• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I think the Gospels pre-dated Paul's writings - here's why.

Channe79

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2022
Messages
1,542
Reaction score
571
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Most scholars of the NT assert Paul's writings came first and gave rise for a need to know the full truth and story of Jesus - which then prompted the Gospels. There are a lot of issues with this. For one, reading any of Paul's works shows he was aware of Gospel quotes - often calling them scripture.

Look what Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:17–18: For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’” This is a direct line from Luke 10:7. Paul considers it Scripture, as well.

Paul also quotes from Matthew and John - you can find the quotes in the link below.

What makes more sense: That some Jew from Turkey named Paul first began speaking about Jesus and his life without any assistance from a prior source, or that the Gospels were already well established in the region by the time Paul began speaking about Jesus ? It's clear to me The Gospels were written much much closer to Jesus' life than Paul's writings.

What say you ?

 
Most scholars of the NT assert Paul's writings came first and gave rise for a need to know the full truth and story of Jesus - which then prompted the Gospels. There are a lot of issues with this. For one, reading any of Paul's works shows he was aware of Gospel quotes - often calling them scripture.

Look what Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:17–18: For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’” This is a direct line from Luke 10:7. Paul considers it Scripture, as well.

Paul also quotes from Matthew and John - you can find the quotes in the link below.

What makes more sense: That some Jew from Turkey named Paul first began speaking about Jesus and his life without any assistance from a prior source, or that the Gospels were already well established in the region by the time Paul began speaking about Jesus ? It's clear to me The Gospels were written much much closer to Jesus' life than Paul's writings.

What say you ?


Of the 13 letters alleged to have been written by Paul, biblical scholars (and I don't pretend to be one) say with a high degree of confidence that 6 were written by someone else. The one you mention appears to have been written by someone else. IF Paul himself wrote that, it must be he was referring to Old Testament scripture. Paul's writings are indisputably the earliest. Not even the most diehard Christians assert that the original apostles wrote before Paul did.

Paul never met Jesus at all. He claimed a vision that wasn't corroborated by anyone else. Visions were a dime a dozen back them and religiosity was at fever pitch, like liberals hating Trump, it was that intense. Not any other writings by the unknown people who wrote decades after Jesus died make the claims that Paul does. It is only paul that says "The law died on the cross" whereas Jesus (allegedly) said that the law would never pass away until heaven and earth does. Not one jot or tittle" It was PAUL who invented Christianity

 
Some were, some weren't...

The books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, listed according to the approximate year (C.E.) written, are as follows: Matthew, 41; 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 50 and 51; Galatians, 50-52; 1 and 2 Corinthians, 55; Romans, 56; Luke, 56-58; Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, Philippians, 60-61; Hebrews, Acts, 61; James, before 62; Mark, 60-65; 1 Timothy, Titus, 61-64; 1 Peter, 62-64; 2 Peter, 64; 2 Timothy, Jude, 65; Revelation, 96; John and 1, 2, 3 John, 98. This period of less than 60 years is quite a contrast with the nearly 11 centuries taken to complete the Hebrew Scriptures.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000968
 
Some were, some weren't...

The books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, listed according to the approximate year (C.E.) written, are as follows: Matthew, 41; 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 50 and 51; Galatians, 50-52; 1 and 2 Corinthians, 55; Romans, 56; Luke, 56-58; Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, Philippians, 60-61; Hebrews, Acts, 61; James, before 62; Mark, 60-65; 1 Timothy, Titus, 61-64; 1 Peter, 62-64; 2 Peter, 64; 2 Timothy, Jude, 65; Revelation, 96; John and 1, 2, 3 John, 98. This period of less than 60 years is quite a contrast with the nearly 11 centuries taken to complete the Hebrew Scriptures.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000968
As I posted, Paul wrote FIRST. That means that he had to be referring to the Old Testament writings when he said "All scripture is....."

 
As I posted, Paul wrote FIRST. That means that he had to be referring to the Old Testament writings when he said "All scripture is....."
Incorrect, in that particular passage, the Koine Greek word he uses is specifically not the Koine Greek word typically used to refer to the Septuagint (this is the Greek Old Testament, which is close to, but not the same, as the Hebrew bible of the Jews of that time), but rather is a Koine Greek word that more broadly refers to "writings" in general. This means the entire passage is fairly open for interpretation. The Koine Greek word used to refer to the Septuagint is used throughout New Testament writings in our earliest surviving Koine Greek copies, so it is notable it was not used here.

The Septuagint would have been known well to early Christian communities, but even still I think the way we translate references to the Septuagint to "Scripture" in modern English is problematic. Nothing was understood to be "scripture" in the way we use that term in modern English, in the time of Paul or any of the early Christian writers. The Septuagint was seen as an important Greek language form of important religious texts, but each Church had a huge variety of writings they used and referenced. Also at that time there were no less than six major Jewish sects / schools of thought, which had incompatible teachings on which Jewish texts were sacred, so even in Judaism of that time there was not an unambiguous canon.

There was also not a magical moment when we had a unified canon in Christianity as well. The 4th century council of Rome was important in that it was an early council which established the same 27 book canon all major Christian groups today follow, however there was still back and forth on it until the 7th century or so between Eastern and Western churches. Additionally Christian writers of that time have stated that while there was no official meeting of all the Church bishops or etc establishing a shared, official canon, broadly speaking most Christian churches had been following the 27 book canon for some time before the 4th century council of Rome.

It is worth remembering that for many English speakers, especially in America, the Protestant view of the bible is culturally dominant as the core of the Christian faith. In the non-Protestant Christian community (a large majority of all Christians), it is well understood that the majority of all Christians in all places and all times until after the 1500s, could not read, and even those who could read likely could not read the bible since it was not generally available in local vernacular. All of these people were devout and properly practicing Christians without directly reading the bible, undermining the Protestant concept that the bible is essentially the entirety of the faith.
 
Of the 13 letters alleged to have been written by Paul, biblical scholars (and I don't pretend to be one) say with a high degree of confidence that 6 were written by someone else. The one you mention appears to have been written by someone else. IF Paul himself wrote that, it must be he was referring to Old Testament scripture. Paul's writings are indisputably the earliest. Not even the most diehard Christians assert that the original apostles wrote before Paul did.

Paul never met Jesus at all. He claimed a vision that wasn't corroborated by anyone else. Visions were a dime a dozen back them and religiosity was at fever pitch, like liberals hating Trump, it was that intense. Not any other writings by the unknown people who wrote decades after Jesus died make the claims that Paul does. It is only paul that says "The law died on the cross" whereas Jesus (allegedly) said that the law would never pass away until heaven and earth does. Not one jot or tittle" It was PAUL who invented Christianity


Didn't Timothy write some of the letters attributed to Paul?
 
Didn't Timothy write some of the letters attributed to Paul?
Yes, some scholars hold the view that Timothy, a close companion of Paul, may have written some of the letters in the New Testament that are traditionally attributed to Paul. This view is known as the "Pauline pseudepigrapha" theory and is based on the idea that early Christian writers would sometimes attribute their own writings to a more authoritative figure such as Paul in order to give their words more weight and authority. However, this theory is not widely accepted among biblical scholars and the majority view is that Paul is the author of the letters attributed to him in the New Testament.

Other biblical scholars hold the view that Paul may have only written about half of the letters traditionally attributed to him in the New Testament. This view is based on the idea that certain letters in the New Testament, such as the pastoral epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus), may not have been written by Paul himself but by later writers using his name. This view is known as the "Deutero-Pauline" theory and is supported by certain linguistic and stylistic differences in these letters compared to the undisputed letters of Paul. To be fair, this theory is not universally accepted and many biblical scholars still consider Paul to be the sole author of all the letters attributed to him in the New Testament.

It is like everything else in the bible. There is no way to know and we can't go back and check. Even today, people still dispute the now widely accepted fact that Trump was set up by the FBI and other unknown people and entities in what is known as the Russian Collusion scandal which I have debated here extensively. There are just a few holdouts but those will misdirect and say "His campaign colluded with Russia" but when you delve into that lie, they refer to people in his campaign who had dealings with Russia way before Trump ran for office.

But, here's the thing. Let's assume that anyone who could refute the Russian Collusion lie and setup died before these revelations that it was a hoax and setup. Further, let's assume that the people behind the scenes with an agenda of keeping themselves and their party in power just kept it quiet (which is what they did) and admonished anyone that knew the real truth to not divulge it. This almost actually happened and would have if Durham wasn't investigating. Fast forward under that set of circumstances that were a very real possibility, to a hundred years after now, and people only see the "historical records' that those in power and with an agenda put forward. Those people a hundred years from now would be saying "The early church fathers who knew the events from talking with those involved all say that Russian collusion was true and you need to disprove it and if you can't, you must accept those early church fathers.'

I am a person whose main area of interest is indoctrination and propaganda. The above is how it is done.
 
Last edited:
Most scholars of the NT assert Paul's writings came first and gave rise for a need to know the full truth and story of Jesus - which then prompted the Gospels. There are a lot of issues with this.
Indeed. The most important issue being that it was made up thousands of years after the fact.
For one, reading any of Paul's works shows he was aware of Gospel quotes - often calling them scripture.

Look what Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:17–18: For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’” This is a direct line from Luke 10:7. Paul considers it Scripture, as well.

Paul also quotes from Matthew and John - you can find the quotes in the link below.

What makes more sense: That some Jew from Turkey named Paul first began speaking about Jesus and his life without any assistance from a prior source, or that the Gospels were already well established in the region by the time Paul began speaking about Jesus ? It's clear to me The Gospels were written much much closer to Jesus' life than Paul's writings.

What say you ?


Agreed. The only nitpick I'd have would be that neither the Gospels nor St. Paul's letters were written all at once, so it's possible for some overlap to have existed. But the ancient sources are unanimous in regarding Matthew and Mark as having been written very early in the history of the Church.
 
Some were, some weren't...

The books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, listed according to the approximate year (C.E.) written, are as follows: Matthew, 41; 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 50 and 51; Galatians, 50-52; 1 and 2 Corinthians, 55; Romans, 56; Luke, 56-58; Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, Philippians, 60-61; Hebrews, Acts, 61; James, before 62; Mark, 60-65; 1 Timothy, Titus, 61-64; 1 Peter, 62-64; 2 Peter, 64; 2 Timothy, Jude, 65; Revelation, 96; John and 1, 2, 3 John, 98. This period of less than 60 years is quite a contrast with the nearly 11 centuries taken to complete the Hebrew Scriptures.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000968
This may be helpful.

 
Most scholars agree that Paul's words were put to paper first, around 60 A.D., though the Gospels most likely existed in oral tradition at the time that he did so. He would have been aware of their message. Until new evidence shows otherwise, the Gospels did not begin appearing in written form until after the ministry of Paul, sometime around 70 A.D.

Evenso, I love the story of Paul. So much so that I could not help replicate how he must have stood on Mars Hill, below the Acropolis in Athens, as he addressed the Areopagus as in Acts. Truly a moment a wonderful day.
MarsHillAcropolisAthensGreece500x.jpg
 
It is worth remembering that for many English speakers, especially in America, the Protestant view of the bible is culturally dominant as the core of the Christian faith. In the non-Protestant Christian community (a large majority of all Christians), it is well understood that the majority of all Christians in all places and all times until after the 1500s, could not read, and even those who could read likely could not read the bible since it was not generally available in local vernacular. All of these people were devout and properly practicing Christians without directly reading the bible, undermining the Protestant concept that the bible is essentially the entirety of the faith.
Well said!
 
Most scholars of the NT assert Paul's writings came first and gave rise for a need to know the full truth and story of Jesus - which then prompted the Gospels. There are a lot of issues with this. For one, reading any of Paul's works shows he was aware of Gospel quotes - often calling them scripture.

Look what Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:17–18: For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’” This is a direct line from Luke 10:7. Paul considers it Scripture, as well.

Paul also quotes from Matthew and John - you can find the quotes in the link below.

What makes more sense: That some Jew from Turkey named Paul first began speaking about Jesus and his life without any assistance from a prior source, or that the Gospels were already well established in the region by the time Paul began speaking about Jesus ? It's clear to me The Gospels were written much much closer to Jesus' life than Paul's writings.

What say you ?
Inferring from John 21:24, and that the first three Gospels are from the same set of notes, the Gospels are compiled from John's notes.

The people who wrote the books knew John and it was probably after his death that they were written.

If they were twenty in 30AD it would only make them 50 in 60AD.
 
Most scholars of the NT assert Paul's writings came first and gave rise for a need to know the full truth and story of Jesus - which then prompted the Gospels. There are a lot of issues with this. For one, reading any of Paul's works shows he was aware of Gospel quotes - often calling them scripture.

Look what Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:17–18: For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’” This is a direct line from Luke 10:7. Paul considers it Scripture, as well.

Paul also quotes from Matthew and John - you can find the quotes in the link below.

What makes more sense: That some Jew from Turkey named Paul first began speaking about Jesus and his life without any assistance from a prior source, or that the Gospels were already well established in the region by the time Paul began speaking about Jesus ? It's clear to me The Gospels were written much much closer to Jesus' life than Paul's writings.

What say you ?


The four gospels were there first
 
Most scholars of the NT assert Paul's writings came first and gave rise for a need to know the full truth and story of Jesus - which then prompted the Gospels. There are a lot of issues with this. For one, reading any of Paul's works shows he was aware of Gospel quotes - often calling them scripture.

Look what Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:17–18: For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’” This is a direct line from Luke 10:7. Paul considers it Scripture, as well.

Paul also quotes from Matthew and John - you can find the quotes in the link below.

What makes more sense: That some Jew from Turkey named Paul first began speaking about Jesus and his life without any assistance from a prior source, or that the Gospels were already well established in the region by the time Paul began speaking about Jesus ? It's clear to me The Gospels were written much much closer to Jesus' life than Paul's writings.

What say you ?


I too go with Bernier's dating. But the question is false since the CHURCH predates BOTH.
There could be no Scripture of Paul or of an Evangelist on its own merits. As if Sola Scriptura and Private Interpreation were ever allowed
 
The four gospels were there first
If Paul wrote after the apostles then he would have been dead when he wrote his letters. In any event, whether or not the original apostles wrote the NT or others AS IF they were Luke, etc., and when they wrote them is pure guessing and speculation.
 
If Paul wrote after the apostles then he would have been dead when he wrote his letters. In any event, whether or not the original apostles wrote the NT or others AS IF they were Luke, etc., and when they wrote them is pure guessing and speculation.
as secular historians have many times said, that is the one thing it can't be, pure guessing and speculation !!!

Take Will Durant, not a believer but a great historian

That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.

Will Durant

And the still living Richard Bauckham
First who is Bauckham
Bauckham was born in London and studied at the University of Cambridge, where he read history at Clare College (1966–72) and was a fellow of St John's College (1972–75).
He is a fellow of the British Academy and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Bauckham is a senior scholar at Ridley Hall in Cambridge, and a visiting professor at St Mellitus College in London.

===========================

Traditions, Bauckham argues, were transmitted by, or in the name of, eyewitnesses. These eyewitnesses were not anonymous and did not disappear as they passed on their tradition. They didn’t leave their traditions to merely become the property of anonymous communities. The eyewitnesses were the living guarantors of the traditions associated with their names. People were able to trace the stories that they heard back to the original witnesses, who were usually no more than a few steps removed from them. It must also be noticed that it was not communities that handed on traditions. Communities received traditions and appointed teachers transmitted them. The individuals selected to transmit the traditions had a known relationship to eyewitnesses.

How do we know that traditions were not anonymous? There are a few lines of possible argument here. The following are some examples. In the gospels we see many names within the stories. Many of the characters in the gospel narratives are anonymous, but certain personal names like Jairus and Bartimaeus occur from time to time. It might well be that these individuals were the originators of the traditions associated with their names. This may the reason why their names are mentioned. They would be characters known among the churches, who could act as guarantors of the testimony associated with their names.

YOur ingorance is PROFOUND
 
as secular historians have many times said, that is the one thing it can't be, pure guessing and speculation !!!

Take Will Durant, not a believer but a great historian

That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.

Will Durant

And the still living Richard Bauckham
First who is Bauckham
Bauckham was born in London and studied at the University of Cambridge, where he read history at Clare College (1966–72) and was a fellow of St John's College (1972–75).
He is a fellow of the British Academy and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Bauckham is a senior scholar at Ridley Hall in Cambridge, and a visiting professor at St Mellitus College in London.

===========================

Traditions, Bauckham argues, were transmitted by, or in the name of, eyewitnesses. These eyewitnesses were not anonymous and did not disappear as they passed on their tradition. They didn’t leave their traditions to merely become the property of anonymous communities. The eyewitnesses were the living guarantors of the traditions associated with their names. People were able to trace the stories that they heard back to the original witnesses, who were usually no more than a few steps removed from them. It must also be noticed that it was not communities that handed on traditions. Communities received traditions and appointed teachers transmitted them. The individuals selected to transmit the traditions had a known relationship to eyewitnesses.

How do we know that traditions were not anonymous? There are a few lines of possible argument here. The following are some examples. In the gospels we see many names within the stories. Many of the characters in the gospel narratives are anonymous, but certain personal names like Jairus and Bartimaeus occur from time to time. It might well be that these individuals were the originators of the traditions associated with their names. This may the reason why their names are mentioned. They would be characters known among the churches, who could act as guarantors of the testimony associated with their names.

YOur ingorance is PROFOUND
Yep. Even CNN and MSNBS get some of the history of a year ago right.

What you are doing is making assertions and possibilities. If I write a book, I don't title the book, "According to ME!"

Eye witness accounts are CLAIMED and not a fact. They are stories. No one remembers stories exactly as they were even a month ago; nevermind decades before.
 
Most scholars of the NT assert Paul's writings came first and gave rise for a need to know the full truth and story of Jesus - which then prompted the Gospels.
Yeah, those aren't scholars. They're apologists.

While there is definitely some uncertainty about the dates, there isn't much doubt that Paul was writing after several of the synoptic gospels were written. If it exists, Q was likely written before any of the other books.

Look what Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:17–18: For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’” This is a direct line from Luke 10:7. Paul considers it Scripture, as well.
Just a reminder: Some of Paul's books were likely written before Luke, and well before John.

At any rate, there's a ton of real scholarship going into the dating of the texts. I'd stick with that over one line lifted from Luke or Mark.
 
Yeah, those aren't scholars. They're apologists.

While there is definitely some uncertainty about the dates, there isn't much doubt that Paul was writing after several of the synoptic gospels were written. If it exists, Q was likely written before any of the other books.


Just a reminder: Some of Paul's books were likely written before Luke, and well before John.

At any rate, there's a ton of real scholarship going into the dating of the texts. I'd stick with that over one line lifted from Luke or Mark.
To a nonbeliever like me who was raised Catholic and taught by nuns, and was an altar boy, it no longer matters to me who wrote what first or last. Other than Paul, who was NOT an apostle and only CLAIMED uncorroborated visions there is no proof when the others were written or by whom. When you have a book that is titled "....According to" that is a clue that someone other than the guy named according to wrote it.
 
c. 41
Matthew’s Gospel written

c. 55
1 Corinthians written
2 Corinthians written

c. 56
Romans written

c. 56-58
Luke’s Gospel written
c. 60-61
Colossians written
Ephesians written
Philemon written
Philippians written

c. 60-65
Mark’s Gospel written
c. 61
Acts written
Hebrews written

c. 61-64
1 Timothy written
Titus written

b. 62
James written

c. 62-64
1 Peter written

c. 64
2 Peter written

c. 65
2 Timothy written
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102009041
 
Back
Top Bottom