for this blog, I run against the grain of the most popular theories. This tends to attract a fair bit of notice.
Yet I don’t do this wantonly.
Every time I post a claim that runs contrary to popular ideas, I ground the claims in evidence — typically the relevant historical or archaeological data.
Last week, in response to my article claiming that Paul knew the Gospels, a writer who we’ll call James responded with a vigorous series of challenges, primarily led by the charge that scholarly consensus supposes the Gospels to be later than Paul.
This provided a wonderful opportunity to go back to the evidence, propping up my claims of the Gospels being early with the relevant historical data.
I don’t post in ignorance of the prevailing theories. But neither do I post in ignorance of the historical evidence.
If you want to read the prevailing theories, you can find them everywhere. But you can’t find many places to read about the weaknesses in these theories, or the places where their claims run contrary to the evidence.
Truth shouldn’t fear questions. Claims should be investigated and challenged. Our knowledge can’t move forward without it.
I’ll copy our conversation, with James’ statements in quotations, and my responses following. The contents have been lightly edited for readability.
Hello James,
Thanks for taking the time to write.
My friend, it seems obvious that you assume I don’t know what you’re talking about, or that I’m somehow ignoring it.
Neither is true.
I’ve studied the positions you’re arguing in depth. Seminary got me started on this path, teaching me Greek and Hebrew, and introducing me to all the major arguments on every side of these issues. I started digging then and I’ve never stopped.
I’ve studied all the arguments you have, and likely have read the books you have.
I strive to read widely, to be exposed to every argument on these topics. If you only read the mostly-Western, mostly-liberal, mostly-white scholars, you may tend to think their opinions are the only real opinions.
But when you read wider, you realize there’s a whole globe of scholarly work that you’ve missed.
You said:
Yikes, no; it’s disturbing that a frankly crackpot answer completely contrary to the scholarly consensus on this is so high up. This is not what reputable historians think.
My friend, “reputable historians” are not nearly so monolithic as you imply.
When we’re studying the question of whether Paul knew the Gospels, it’s entirely appropriate to list where he quotes them and alludes to them, and draw the necessary deductions.
All of our historical data indicates that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were certainly written in Paul’s lifetime, with John a strong possibility.
The primary reason that scholars propose a later date than history records is Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24 of the destruction of the Temple, which happened in 70 A.D. Those who deny the supernatural reject the possibility that Jesus could be making a legitimate prophecy, and instead push all of the Gospels back, past this point. But in doing so, they end up running against all of our available historical data.
The historical data is entirely on the side of the Gospels being early, within Paul’s lifetime — and thereby supporting the authenticity of the prophecy Jesus made.
You said:
Timothy and the other Pastorals are almost unanimously understood, by secular and Christian historians alike, to be late forgeries in Paul’s name, and for myriad reasons other than “they quote books written 20 years after Paul’s death,” though that certainly helps. Obviously there are folks who refuse to accept this on principle, because they dislike the idea that falsely attributed letters made it into the canon, but it’s been established beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of mainstream scholars for a long time now.
Again, scholarship is not nearly so reductionistic.
There is certainly a camp who thinks they are late.
There are also camps who think they are early, and are authentically Pauline.
Two of the key pieces of evidence are the ancient New Testament manuscripts and the writings of the early church fathers.
In every case, the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament bundle all of Paul’s letters together — both those universally accepted as Pauline and those that some scholars doubt.
Historically, there’s no difference between them. All are always accepted.
Likewise, in the writings of the earliest church fathers, there isn’t the first hint that anyone doubted any of Paul’s letters.
Which is entirely the opposite of what you’d expect, if these letters really were the work of a late forger.
If the pastorals came decades after the rest of Paul’s letters, do you really think no one would notice? Do you really think no one would ask why these suddenly appeared out of nowhere? Do you really think no one would be suspicious?
Yet historically, no one was suspicious. In all of our extensive collection of church father writings, there isn’t one hint that any of Paul’s letters came decades after the others, or were ever looked at suspiciously.
The case for inauthenticity is entirely a modern phenomenon. It has no historical evidence and no historical data behind it.
Further, the case rests on a logical fault.
Many claim that 1 Timothy is not from Paul, because its vocabulary is a bit different than Paul’s other letters. And to be fair, it is easy to prove that the vocabulary is slightly different in 1 Timothy, compared to 1 Corinthians.
What we can’t prove is that this is due to it being another author.
Do you see the slight-of-hand, my friend?
The argument skips a step, saying “there are differences, therefore, Paul didn’t write them both.”
Put it in a syllogism and it looks like this:
Premise 1: There are differences in vocabulary between the pastorals and the accepted letters.
Premise 2: [non-existent]
Conclusion: Therefore, Paul didn’t write the pastorals.
The reason Premise 2 is left silent is that it’s ridiculous. You would have to argue that the only possible reason for the differences is that another author wrote them — which no one would accept. Of course there are other possibilities!
The simplest possibility is that the same author can write in different styles. We do it all the time. A letter you write to your spouse will contain a very different vocabulary than a report you write at work, or an email you write to a distant family relation.
1 Timothy is a private letter from Paul to a dear friend. It’s not a circular meant to be read to the churches, or a robust theological treatise, as many of his other letters were. Of course the vocabulary will be different! Paul isn’t writing the same kind of letter.
The case is also made that 1 Timothy describes an ecclesiology too advanced for being a few decades after the time of Jesus. Yet this claim forgets the origins of Christianity. The Christian church emerged from the Jewish synagogue, with its rich ecclesiastical structure and tradition stretching back centuries. Paul built atop centuries of prior ecclesiology. It had every reason to be advanced.
The historical evidence and manuscript evidence are entirely on the side of all of Paul’s letters being authentically Pauline.
The historical and manuscript evidence fits perfectly with the hypothesis that Paul is writing to a close personal friend, and therefore uses different language in doing so.
What clashes with all of the historical and manuscript evidence is the claim that it cannot be from Paul. We have no historical data that would require such a restriction.
You said:
Removing the pseudepigraphical Timothy, what’s left?
There’s a quotation from Jesus, not presented as deriving from any particular textual source, about the establishment of the Lord’s Supper, that looks very similar to one we find in Luke. But that doesn’t remotely show Paul is quoting Luke. It shows they both have access to the same tradition. If there’s a direct dependence, it’s almost certainly the author of Luke getting it from Paul, not the reverse.
It doesn’t merely “look similar.” Much of it is identical.
It’s also very out of character for Paul. It’s one of the only places where he quotes Jesus’ words in a full narrative scene.
It also matches Luke’s style perfectly.
Which is more likely: that the one time Paul quotes Jesus in a narrative scene, it just so happens to be the one scene that Luke chooses to base his entire style upon?
Or that Luke had already written his Gospel, so all Paul had to do was quote the relevant passage?
If you aren’t pre-disposed to saying Luke must be late, the solution is clear. It’s far more likely for Paul to simply be quoting the relevant passage in an already-extant Luke.
You said:
Then there’s Paul’s claim that the resurrection of Jesus after three days was “in accordance with the scriptures.” We just don’t know what he’s thinking of here, but every other place the real Paul talks about “scripture” he means the Old Testament. Maybe he’s thinking of Hosea 6:2. Maybe he’s thinking of Jonah. Maybe something else. But nothing suggests he means Matthew or Mark. This is just pure wish-thinking from someone who for theological reasons dislikes the consensus dating of the gospels.
My friend, neither Hosea nor Jonah say that Messiah will be buried for three days, then rise again. There isn’t a hint that anyone saw these as Messianic passages. No one writes anything like these being a prophesy for Messiah rising again after three days.
Only Jesus prophesies His rising after three days — in Matthew and Mark.
We do know exactly what Paul was referring to. He was referring to Jesus’ statements in Matthew and Mark that perfectly describe what he was recording.
The only reason to doubt this is the refusal to consider that Matthew and Mark could be that early.
If you had no predisposed idea about their dates, there’d be no reason to question it.
And yes, “Scripture” refers to the Old Testament in most cases. That’s the point. For Paul to call Jesus’ words in Matthew and Mark “Scripture” means that he held those writings to the same level as the Old Testament.
You said:
Finally, I’ll note that PAUL HIMSELF is pretty insistent in Galatians that he’s not getting the gospel he preaches from books: “I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” That’s an odd thing to say so emphatically if you’re walking around with a bunch of written texts about Jesus you regard as scripture.
Simply pay attention to which revelation he was referring to.
Paul received the revelation that Jesus is God when Jesus Himself stopped Paul on the road to Damascus, blinded him, and made it clear that Paul was persecuting Jesus’ people.
That’s what Paul is talking about in Galatians 1. He isn’t talking about everything else he learned about Jesus.
He’s talking about the revelation that Jesus is God, that he centers this whole discussion in Galatians 1 around.
He wasn’t talking about the life of Jesus as the Gospels record.
Paul was talking about his singular moment of revelation where he realized Jesus isn’t his enemy, but his God.
You said:
The widely accepted view among historians is that Paul did not know the Gospels, which were written years, and in some cases decades, after his death. This isn’t something cooked up by wicked atheists to “attack the gospels”; it’s the utterly standard view of the vast majority of New Testament scholars. And it’s borderline dishonest for the poster here to present a contrarian fringe view without at least acknowledging that that’s what it is.
Of course it’s a widely held view. I’ve never questioned that.
But it’s entirely fair to point out where that view falls short — specifically, where it fails logical reasoning and where it clashes with our historical data.
We shouldn’t be afraid to test prevailing ideas, my friend. Truth doesn’t fear challengers. Question everything. Think, probe, challenge, question, examine, analyze. That’s how we move forward.
I also urge you to read more widely, my friend. There’s an entire world of scholarship you seem to be missing out on.
Wonderful thank you sir! Question: I would like a simple Bible study designed for people who are not familiar with the main themes of the God of Israel and His communications with humanity. This study should cover the purpose of the Law, the problem of sin and the role of sacrifice, the prophecy of a Messiah, and then explain the message of Jesus and the teachings of the New Testament about salvation.