I don't have a big problem with this, except that Paul met Jesus in the flesh on the road to Damascus. So he's a little more than an interpreter of of Jesus' sayings as related to him by the other Apostles (he probably never read the Gospels as the Epistles almost certainly predate the Gospels by many years). I suspect the authors of the Gospels were well acquainted with Pauls writings and did not feel the need to add to them; as the purpose of the Gospels was different--document Jesus ministry for future generations, not describing Christian Theology in detail.
And, it seems obvious that Paul was the man chosen by God to work out the backbone of Christian Theology (much of which is very vague in those portions of Jesus sayings reported in the Gospels) and to record it for us fortunate folks 2,000 year later. He also had the task of figuring out how the Resurrection fit into and fulfilled the Jewish Scriptures--he brought the big picture to life. God chose a truly extraordinary man for this task. I happened to read the first chapter of Romans this morning and marveled again at his intellect and God-given insight.
>> I don’t have a big problem with this, except that Paul met Jesus in the flesh on the road to Damascus. So he’s a little more than an interpreter of of Jesus’ sayings as related to him by the other Apostles (he probably never read the Gospels as the Epistles almost certainly predate the Gospels by many years). I suspect the authors of the Gospels were well acquainted with Pauls writings and did not feel the need to add to them; as the purpose of the Gospels was different—document Jesus ministry for future generations, not describing Christian Theology in detail. <<
My only point was that the gospels include the actual words of Jesus; Paul doesn’t.
>> And, it seems obvious that Paul was the man chosen by God to work out the backbone of Christian Theology (much of which is very vague in those portions of Jesus sayings reported in the Gospels) and to record it for us fortunate folks 2,000 year later. <<
I’m VERY uncomfortable with trying to promote Paul as a top dude. His works take up by far the largest portion of the Table of Contents, but barely the largest portion of the actual text. (Luke and John give him a good run of the money.) You call the gospels “vague”; I’d suggest that they are a little more alien to our western logic. Paul explains the events of the gospels into our western logic. But if Paul’s letters explain the gospel, than the gospel is not a lesser authority than that which is explained!
And you’re presumption that Paul didn’t know the gospel when he wrote his letters since his letters were written first is deeply problematic: Matthew and Mark had origins earlier than Paul’s earliest letters (c. 50 AD), and certainly Paul heard what would become the content of the gospels told to him by the apostles.