|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Gospel events in the epistles
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
This thread is a spinoff from the Purgatory discussion Scholarly Insights and Revelations.
I think it's widely accepted that the NT epistles were written before the NT Gospels were written. If so, this means that anything the epistles say about the life of Jesus and other events of that time are the first written account of those events.
Aside from any theological or hermeneutical conclusions one might draw from this observation, I thought it might be interesting to try simply to compile a list of such mentions. I can think of a couple off the top of my head, but I'm sure a joint effort would be more rewarding.
The one that came to me during the course of the Purg thread was 2 Peter 1:16-18:
quote:
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honour and glory from God the Father when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory, saying, ‘This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.’ We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven, while we were with him on the holy mountain.
Any other suggestions?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
Are you counting any examples given by Paul, even though he was most likely not present at the time?
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Well, there is this from 1 Cor 7, which also has relevance for the marriage scriptures thread.
quote:
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
There are dating disputes of course, but 1 Cor is generally reckoned to have been penned in the period 50-60AD, Mark (the earliest gospel) a little later in the form we now have it. Although as you probably know, there is a good deal of informed speculation about earlier written sayings and a primitive (or Ur) Mark of which the current Mark's gospel is a revised form.
So Paul may be providing very early evidence of a saying of Jesus which preceded any of the versions we have in the NT. "Not I, but the Lord" certainly suggests that he had some early written source to hand, or memory of a conversation with an apostle.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jammy Dodger
Half jam, half biscuit
# 17872
|
Posted
How about the reference to the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11:
quote:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’
--------------------
Look at my eye twitching - Donkey from Shrek
Posts: 438 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Acts 20:35
In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
Here's a quotation that never made it into the Gospels!
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Paul wasn't present - but then neither were Luke or probably Mark (if they had anything to do with the books that bear their names, which is at least arguable). But they seem to have met many who were.
If the traditional authorship of the epistles is correct then the one with most eyewitness information is likely to be John. (And of course James and Jude - but one of them says almost nothing about Jesus and the other is almost a copy of 2 Peter IIRC)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I also remember hearing and sometimes reading that there seem to be discrepancies between the epistles and Acts, as if different time periods reflect different attitudes about the conflict between Paul and everyone else in his contemporary Church.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Paul wasn't present - but then neither were Luke or probably Mark (if they had anything to do with the books that bear their names, which is at least arguable). But they seem to have met many who were.
If the traditional authorship of the epistles is correct then the one with most eyewitness information is likely to be John. (And of course James and Jude - but one of them says almost nothing about Jesus and the other is almost a copy of 2 Peter IIRC)
True but the OP was specific about epistles. I'm not able to quote it directly now but I would include the first four verses of I Corinthians 15.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
Are you counting any examples given by Paul, even though he was most likely not present at the time?
Anything that alludes to events from the period covered by the gospels - so 1 Cor 15:1-4 (which I also can't quote right now) is fine ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I accept there may be some date overlap and/or earlier versions of the gospel texts around, but I still think it's an interesting exercise! Thanks for the contributions so far.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
Are you counting any examples given by Paul, even though he was most likely not present at the time?
Anything that alludes to events from the period covered by the gospels - so 1 Cor 15:1-4 (which I also can't quote right now) is fine
I accept there may be some date overlap and/or earlier versions of the gospel texts around, but I still think it's an interesting exercise! Thanks for the contributions so far.
Actually I made a slight error of omission. That should be the first seven verses.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Here's the passage in question:
quote:
Now I should remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain.
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
[ 13. February 2014, 04:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
I think it's widely accepted that the NT epistles were written before the NT Gospels were written. If so, this means that anything the epistles say about the life of Jesus and other events of that time are the first written account of those events.
My NT knowledge is a bit rusty but my recollection is that some epistles were written before the Gospels. For example, if 1 Timonthy and Titus are Deutero-Pauline rather than written by the man himself then they may be contemporaneous with the Gospels or, even, later than the Gospels. Of course, different scholars date different epistles differently but I'm pretty sure that no New Testament scholar would tell you that the entire canon of the epistles was done and dusted before St. Mark licked the tip of his quill, dipped it in the ink and began "It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that a nation in turmoil is in need of a Messiah" before looking at it, muttering, nah, too pretentious, and writing "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
Right. 2 Peter doesn't help you much, as that's normally dated very late. Acts is surely later than Luke (it says as much in its preface), so that doesn't either. It is interesting, though, that Luke is happy to ascribe a Jesus-saying to Paul that he didn't include in his Gospel (but interesting as an answer to a different question). Some references I might add to the discussion:
Gal 4:4: Christ was born of a woman. (Is this already anti-docetic, or is a rhetorical flourish of someone who hasn't yet had to contend against docetism that would later prove a helpful resource against it?)
James 5:12: seems to be the same logion as we find in Matt 5:37, although it's not credited to Jesus by James.
Hebrews 5:7: Jesus uttered loud cries and tears.
1 Cor 11:23-26: The last supper.
Romans 8:15: At least suggestive that Jesus called God "Abba."
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Many thanks all. I realise that in my ignorance and very rusty knowledge of NT dating I have inadvertently opened a can of worms in that respect, thanks for the comments.
Even allowing for the overlap so eloquently described by Gildas, I still think it's an interesting and rather counter-intuitive exercise to look in the epistles for, as it were, gospel material. Can anyone find any more to add to the list?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes
In some ways the real issue is Ur-Mark and/or Q, the extent to which they represent documentary realities which can be extracted from the gospels, and the extent to which Paul in the foundational epistles (Rom, 1 and 2 Cor, Gal, possibly 1 and 2 Thess) had access to such early written records.
1 Cor 7 certainly suggests that he had access to very early Jesus "traditional" sayings (i.e the oral tradition). Either written down in a primitive (pre-gospels) record, or from encounters with the apostolic eye-witnesses.
Gildas channeling Jane Austen for Mark made me chuckle. Naughty but nice.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
James is one of the oldest (according to many), so James 2:8 suggests a record ('scripture') that existed before the gospels we have today.
That's an interesting example. The scripture quotes is very plausibly Lev 19:18. But, what is meant to calling it "the royal law"? I could certainly see that being a reference to a dominical logion, but I don't see the reference to 'scripture' as meaning we're past the oral tradition stage here, as it could just be a reference to Leviticus.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
It's quite possible (assuming that James is early) that James regards both it as scripture because it's OT and a royal law because Jesus prioritised it. The two are not incompossible.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Here's the passage in question:
quote:
Now I should remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain.
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
Does anyone have an inkling about that appearance to the 500+ brothers and sisters?
Where and when might that have been?
Why does is not appear in any of the gospels?
Is it just hearsay (as are the gospels?)?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
it's not referenced anywhere else I know of. I rather suspect it was in Galilee simply because of the difficulty of safely gathering that many people anywhere near Jerusalem. I've wondered if it were not somehow connected with the ascension, but that's a bit problematic given that somewhere I think it says that was from Mt. Olive.
As for why we don't hear of some of these, I think it's because the 40 day appearances were so common and some of them so private that it was a long time (if ever) that anybody could pull together a definitive list of them. For example, the appearance to Peter--that happened first thing (almost) Sunday morning, but we are never told what happened at it. I'm suspecting some form of repentance and forgiveness (lots of crying etc.) that was way too private to share. There may have been a number of similar cases. And people might easily decide not to speak of them until quite some time had gone by, if they were of a sensitive nature.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Had a Splurge on
Shipmate
# 14140
|
Posted
Well, it might have been in Mark’s Gospel, but we’ve lost the ending to that.
It didn’t make it into Luke because it doesn’t fit into his schema of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, ends-of-the-earth as the route of the spreading of the Gospel.
John wants to finish his Gospel with Thomas’ ringing declaration that Jesus is his Lord and his God, but is forced to list one Galilean appearance in order to squash a rumour that Jesus was late for the second coming.
Matthew has the eleven on a hill in Galilee so it would have been an obvious place to mention that there were many more present than just the eleven. Now the import of the story is the Great Commission to the disciples who are now the embodiment of Israel. The continuing Israel is going to fulfil Israel’s destiny. It could be he doesn’t want to distract from this by mentioning the other 500.
But they bigger point is that each of the Gospels is selective in its use of the material available. John makes a big point that he has been highly selective in his choice of material. There is no reason why the others should have been less selective. In fact if the standard model of Gospel development is correct than the fact that Matthew and Luke haven’t included all of Mark demonstrates that they Luke and Matthew were selective too.
The four writers must have thought that had already included enough information to have proved their point about the resurrection.
--------------------
"But to live outside the law, you must be honest" R.A. Zimmerman
Posts: 224 | From: What used to be Berkshire | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Can anyone assist in explaining the 500 mentioned here, and the 120 in this morning's reading?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Had a Splurge on
Shipmate
# 14140
|
Posted
Gee D,
See my earlier answer.
Luke is concentrating in the Gospel and Acts of the Apostles on the church in Jerusalem (so that his story follows the Jerusalem-Judea-Samaria line), and ignores the Galilean appearances. The 120 are the church in Jerusalem
Matthew and John both have Galilean post-resurrection meetings with Jesus in them. The Matthew 28 meeting could well have had a lot more people present than Matthew lists. And given that Jesus was Galilean, and arguably spent more of his ministry there, it shouldn’t be surprising that the church in Galilee could muster a larger number.
--------------------
"But to live outside the law, you must be honest" R.A. Zimmerman
Posts: 224 | From: What used to be Berkshire | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thank you.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Charles Had a Splurge on
Shipmate
# 14140
|
Posted
There is only one reference.
Acts 9:31
Meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers.
--------------------
"But to live outside the law, you must be honest" R.A. Zimmerman
Posts: 224 | From: What used to be Berkshire | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I could be wrong, but I don't recall ever hearing of a church in the Galilee. The nearest approximation in the NT appears to me to be a church in Jerusalem.
Remember that "church" -- I'm assuming the use of ekklesia here -- refers to the assembly of people, not a place of worship.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
Gal 4:4: Christ was born of a woman. (Is this already anti-docetic, or is a rhetorical flourish of someone who hasn't yet had to contend against docetism that would later prove a helpful resource against it?)
Spong says that, by omission, this indicates that Paul had never heard of the virgin birth. (The Sins of Scripture)
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Some have argued that Gal 4:4 is an early confirmation of "fully God, fully human" and virgin birth.
God sent his son (i.e. not anyone else's) born of a woman (coming into the world by human birth). I think Spong may be putting a lot of emphasis of the use of (Gr) gyne (woman) rather than (Gr) parthenos (virgin) without giving a similar weight to the (Gr)autos huios (his son).
Mind you, I haven't read the book!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
I am reading it now and have nearly finished it. I find that while reading a work like this, I see the validity in the points of view presented, and it takes a while to balance it out with differing views. After a while I decide whether or not to appropriate any of them for myself. So at the moment I am just saying that "Spong says" as it deserves consideration IMHO, even if ultimately I may not appropriate it.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
