tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post6134214192669825899..comments2024-03-09T04:00:18.309-06:00Comments on Know Thyself: Pauline Publication and Dating the GospelsKeith Reichhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10679244684706964812noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-54482023515914138602016-02-01T09:14:37.286-06:002016-02-01T09:14:37.286-06:00Bob,
Let me deal with your comments in turn:
1...Bob, <br /><br />Let me deal with your comments in turn: <br /><br />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 What he is saying is that because they do not quote or directly allude to Paul's letters, they were all written prior to the "publication" of the Pauline corpus in the 90s.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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). <br />Keith Reichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10679244684706964812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2818703174963694504.post-66373928005045028522016-01-31T13:19:02.957-06:002016-01-31T13:19:02.957-06:00I think E. P. Sanders' thesis has some serious...I think E. P. Sanders' thesis has some serious problems:<br /><br />- 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.<br /><br />- 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.<br /><br />- Paul figures large and by name in Acts; how can E. P. Sanders overlook the fact that half of Acts is about Paul?Bob de Jongnoreply@blogger.com