dating the gospels?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

dating the gospels?

Post by cora »

I had two questions. Both went in all kinds of directions. I think I can answer them now myself:
1.the birth-stories: since the "infancy gospel of james" seems to have been written much later than is said in the lists (150) it can not count. Then the birth-story of Mathew comes from Justin Martyr. It is in his texts. In Mathew it is adapted: we are led to believe it was under Herod the Great, and there is added that they decided to move to Nazareth. Mathew must therefore be written after 170, when Justin's papers went to Irenaeus.

2.the name Jesus: It has been found now that Paul used Isu Chrestos, so Marcion would do the same. Chrestos is on a Marcionite church. Isu is found in a Marcionite writing. I found out that this gospel was circulating in their communities and churches. Only Marcion had the letters. This was going on in the 2nd century. The church of rome was jewish. Jews who did not circumcise and did not keep the law. But Jahweh/OT worshippers. They let also non-jews in. The people from Paul's communities and Marcion's churches were THE ONLY CHRESTIANS/CHRISTIANS.
Now crazy Justin was NOT a member of the church of rome. He was a self-appointed philosopher with a school, and went to one of the small churches of Marcion. Now Justin did not get the religion right. He thought it had to do with the OLD testament, which it had not. Justin changed the name Isu in Iesous, just because of the old testament. I read an article about that. Since the name Jesus appears in Justin's papers, which Irenaeus wanted and got about 170, I conclude that the synoptic gospels were written after 170 by Irenaeus.

And not only those: in 185 he was quoting from 22 books of the NT. I know this already for 3 years. There are all kinds of evidence for that. The first is that it was researched two times in the 19th century already, with no gospels found anywhere until 185. One book was taken out of circulation by the Anglican church, but now is on the internet. I read gigantically from the 18th and 19th centuries, books of 1000 pages. It was already proved before 1900 that the gospels appeared in 185 for the first time. WHY DOES NOBODY KNOW THIS????? After 1900 the interest shifted to the so-called "historical Jesus" where it still is. Like the 19th century writer said: I am now at 180, 150 years after the fact, and there is still nothing. Everything appearing after 180 are just stories, and there is after so much time NO evidence for anything supernatural. Everything is also to be found through the internet. You have to read a lot, but everybody can do it. In 200 the canon was opened and the 4 gospels and the ACTS went in. And THAT is when the catholic church began.

It was revenge on Marcion (and Paul) because they had an other god. And of course this other god, stranger god, alien god etc. was pretending that they did not understand it, but they knew damned well of course that it was the GNOSTIC GOD, called god the father (and not Jahweh/the Lord). And Jahweh was loosing ground to the gnostic god, and that is why they did it. So it started with shouting that there was ONLY ONE GOD, the creator-god, meaning the jewish god Jahweh. It was about jahweh, not because they loved Jesus so much. Now the gnostic god has a son, but Jahweh does not (which is why the jews did not convert). So Jesus had to be glued to Jahweh. For Irenaeus that was nothing: in his own Mathew which he certainly wrote alone, he started directing to the OT. Jesus was so-called predicted by the prophets. This is all bullshit, but it looks nice. Problem solved.

I have not seen evidence of gospels (whole gospels, with a name) until Irenaeus started to talk about them in his book of 185, and the canon got only opened in 200. I therefore conclude that they were written by Irenaeus for the church of rome. Before that there was the gospel of Marcion in his churches, and maybe the gospel of John (another gnostic gospel).
Has anybody to say anything for or against this? (except Bernard). Should we all agree, how can we let this be known to the outside world? That is important. greetings, Cora.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: dating the gospels?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Cora,
That's an ocean of unevidenced speculations, sometimes stacked one on another one, that other one stacked on a third one, etc. And bad reasonning also.
I already debuked most of your assertions but you ignore that.
Then the birth-story of Mathew comes from Justin Martyr
That's because you eliminate a gLuke written earlier, and before gMarcion appears on the scene.
And eliminate Basilides (120-140) and Valentinus who commented on the birth story, Lukan style.
BTW, Basilides kew about the gospels stories and gMark, gLuke, gMatthew and gJohn.
It has been found now that Paul used Isu Chrestos
It is BS as long as you do not come up with evidence on that.
The church of rome was jewish.
Where is the evidence for that? I postulate nowhere. Prove me wrong.
The people from Paul's communities and Marcion's churches were THE ONLY CHRESTIANS/CHRISTIANS.
There were also Jewish Christians.
and went to one of the small churches of Marcion
Where did you find that about Justin? From the top of your head?
Now Justin did not get the religion right. He thought it had to do with the OLD testament, which it had not. Justin changed the name Isu in Iesous, just because of the old testament.
Another product of your wild imagination.
I read an article about that.
If that article impressed you, you should remember where you found it. So far no identification of this article. I have to conclude that's another BS.
Since the name Jesus appears in Justin's papers, which Irenaeus wanted and got about 170, I conclude that the synoptic gospels were written after 170 by Irenaeus.
The name of Jesus appeared way before that, in Josephus' Antiquities 20.9.1 (before 94 CE)
I conclude that the synoptic gospels were written after 170 by Irenaeus.
Did you forget already you have gMatthew written before Justin's times? And of course I offered evidence these gospels could not have been written that late by Irenaeus.
And not only those: in 185 he was quoting from 22 books of the NT. I know this already for 3 years. There are all kinds of evidence for that. The first is that it was researched two times in the 19th century already, with no gospels found anywhere until 185. One book was taken out of circulation by the Anglican church, but now is on the internet. I read gigantically from the 18th and 19th centuries, books of 1000 pages. It was already proved before 1900 that the gospels appeared in 185 for the first time. WHY DOES NOBODY KNOW THIS?????
But quotes, or paraphrasing, or abbreviation of them appeared way before Irenaeus, as I indicated before.
And Papias (110-140) is said: "[Allegedly Mark] related the sayings or deeds of Christ". Also Papias knew about 1 Peter and quoted from one of Paul's epistle. He also very likely knew about Revelation.
Everything appearing after 180 are just stories, and there is after so much time NO evidence for anything supernatural.
I guess you meant before 180. Before 180, Quadratus wrote about the human Jesus resurrecting the dead. The epistle of Barnabas has Jesus ascending to heaven. Basilides and Valentinus commented on Mary being inseminated by the power of the highest (as in gLuke).
In 200 the canon was opened and the 4 gospels and the ACTS went in. And THAT is when the catholic church began.
The fact that an orthodox canon emerged at that times, does not mean orthodox churches did not exist before.
It was revenge on Marcion (and Paul) because they had an other god. And of course this other god, stranger god, alien god etc. was pretending that they did not understand it, but they knew damned well of course that it was the GNOSTIC GOD, called god the father (and not Jahweh/the Lord). And Jahweh was loosing ground to the gnostic god, and that is why they did it. So it started with shouting that there was ONLY ONE GOD, the creator-god, meaning the jewish god Jahweh. It was about jahweh, not because they loved Jesus so much. Now the gnostic god has a son, but Jahweh does not (which is why the jews did not convert). So Jesus had to be glued to Jahweh. For Irenaeus that was nothing: in his own Mathew which he certainly wrote alone, he started directing to the OT. Jesus was so-called predicted by the prophets. This is all bullshit, but it looks nice.

What you wrote here are unevidenced assertions.
Again you need to decide when gMatthew was written: before Justin or by Irenaeus around 180.

Cordially, Bernard
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: dating the gospels?

Post by davidmartin »

Are you saying the gospels were entirely written in the late 2nd century?
From no earlier sources?

There is a big problem with that, which is the gospels do not perfectly align with the beliefs of the late 2nd century
For example, Mark and John have no birth story - which suits Marcionites and others who deny the virgin birth
Mark is borderline docetic
No gospel features the major apostle Paul. Not even a hint of of him
John can be read in a gnostic fashion and it was popular among Valentinian Christians
In many places the gospels portray Jesus as a man, his divinity is not clearly stated, and his claim of messiah is often not clearly stated
The doctrine of atonement and the cross found in Paul and Hebrews is very poorly represented in the gospels

On the other hand the gospels do show many signs of a long process of 'editions' and changes, and probable use of earlier sources

If I try to defend what I think you are saying, with the evidence at hand...
You certainly could argue that the 4 gospels we have took their final forms in the mid/late 2nd century
But the question doesn't go away of what the earlier forms looked like and when were their sources written

I see the origin of Christianity as a vast melting pot of different beliefs with many layers and twists and turns
The Catholic church however much it innovated, also inherited and was part of this melting pot
The Catholic church was formed as an umbrella uniting various heaps of Christians together under one roof and that really got going in the late 2nd century but probably began somewhat earlier. They were not the first, nor the only players in town, nor was there one single Gnostic church but many different groups over a spectrum as part of the melting pot. Sorry, but I think you're slightly over simplying things that's all i'm saying. i'm not trying to tear down your whole argument i have no desire to do that
cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: dating the gospels?

Post by cora »

It I a long story, and I am really not going to name everything were I found it. I found it and it is in my head now. What you call evidence is just the NT, and some forgeries. That you don't read outside that is your problem. I read only outside that, because that is where you can learn something. From the NT itself you can learn nothing, it is all fake and forgery. I don't mind that you believe everything in the NT, but why are you pestering me with it all the time?
IMO Marcion entered the scene in about 125. (Irenaeus has his reasons to place him later). Basilides and Valentinus come after him. If the info on them comes from Hippolytus again you can skip it, him being a disciple from Irenaeus and therefore planting "evidence". They are both gnostics, and you still don't understand what Gnosticism is. They have an other god, not Jahweh. It is a spiritual religion, coming from Plato. They therefore do not have a virgin Mary, that is catholic with Jahweh. So Luke was written after 170. You cannot point one out before that.
Paul using isu chrestos is on the internet, found by the people who are pulling text from Tertullianus.
The church of rome being jewish, to be found on the internet. And when Marcion visited with his canon they had only their own scriptures being the OT.(Otherwise they would have mentioned their gospels). Justin was not a member of the church, to be found everywhere on the internet. He went to one of the small churches, which were chrestian/Christian, and therefore by Marcion. What the fuck are jewish Christians? The word Christian does not even appear in the NT until after 450. Until then it was chrestian. To be found on the internet. Of course there were no jewish Christians, there was also no Jesus. And furthermore jews already have a religion.
Well someone had to change the name, because we get Jesus in the gospels and in Paul. I already thought it was Justin. There are no Christian writers before him. The article was just under Justin Martyr on google. I read it by coincident. Maybe you can look for yourself for once.
Josephus: it is now finally proven that that is a forgery, because the name Jesus did not yet exist.
Why could it not been written that late? It was a reaction on Marcion. To be found on the internet.
Any paraphrases etc. come from the gospel of Marcion, dumbo.
Papias is Irenaeus. There are no papers from Papias. Papias uses hearsay and is himself hearsay. The text is from Irenaeus.
I do not know Quadratus at all, never heard of him, so he cannot be important, maybe another Irenaeus or Hippolytus. If there is Jesus in it is from after Justin (170). Him going to heaven is from the gospel of Marcion.
How can there be Christian churches without any gospels? Everything I write there is from the internet and from Irenaeus himself.
Mathew is written by Irenaeus himself. It is catholic especially with sending out apostles to all the corners of the world. There you see immediately what they wanted. Because Irenaeus builds the church, and the authority of the church over the rest on the (non-existing) apostles, as you can see in rome. In case you did not know: Irenaeus used the gospel of Marcion IN the synoptics, the most in Luke. And to make sure that it would never be found again.
Do you know Bart Ehrman? Not the brightest among us, or with a enormous agenda. I saw him telling his audience that the gospels were first mentioned by Irenaeus in 185. Maybe you believe him.
I am not going to do this answering every time. You take up all my time that way. But I noticed your desperation. It is not necessary to insult me. You know incredibly little. You simply do not read outside Christian writings. What do you think they tell you? You simply believe everything. The whole religion was set up for simple/naïve and credulous people. In your case it worked. In my case it does not anymore.
It is a scam, set up between roughly 160 and 185, by some evil genius of the church of rome. Against Gnosticism, in particular Marcion, because he became too popular, and Jahweh had to be the boss. Everything is lied or forged. There was no Jesus of Nazareth. There was also no Isu by the way. It was a written story from about 72, or 73, playing in 30. And I can prove that, but I am certainly not going to tell you, because you believe nothing I say. greetings, Cora.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: dating the gospels?

Post by MrMacSon »

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: dating the gospels?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to davidmartin,
Mark is borderline docetic.
But gMark has (named) brothers of Jesus (and even sisters) and Mary as Jesus' mother. That's not borderline Docetic for me.
No gospel features the major apostle Paul. Not even a hint of of him
The Synoptic gospels do not cover the times when Paul started to be active (during the persecutions of Greek proto-Christians in 35 CE).
gMark has several hints of Paul's letters: http://historical-jesus.info/66.html
The doctrine of atonement and the cross found in Paul and Hebrews is very poorly represented in the gospels
But it is, more so in Hebrews (many times).
On the other hand the gospels do show many signs of a long process of 'editions' and changes,
I agree, especially for gJohn (http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html, but also gMatthew (the two Jesus bodily reappearances being added in the early 2nd century), gMark after 16:8 added later (at least after gJohn was known). And all these gospels show other signs of interpolation in the 2nd century or before.

Cordially, Bernard
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: dating the gospels?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Cora,
I am really not going to name everything were I found it
But you should. If not, people and myself will think you are bluffing.
I don't mind that you believe everything in the NT,
I don't believe everything in the NT, very far from that.
Basilides and Valentinus come after him.
Not necessarily so.
So Luke was written after 170. You cannot point one out before that.
Except gMarcion. And gLuke was written before gMarcion because of the internal evidence, beyond involving Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus: http://historical-jesus.info/53.html
Furthermore Justin claimed he knows about Memoirs of the Apostles which he called also gospels:
For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.

Please note Justin then quoted part of the last supper as it appears in gLuke.

And I already explained why the gospels could not have been written after 170:
A reminder:
gMark , which places Jesus' public life under Pilate's rule (26-36 CE) (also as the other gospels):
9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
How could Irenaeus write that when the Kingdom of God obviously had not come yet. That would make Irenaeus dear Jesus a (very) false prophet and a big liar.
Same comment for:
13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Note: "everything done" includes the fall of Jerusalem and: 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

These 2 sayings are repeated in gLuke and gMatthew.
In gMarcion, the first saying is not attested, but the second is modified, taking away the generation of Jesus: "... The heaven and the earth shall in no wise pass away, till all things be accomplished."

Paul using isu chrestos is on the internet, found by the people who are pulling text from Tertullianus.
But in which book by Tertullian? On this matter, which is very important for your theories, you should know. And you did not find that yourself, but some people.
The church of rome being jewish, to be found on the internet
Now the internet has become your evidence.
The internet has good, ugly and bad things.
On the matter of the Jesus of Christians, there are many blogs, forums, articles, websites, books or parts of books on the internet. If you spend time searching that internet, you are bound to find somewhere something you like, which fit your theories.
What the fuck are jewish Christians? The word Christian does not even appear in the NT until after 450.
The word Christian appears (in early 2nd century) in Tacitus' Annals (as derived from Christus), Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars (Nero), Pliny the Younger in one letter to Trajan.
In the NT, "Christian" is in 1 Peter and Acts of the Apostles (twice).
To be found on the internet.
Again the internet!
Of course there were no jewish Christians
Yes they were. Paul alludes to them (the judaizers) in Galatians. And an emanation of Jewish Christianity is in gMatthew, the most Jewish of all gospels, with its insistance on Jesus as King and Son of David.
And furthermore jews already have a religion.
That would not prevent some Jews to add up to it Christian tenets, maybe as not as many as Paul's.
The article was just under Justin Martyr on google. I read it by coincident. Maybe you can look for yourself for once.
Can you be more precise, so we don't have to waste time finding it?
Josephus: it is now finally proven that that is a forgery, because the name Jesus did not yet exist.
Why could it not been written that late? It was a reaction on Marcion. To be found on the internet.
The name Jesus is found in abundance in Paul's epistles. Paul was a contemporary of James, the brother of the Lord (died 62 CE) and was in Damascus when Aretas was still king (died in 40 CE) (2 Corinthians 11:32).
Any paraphrases etc. come from the gospel of Marcion, dumbo.
Paraphrases etc. are also coming from gMatthew (Didache, epistle of Barnabas, Revelation), gMark (Basilides), gJohn (Basilides again), Aristides, etc.
Papias is Irenaeus
Oh, another revelation!
Him going to heaven is from the gospel of Marcion.
Also in all the gospels and the Pauline epistles.
How can there be Christian churches without any gospels?
There were Christian churches during Paul's times when there was still no gospels.
Everything I write there is from the internet and from Irenaeus himself.
Did Irenaeus say there was no Christian churches before him? No. In fact, he wrote churches existed very early:
Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the Churches; AH, book 5, XX, 1
the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, AJ, book 3, IV, 1
Mathew is written by Irenaeus himself
So Justin could not have gotten the birth story from gMatthew. So from where he got the story?
Do you know Bart Ehrman? Not the brightest among us, or with a enormous agenda. I saw him telling his audience that the gospels were first mentioned by Irenaeus in 185. Maybe you believe him.
I don't think he would say that. Maybe he said the gospels were not named before 185.
Anyway, Justin mentioned (and quoted) the gospels, well before Irenaeus.
I am not going to do this answering every time. You take up all my time that way. But I noticed your desperation. It is not necessary to insult me. You know incredibly little.
Coming from you, I find that very strange: you have proven many, many times you know incredibly little.
What do you think they tell you? You simply believe everything.
I don't believe everything. But you believe things you found, or people found on the internet, which you keep secret on what and where the alleged info comes from (the internet is a universe of info, good, ugly or bad)
And I can prove that, but I am certainly not going to tell you
Easy cop out. I certainly did prove you are wrong on many items, some of them very crucial for your theories. And for the other items, that's pure unevidenced wild speculations.
because you believe nothing I say
And for good reasons.
And you don't believe anything I proved with evidence.

Cordially, Bernard
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: dating the gospels?

Post by hakeem »

Bernard Muller wrote: There were Christian churches during Paul's times when there was still no gospels.
Your claim is absolute nonsense.

The Gospel must first be known to those who have converted.

The so-called Pauline letters are written to those who already knew and believed the Gospel.

The Gospel must first be preached and received by converts in order to have a "Church".

It is absolute madness to suggest that no person knew the Gospel unless they received a Pauline letter when it is not even claimed that the so-called Paul wrote his letters to every Church in the habitable world.

The very NT claimed the apostles preached the Gospel before Saul/Paul was even a persecutor of those who accepted the Gospel.

Gospels, stories of Jesus, the Memoirs of the Apostles, were already known and written long before the so-called Pauline Epistles.

Even the works of Josephus predate the Pauline writings
cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: dating the gospels?

Post by cora »

Bernard,
Since you don't believe anything I say, and I don't believe anything you say, I propose we do not react on each other anymore.
You say that you have proven me wrong with "evidence". Your evidence is no evidence. You keep repeating Christian forgeries like Josephus and Tacitus. And forgeries made in Paul. You take Irenaeus and Tertullianus who writes exactly what Irenaeus tells him to write, as sources. And Irenaeus has never in his life written anything without lying, being the one who wrote/forged the NT and setting up the catholic church. Furthermore we are around the year 200 by then, and not in 30. Why he exactly writes what he writes I cannot imagine. He writes that Jesus is coming back, which also did not happen and is also stupid to say.
This is not a theory, I did not have a theory when I began, and being raised a catholic myself I was actually hoping to find a real Jesus whoever he was.
So I was not on the internet to find things that would support my "theory". I just investigated the most important persons and happenings from 0 to 200. And I was often surprised at what I found (multiple times of course). So now I know more or less what happened, which happens to be something totally different than what the catholic church (or you) say. By 313 they won. And as you might know, the winners write the history (literally).
greetings, Cora.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: dating the gospels?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
The Gospel must first be known to those who have converted.
Check the writings of Paul. You will find the gospel (good news) is Paul's message which he claimed being from of God or Christ or himself or even the Scripture (to Abraham). Absolutely no evidence Paul knew about gospels such as gMark, gLuke, gMarcion, etc. And Paul never used the plural of gospel about what he preached.

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God
Rom 1:9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers,
Rom 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1Co 4:15 For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
1Co 9:14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
1Co 9:16 For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!
2Co 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.
2Co 10:16 so that we may preach the gospel in lands beyond you, without boasting of work already done in another's field
Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel.
Gal 2:2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed."
Etc., etc.
The so-called Pauline letters are written to those who already knew and believed the Gospel.
Paul wrote to whose who already believe (or doubted) his gospel (Christian message).
The Gospel must first be preached and received by converts in order to have a "Church".
Yes, Paul's Christian message was preached and received by converts in order to have a Pauline congregation (church) such as:
1Co 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
Gal 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
It is absolute madness to suggest that no person knew the Gospel unless they received a Pauline letter when it is not even claimed that the so-called Paul wrote his letters to every Church in the habitable world.
What are you making out? The Pauline churches were created by Paul's (or his helpers or his converts) preaching.
The very NT claimed the apostles preached the Gospel before Saul/Paul was even a persecutor of those who accepted the Gospel.
These apostles preached their own gospel, not Paul's own.
Gospels, stories of Jesus, the Memoirs of the Apostles, were already known and written long before the so-called Pauline Epistles.
There is no evidence for that, rather plenty of evidence against it. And if the gospels were written before Paul's epistles, one would expect Paul to draw in abundance from these gospels, such as Jesus stories or saying, in order to support his message. Such as resurrections (something Paul had to persuade doubting converts (in 1 Corinthians)) when the gospel Jesus resurrects a girl (in gMark), the son of a widow (in gLuke) and Lazarus (in gJohn).
Even the works of Josephus predate the Pauline writings
How do you know that?

Cordially, Bernard
Post Reply