Did the Gospel writers know of Paul’s letters?
Yes, both the Gospel writers and the Rabbis who wrote the Talmud knew Paul’s letters inside and out. Both Mark and Luke were traveling companions of Paul. Paul was developing what became known in the Talmud as the 7 Noahide Laws for Gentiles.
The Gospels: Jesus came not to abolish the Law: meaning the Noahide Law for Gentiles.
Paul: you are free from the Law: meaning the Gentiles are not subject under the Law of Moses but are subject under the Noahide Law.
Talmud: the Noahide Law has always existed for everyone but the Law of Moses was only for “jews”.
Info on Noahide Laws
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Though the Catholic Church has always supported the authenticity of at least 7 of letters,[11] some Protestants have tended to deny the authenticity of all the epistles because they seem to attest to a monarchical episcopate in the second century. John Calvin called the epistles “rubbish published under Ignatius’ name”
In 1886, Presbyterian minister and church historian William Dool Killen published a long essay attacking the authenticity of the epistles attributed to Ignatius. He argued that Pope Callixtus I, bishop of Rome, forged the letters around 220 AD to garner support for a monarchical episcopate, modeling Saint Ignatius after his own life to give precedent for his own authority.[48]: 137 Killen contrasted this episcopal polity with the presbyterian polity in the writings of Polycarp.[48]: 127
Doubts about the letters’ authenticity continued throughout the 20th century and beyond. In the 1970s and 1980s, the scholars Robert Joly,[49] Reinhard Hübner,[50] Markus Vinzent,[51] and Thomas Lechner[52] argued forcefully that the epistles of the Middle Recension were forgeries from the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161–180). Joseph Ruis-Camps published a study arguing that the Middle Recension letters were pseudepigraphically composed based on an original, smaller, authentic corpus of four letters (Romans, Magnesians, Trallians, and Ephesians). In 2009, Otto Zwierlein support the thesis of a forgery written around 170 AD.[53]
These publications stirred up heated scholarly controversy,[3]: 122 but by 2017, most patristic scholars accepted the authenticity of the seven original epistles.[3]: 121ff [54][55][56] However, starting with a collection of studies published in 2018, the view that all the letters are a pseudepigraphy most likely composed by a Roman pro-monepiscopate faction in 160–180 is again proposed by “a significant number of Ignatian researchers”.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Reply to Comment 38
Bart:
Yes, Eusebius does indeed have an agenda;
but the dating is normally done on internal grounds, and a date around 110 works very well.
Notice Pervo is suggesting not stating it, if you’re representing him correctly here.
I don’t remember: where does Ignatius quote Ptolemy?
And how does he explain Polycarp speaking of Ignatius’s martyrdom in a letter written long before the 140s?
(I suppose he dates Polycarp later as well? That would be a bit hard to demonstrate).
And yes, the debate about the middle recension is fascinating. Lightfoot still has a compelling case.
Steve’s reply to Bart’s comment at 12:21pm
Barnes does not quote Ptolemy directly in the Ignatian letters. Instead, he posits that Ignatius is engaging with ideas that echo Ptolemaic theology.
Ptolemy, a disciple of Valentinus, argued for a distinction between the supreme God and the creator Demiurge—ideas that may be indirectly addressed or refuted by Ignatius in Smyrnaeans 2–3.
There is no specific phrase or line in Ignatius that names Ptolemy or directly quotes from his Letter to Flora or any other writing. Barnes’s argument is based on contextual inference, noting shared thematic terrain between Ptolemaic Gnosticism and what Ignatius responds to—not about explicit textual borrowing.
Ignatius sounds like he is responding to Ptolemy AND Marcion because both Ptolemy and Marcion taught that the supreme God is not the Creator of the material world. However, Ptolemy kept the OT (allegorized) and embedded the Demiurge in a Gnostic myth; Marcion rejected the OT entirely and portrayed the Creator as actively hostile to salvation.
Knowledge is found in many places. What is WRONG with you?
I read encylopedias, non-fiction books watch documentaries, ask google questions. AI is just another medium.
What IS wrong with you?
Something is wrong with you because you mentioned nothing of the accuracy of the content.
Comment 44:
Editorial Decision
Given:
Though the Catholic Church has always supported the authenticity of at least 7 of letters,[11] some Protestants have tended to deny the authenticity of all the epistles because they seem to attest to a monarchical episcopate in the second century. John Calvin called the epistles “rubbish published under Ignatius’ name”
Barnes used internal textual evidence . With Ignatius alluding/quoting Ptolemy whose active period began in the 130s, Ignatius must have lived and written later with his martyrdom actually being in the 140s.[But Ignatius would have died under a different emperor.]
I will not add Livesey’s hypothesis to the second edition of Historical Accuracy.
Comment 45
Bart:
And how does he explain Polycarp speaking of Ignatius’s martyrdom in a letter written long before the 140s?
(I suppose he dates Polycarp later as well? That would be a bit hard to demonstrate).
Steefen:
How does Pervo explain Polycarp speaking of Ignatius’ martyrdom in a letter written long before the 140s since Pervo thinks Ignatius died 135-140 CE?
Pervo would explain the reference to Ignatius’s letters in Polycarp’s epistle simply by extending Polycarp’s lifespan and activity into the mid-2nd century—making them contemporaries in that later bracket.
= = =
Steefen:
Barnes does not quote Ptolemy directly in the Ignatian letters. Instead, he posits that Ignatius is engaging with ideas that echo Ptolemaic theology. There is no specific phrase or line in Ignatius that names Ptolemy or directly quotes from his Letter to Flora or any other writing. Barnes’s argument is based on contextual inference, noting shared thematic terrain between Ptolemaic Gnosticism and what Ignatius responds to—not about explicit textual borrowing.
Ignatius sounds like he is responding to Ptolemy AND Marcion because both Ptolemy and Marcion taught that the supreme God is not the Creator of the material world. However, Ptolemy kept the OT (allegorized) and embedded the Demiurge in a Gnostic myth; Marcion rejected the OT entirely and portrayed the Creator as actively hostile to salvation.
Bart:
If two authors have ideas that are roughly similar, it doesn’t mean that A knew B. B may have known A, or, more likely, they both knew of an idea in circulation otherwise.
Steefen:
I’ve heard you use the argument: a text is responding to later developments in Christology that’s why it cannot be dated at some early date. So, if Ptolemy and Marcion hold an idea about God and Ignatius responds to that theology, that is why Barnes is saying Ignatius cannot respond to their theology until it becomes an issue.
Maybe it’s just me having spent too many hours in the Catholic pew, but the similar words between 1 Corinthians and Mark sure seem like well-memorized liturgical refrains that don’t require any sort of direct copying.
For those of you who didn’t grow up going to church, think two works that both admonish: “Don’t go chasing waterfalls. Please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you’re used to. I know that you’re gonna have it your way or nothing at all. But I think you’re moving too fast.” Or: “Buddy, you’re a boy, make a big noise. Playing in the street, gonna be a big man someday. You got mud on your face, you big disgrace. Kicking your can all over the place, singin’.” Or: “A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with fava beans and a nice chianti.”
Just because two works might have these identical texts doesn’t mean one would be copying from the other.
Stephen said
Well there are similarities but there are also differences in details. The traditional view is that Mark was composed around the time of the First revolt, 70ish. Paul’s letter was written to a specific community probably sometime in the 50s. Would there have been time enough for Paul’s letters to have been copied and distributed and be well known enough among the general Christian community? It’s possible that both writers are drawing on common traditions.
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
-1 Cor 11:23-26
While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
-Mark 14:22-25
If Mark was following Paul why would he leave out the part about these acts being intended for “remembrance” which seems to be Paul’s main point?
And further, this is a liturgy. Irrespective of whether this version of the wine and the bread or the version in the Dideche was the original, a ceremony with words repeated weekly when believers come together in their homes (or wherever) is the kind of thing that is easiest to see propagating orally without having to be written down, so Paul and Mark could each receive it independently from the cohort of churches practicing that particular liturgy without having any literary agreement.
That is why it is so critical to have people who can compare the original Greek, as there is a difference in the use of a similarity as evidence between two texts that may be “similar” because they are each describing the same thing and two texts that are clearly “similar” because one was copied or adapted from the other.
…how widespread his influence would have been so soon after his death in the mid-60s.
Between Paul’s death around 65 and the writing of Mark’s gospel around 70…
There are, as you said, many more questions than answers. We don’t know what we don’t know.
But if we take a position we have to deal with the implications of that position. And identify the assumptions behind that position. That’s my approach to Prof Walsh’s book. If she’s right then what follows? What conditions would have had to be in place to make her viewpoint viable?
We know from Paul’s own testimony that there was some sort of early Gentile ministry other than his own. Paul did not found the important Roman church which seems to have been mixed ethnically. I suspect Paul and Mark had some overlapping ideas but then by the mid and later first century wouldn’t all Christians have had some overlapping ideas? And by this time frame wouldn’t there have already been a generally agreed upon skeleton narrative about Jesus as well?
The example that Walsh points to of direct Pauline influence is the Last Supper. She claims that the simplest explanation for the presence of this tradition in the gospels is that they read Paul. But are they really talking about the same thing Paul is talking about? Isn’t it just as likely these stories had a common ancestor? Wouldn’t we expect Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples, especially if it was Passover seder, to take on mythic aspects and be interpreted variously just like his death and resurrection were?
If Luke knew Paul’s letters how come he got so much of the facts and opinions wrong? Where is any hint in Matthew of Pauline ideas? (You could say that Matthew was reacting against Paul but if any aspect, pro or contra, can be interpreted as evidence of knowledge then what would serve to disqualify the thesis? Heads you lose. Tails I win.)
Then there’s a hint of a contradiction. Paul is influential enough to have a sphere of influence including the gospel writers but he’s not influential enough to be the founder of the communities he writes letters to. Is Paul a “hero” or not?
And to circle around to the beginning. What would the chain of transmission between Paul’s occasional letters to isolated communities and the gospel writers look like? It seems to me if you take Walsh’s view you are forced to push the dates of the gospels forward into the second century. And there are issues with that.
Robert said
Stephen said
I suspect Paul and Mark had some overlapping ideas but then by the mid and later first century wouldn’t all Christians have had some overlapping ideas?Sure, but if Ehrman is right about Paul being the first to not insist on gentile converts converting to Judaism and following kashrut, this would be a rather isolated idea. By the way, of the three positions of Bart mentioned above, this one is the one that I am least sure of.
According to Acts 15, after Paul and Barnabas were sent back to Antioch with the decision of James that Gentiles could convert provided they followed the laws of Noah, without conversion to Judaism, Barnabas then split from Paul over the question of John aka Mark’s participation in a following missionary journey. And of course, Acts puts glosses over the to and fro in the discussion and puts the deciding argument on Peter’s lips, beginning by reminding them that he (Peter) had been chosen by God to bring the message of the gospel to the Gentiles.
Setting aside the issue of this as testimony about the middle of the 1st century, this seems like circumstantial evidence that at the time that Acts was written, there were faith congregations of Christian gentiles who traced their founding to Paul and those who traced their founding to Peter, and there possibly might have been some who traced their founding to Barnabas.
If Acts is a reliable narrator insofar as the church in Jerusalem writing to Gentile converts to clarify that conversion to Judaism was optional for Gentiles becoming Christians (though respect for the Laws of Noah was not), that pretty much opens the door for any evangelist from the church in Jerusalem from that time on teaching gentiles, whether in primarily gentile Christian faith communities or as “god fearing” gentiles part of a primarily Jewish Christian faith community, that respect for the Laws of Noah was sufficient, and circumcision and following the entirety of the Law in the Tanakh was only required of Jews.
And if Acts is an unreliable narrator, then it would seem to be composing a reconciliation between different gentile faith communities in conflict on these questions, and putting the argument that carries the decision on the lips of Peter suggests that the Law of Noah reconciliation was the one that at least some of the faith communities who traced their founding back to Peter had arrived at.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)