Where Did the Idea that Paul Didn't Have a Gospel Come From?

[Stephan Huller]

And not just Chrysostom:

In 2 Cor 8:18, Paul also provides a plausible indication that a written gospel lay behind some of his instructions to the Corinthians. In 2 Cor 8:18, Paul also provides a plausible indication that a written gospel lay behind some of his instructions to the Corinthians. Indeed, reflecting upon the implications of what he deems a likely reference to Luke in 2 cor 8:18 (τὸν ἀδελφὸν οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ διὰ πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν), he writes, “The Gospel of Luke was written before 56, the approximate date of 2 corinthians. It is difficult to say how long it would take for the fame of the book to spread through 'all the churches.' The expression suggests more than just the churches of Macedonia and achaia, so we should probably allow at least a year, and say therefore that its writing had taken place by 55 at the latest” (Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, 223, 237). [L Timothy Swinson, What is Scripture p. 88]

[Stephan Huller]

But Chrysostom identifies two camps of people - those who identify the 'unnamed brother' in 2 Corinthians 8:18 as Luke and others Barnabas. Who is he identifying in particular in the first (= Luke) group? Not surprisingly again, it is Origen:

Robertson allowed for the possibility that Origen and Chrysostom were correct in identifying the reference in 2 Cor 8:18; 12:18 to Luke. [David Allen Lukan Authorship of Hebrews p. 266]

Second time that Origen comes up as a neo-Marcionite. Not surprisingly when the neo-Origenist Jerome identifies Origen's patron as a neo-Marcionite.

[Stephan Huller]

Here's how they break it down:

For example, Eusebius quotes Origen as saying, 'Luke wrote for Gentile converts the gospel praised by Paul' (H.E. 6.25.6). Later, Jerome continues the tradition: 'he wrote a Gospel, concerning which the same Paul says, “We send with him a brother whose praise in the gospel is among all the churches'" (De Vir. lllust. 7), as does Ambrose (Commentary 1.11). Chrysostom knows that 'some say' the reference in 2 Cor 8 is to Luke (Homily 18, 2 Corinthians) [Rick Streland Luke the Priest p. 43]

[Stephan Huller]

and again,

wholesome medicines of the doctrine delivered by him " for the healing of the " diseases of the soul," as may be seen in S. Jerome's Epist. 50, ad Paulin. iv. p. 574, where he says, that the Acts of the Apostles seem at first to be merely an Historical Book, and to describe the Infancy of the Church ; but if we remember that their Author is Luke, whose praise is in the Gospel (2 Cor 8:18), we shall acknowledge that all his words are medicines of the soul."

[Stephan Huller]

The point clearly is that if you have someone as influential as Chrysostom open to Paul having a written gospel at his disposal by the fifth century it couldn't have been widely believed that Paul certainly didn't have a written gospel. I can't even think of a single person who denied that Paul had a gospel. This seems now to be a thoroughly modern presumption. How very interesting!

[TedM]

Absolutely not. Serious logic problem. There is nothing in Ireneaus' passage to suggest that Paul wrote about Adam because Luke had traced Jesus back to Adam. And there is no need for the kind of link you are making to explain why Paul wrote about Jesus and Adam, or to explain why both are referenced by Ireneaus. Ireneaus isn't writing about Paul or Luke persay, he is writing about a concept having to do with Christ, which is supported by both authors. There is nothing in this passage by Ireneaus to link the two authors other than the concept, but people have similar concepts ALL THE TIME without knowing what someone else is saying or thinking. geez.. This is one of hundreds of examples of how you read things into passages that aren't remotely there. You WANT to find those kinds of links, so its no different than people who believe because they WANT to believe, regardless of anything else.

My sister in law is in town, Benny is in town and another friend is coming over (virtual party central here) so I can't devote the time right now to look at the Latin but doesn't this sound (at least from the English translation) like Irenaeus is saying that Paul wrote 'X' in this epistle because 'Y' appeared in Luke's gospel:

Wherefore Luke points out that the pedigree which traces the generation of our Lord back to Adam contains seventy-two generations, connecting the end with the beginning, and implying that it is He who has summed up in Himself all nations dispersed from Adam downwards, and all languages and generations of men, together with Adam himself. Hence also was Adam himself termed by Paul "the figure of Him that was to come,"(1) because the Word, the Maker of all things, had formed beforehand for Himself the future dispensation of the human race, connected with the Son of God; God having predestined that the first man should be of an animal nature, with this view, that he might be saved by the spiritual One. For inasmuch as He had a pre-existence as a saving Being, it was necessary that what might be saved should also be called into existence, in order that the Being who saves should not exist in vain. [3.22.3]

[Stephan Huller]

As I said in my original post I have yet to look at the original Latin. I will do so today after (a) I take my son to soccer practice (b) I take my wife and son to see her sister and (c) I take a one hour ferry ride to see Benny in Bremerton (and then conversely pick up my wife and son from downtown Seattle and come home). But if the passage is roughly similar to the English the word 'hence' is particularly interesting. Irenaeus point is that Luke traces Jesus's generation from Adam specifically for a theological point HENCE Paul said Adam was the figure of him to come. The idea comes from Paul but it is also a point with which the Marcionites (whom Irenaeus clearly has in mind) would disagree as they (rightly) saw Jesus as the type of Adam (rather than the other way around). This because Jesus was the heavenly man Ish, the image of God from which Adam was constructed. While the argument taken on its own does not require Paul to have read or connect what he wrote in 1 Corinthians to a gospel, Irenaeus frequently does this sort of thing when combatting heresies. In other words, just as the heretics appealed to the correct interpretation of the gospel from the apostle's letters and vice versa Irenaeus might have (and Tertullian certainly does so earlier) done the same thing in reverse (i.e. that the gospel of Paul = Luke had a genealogy from Adam and Paul said X in 1 Corinthians because the two agree and perhaps Paul was conscious of Luke). Again the Latin will be decisive.

[TedM]

it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. I doubt the Latin will help you. This kind of micro-analysis is a very inexact science because 1. language is often not very exact and 2. people don't use language properly. Even if 'hence' is meant in the sense of 'therefore', it is not exact enough to say that this was a chronological thing or that the 'hence' applied to Paul: It very well could have been Ireneaus reading into Paul motivations (ie to match up with Luke's geneaology) that weren't really there. How the hell would Ireneaus have known that Paul's motivation came from Luke if Paul didn't say so? Because maybe he had Luke's gospel sitting in front of him? No way to know that, and there is no reason to assume it when the most likely explanation is that Ireneaus -- as an apologist -- is simply looking for corroberative support for CONCEPTS.

[Stephan Huller]

But how can you be sure that Tertullian is NOT saying what he COULD BE saying? This is the most baffling part of your analysis. You could reasonably argue that 'we can't be certain' (as Andrew did) before I brought forward the reference to Tertullian's analysis of 'the gospel' in Galatians 1 and 2 where it was noted by a scholar (I forget whom, I am on a ferry) that Tertullian does indeed seem to acknowledge a written gospel. Already then we have Origen and the Alexandrian tradition (and 'Origenist' = Jerome tradition) who acknowledge the possibility and then Tertullian himself in another work. It doesn't seem to be a reasonable interpretation on your part - AND THEN YOU KEEP STATING (to the effect) 'I can't let you say this Stephan because then it means you might be right about Marcion.' But one has nothing to do with another in the grand scheme of things.

[Stephan Huller]

The ONLY argument that seems to me to have any relevance for the decision of scholars - against the testimony of the ancients - to assume that Paul did not know of a written gospel is that they are no direct allusions in the epistles as we have them. That's a reasonable objection. I think there is an explanation for it. Nevertheless before I bring that forward the fact that Paul doesn't explicitly cite Matthew, Mark, Luke or John as we know those texts also brings some challenges to our inherited worldview. Why for instance did the Church Fathers insist on assuming that Paul did know or could have known (in the case of Chrysostom for instance) when for all intents and purposes no corroborative evidence can be found to support that contention. In other words, why does the fact that Origen - a heretic or one of questionable orthodoxy - said 'X' force all commentators to acknowledge this as a position worth accepting or at least acknowledging? Why didn't someone explicitly say (as is the case with Mark and Peter) that Luke wrote the gospel after Peter and Paul died (I mention Peter because it is suggested that Luke not only used Paul also Peter and the apostles)? Why is the phantom of the idea that Paul had a written gospel still floating in the air until a very late period? Why if - as a heretic would suggest - that either/or the gospel and epistles were altered by the Catholic Church to deny the Marcionite proposition (viz. that Paul is the only apostle, the only one who knew the truth) why doesn't Irenaeus just come out and say Luke wrote the gospel after Paul died or that Paul did not know the written gospel? There must have been a reason why the orthodox had to choose this roundabout way of denying Marcion.