Very interesting Terry, but I must ask where are the Wikipedia citiations to back up your assertions?
Guh hyuck guh hyuck guh hyuk!!
Impressed by Authority, are we?
Paul's Letters came first and the Gospel response was a refutation
by Terry 12 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Doug Mason
Terry,
I sincerely hope you have read all of the book that the following comes from.
Doug
-------------Since Paul died in 64 C.E., we need to recognize that all of Paul's authentic letters were written prior to this crucial seventieth year. This means that the epistles known as 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, and Philemon are for certain placed prior to 70 CE. Colossians and Ephesians, which are debated as Pauline originals, could also be placed on the far side of 70, even if their actual Pauline authorship is finally denied. This dating, however, would not be universally saluted.
The only gospel in existence prior to 70 is believed to be Mark. It is generally dated in a range from 64 to 72, with consensus falling in the year 69 or 70, or just prior to the cataclysmic events of that seventieth year.
There is a strong, but neither universally recognized nor even an in-the-majority, tradition that the epistle to the Hebrews might also be a pre-70 literary work; but if so, that would complete the list of New Testament writings that arguably could be placed on the calendar prior to the year 70 CE.
The other three Gospels (Matthew, Luke, and John), the pseudo Pauline epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), the General Epistles (1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, and James), the Book of Acts, and the Book of Revelation are all quite clearly post-70 literary works. Each of these books in some way reveals, however, that it was written under the impact of the events of that crucial year.
“Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes”, (chapter: “How these Jewish books became Gentile captives”), page 40, John Shelby Spong.
-
Leolaia
I don't think the gospels should be put into a single category of purpose.
I read Mark as rather close to Paul's theology in a number of respects, focused on the mystery of the savior and his crucifixion, to be read in a somewhat allegorical fashion (e.g. the implied link between baptism and death/resurrection that echoes strongly what can be found in Romans). Matthew on the other hand is strongly anti-Pauline (or against how Paul was interpreted later on), taking an avowed Law-observant stance and condemning the one "teaching" others to disregard the Law; Terry's quotation from Matthew I believe fairly represents the anti-antinomian stance of the gospel. Matthew's eschatology however is very close to what we find in Paul. Luke does not attempt to refute Paul but rather refashion him in his own image (in Acts); the Paul there is different from the epistles, but I am not convinced that his Acts reflects knowledge of the epistles (although the description of the institution of the Eucharist in Luke is almost verbatim of what is given in Paul, is this due to later textual redaction?). The author of John also clearly intends to write a spiritual gospel, and his ideas while highly distinctive and original also come close to some Pauline notions (e.g. the stance towards the Law, the divinity of Christ, etc.).