The Epistles Indicate that the Gospels were NOT Published Early
Paul’s epistles show that the
gospel stories did not exist in any form when Paul lived.
But the later ones also show an absence of the gospel
legends in the primordial soup of the Church of their times.
The New American Bible dates the
First Epistle of Peter at between 64 and 67 AD and sees no reason to deny
Petrine authorship (Biblical Dictionary and
Concordance, page 176).
OTHER EPISTLES THAT DENY
GOSPELS
The First Epistle of John is
believed to have been written after the Gospel of John and in the 90s of the
first century.
It denies that there are any gospels.
It endeavours to counteract the
influence of people who said that Jesus was not a material being but an
apparition.
All it does to achieve that is just saying that some
unspecified “we” touched Jesus and that anybody who says he had no body is an
antichrist.
It would have been better to say, “Go to the Gospel of
John which I John wrote”, assuming tradition is right that John wrote all the
New Testament works that carry his name.
The epistle says that those who have God’s light don’t
need teachers for they hear God in their hearts (
The letter condemns the whole
world as evil and demands that Christians keep themselves separate from it for
the whole world is in the grip of the evil one Satan (5:19).
Jehovah’s Witnesses and some others take that to be a
condemnation of Christians who honour flags and presidents and who work in
politics.
Other Christians say that he is simply meaning
godlessness or worldliness by world and is not forbidding Christians to be
politicians and work in politics.
That is a lie for John like the rest forbade
involvement in the world for Jesus’ final coming had to be treated as if it was
going to happen in a few minutes.
This coming was to overthrow all earthly kingdoms and
comprised Jesus taking over the earth as king and Christians were urged to
accept that this overthrow could happen any second.
John does forbid political activity for you can’t live
that way and prepare for the future by political involvement for the future is
what such involvement is about.
The Christians can’t give you any
evidence that world means what they say it means.
If John meant it in a restricted way like they hope he
meant, he would have said so in his letter so world means world.
A Church that thought like that would not let the
world have its gospels but would keep them to herself to protect them at least
until it was sure of itself – and it didn’t get sure of itself until the time of
Constantine and soon got cocky enough to turn Jesus into God.
A Church that was not allowed to
bring Christianity into politics to help people could not possibly care much for
books for having books imply that you need them for future generations so it
would have cared even less about publishing.
It might have had the books but did not depend on them
or preach them.
It was only when the Church became invincible
that it grew less secretive.
By the way, I have argued in
other books that Jesus did not do away with the killing laws of the Old
Testament that God gave which wanted homosexuals and idolaters dead.
What I have said here about Christians focusing on the
message and not on politics does not undermine that. Some would say they felt
they couldn’t put the law into practice for there was no time.
Others would say there was no time for making the
civil law except these laws so they might have kept them whenever they could on
their own.
The law says it is love to kill these people and
Christians never argued that you may not bother loving for there was no time.
Either way they were not invalidating the law.
It is still true to say that the faith revealed by
Jesus was a brutal and murderous one.
The Epistle of Jude was not
written by Jude the apostle because he speaks of what the apostles said as if he
were not one of them (17).
And it is in the past tense as if they are all off the
scene.
The letter quotes an edition of the First Book of
Enoch betraying a date of 100 AD (NAB, Introduction to the Epistle of Jude).
The author quotes a story about Michael the
The Epistle of James gives no
hint of the existence of the Gospels.
The stress it lays on Old Testament material
suggests that it did not know of them.
James
If James really was related to
Jesus then he proves the gospels are lying about Jesus and that high-level
leaders of the Church who would have known about the gospels had they existed
did not.
The letter is often dated to before 62 AD when James
was murdered.
This would tell us that there were no gospels then or
even any traditions that could become gospels.
Then, even Jesus’ relations knew that the stories in
the gospels were false for they did not hear of them.
Most scholars hold that this
dating of James to be thrown out.
They date the letter to the end of the first
century.
If they are right then it means there was no evidence
even then that the gospels had been revealed to anybody.
The Epistles as good as say there were no Gospels published even in secret and show that a biography was manufactured for Jesus later for he did not exist.