Friday, January 29, 2016

Pauline Publication and Dating the Gospels

I am continuing through E. P. Sanders' new book on Paul and came across this gem:
"The tendency to use quotations from Paul, once his writings became available, was so strong that we may confidently think that Christian literature that does not contain quotations or allusions to his letters was written prior to the publication of the Pauline letter corpus. This literature includes all four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles." (E. P. Sanders, Paul: The Apostle's Life, Letters, and Thought, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 149.)
I found this comment fascinating for several reasons.  First, I had never heard anything like this argument, especially with regard to the dating of the Gospels and Acts. If I am correct in my understanding of Sanders basic claim, it is that virtually all early Christian literature carries either quotations or allusions to Paul.  Therefore, if any literature does not, it must have been written before the collection and publication of the Pauline corpus, which, according to Sanders, took place in the 90s C.E.  All four Gospels and Acts do not contain quotations or allusions to Paul, and therefore must have been written before the 90s.  Is that how you read Sanders' claim?

Now, if my reading is correct, I find it interesting on many fronts. First, I am curious that I have not heard this argument before.  Certainly I have not heard it in Gospel scholarship, which is where I spend most of my time.  Nor have I heard it in Pauline scholarship, in which I dabble.  Have others heard this claim before?

Second, it could be an interesting argument for setting a terminus ad quem for the gospels in the 90s C.E. Some would like to argue for a later date for either Luke or John.  If Sanders is correct, a later date for these gospels would bear signs of the Pauline corpus.

Third, for Gospel studies, this does not overturn majority opinions on the dating of the gospels, with the latest, Luke and John, usually placed in the 80s or 90s.

Fourth, I find it odd that if this is a truly new claim, that Sanders makes no sustained argument for his position.  The paragraph stands alone, almost as an aside, in his conversation of the Pauline collection and publication.

Now, we could, if we had the time, test the veracity of Sanders' claim.  One could comb all early Christian literature post 90s and see if it shows traces of Paul.  One could also comb through the Gospels and look for traces of Paul.  One interesting passage comes to mind.  It has long been noted that Luke's version of the Lord's Supper is most closely paralleled in 1 Corinthians 11.  Could this be a sign of Pauline influence, and moreover, an argument for later date for Luke in say the 90s-120s?

What do you think?  Had you heard this argument before?  Do you find it compelling or interesting in any way?

2 comments:

  1. I think E. P. Sanders' thesis has some serious problems:

    - absence of proof is not proof of absence: the gospels do not mention Paul or quote from his letters, but this is not proof the evangelists were unaware of Paul; in fact, Mark seems to owe a lot of his ideas to Paul, without directly quoting him. Some argue that the evangelists wrote their gospels to refute the (Marcionist) ideas of Paul, and hence they don not mention him directly.

    - the gospels themselves are not quoted (as gospels) until well into the second half of the second century; the early church father appear unaware of the gospels, but are aware of Paul (Clement, Ignatius). This suggest that Paul wrote earlier than the evangelists.

    - Paul figures large and by name in Acts; how can E. P. Sanders overlook the fact that half of Acts is about Paul?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob,

    Let me deal with your comments in turn:

    1) "the gospels do not mention Paul or quote from his letters, but this is not proof the evangelists were unaware of Paul." True, and this is not what Sanders is saying. He would agree that all of Paul's undisputed letters were written prior to the writing of any of the gospels. He is also not denying that the gospels may be familiar with the person and thoughts of Paul. What he is saying is that because they do not quote or directly allude to Paul's letters, they were all written prior to the "publication" of the Pauline corpus in the 90s.

    2) "- the gospels themselves are not quoted (as gospels) until well into the second half of the second century; the early church father appear unaware of the gospels, but are aware of Paul (Clement, Ignatius). This suggest that Paul wrote earlier than the evangelists." Once again, Sanders does not claim that the evangelists wrote before Paul, just before the "publication" of Paul's letters in the 90s.

    3) "- Paul figures large and by name in Acts; how can E. P. Sanders overlook the fact that half of Acts is about Paul?" Again, not what Sanders is saying. The issue is with the "publication" of the letters in the 90s, not whether the evangelists knew about an apostle named Paul or any of Paul's thoughts. They probably all new about Paul. Interestingly, the book of Act, while prominently featuring Paul, shows remarkable ignorance about the specifics of Paul's letters (e.g., smoothing over the differences between Paul and Peter/James (Acts 15, Gal 2).

    ReplyDelete