Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by Charles Wilson »

spin wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:25 am The subject we were dealing with was the relationship between 1 Cor 11:23b-25 and the last supper accounts in the synoptic gospels!
Dio, Epitome 64:

"Now they would all shout together on one side the name of Vespasian and on the other side that of Vitellius, and they would challenge each other in turn, indulging in abuse or in praise of the one leader or the other. Again one soldier would have a private conversation with an opponent: "Comrade, fellow-citizen, what are we doing? Why are we fighting? Come over to my side." "No, indeed! You come to my side." But what is there surprising about this, considering that when the women of the city in the course of the night brought food and drink to give to the soldiers of Vitellius, the latter, after eating and drinking themselves, passed the supplies on to their antagonists? One of them would call out the name of his adversary (for they practically all knew one another and were well acquainted) and would say: "Comrade, take and eat this; I give you, not a sword, but bread. Take and drink this; I hold out to you, not a shield, but a cup. Thus, whether you kill me or I you, we shall quit life more comfortably, and the hand that slays will not be feeble and nerveless, whether it be yours that smites me or mine that smites you. For these are the meats of consecration that Vitellius and Vespasian give us while we are yet alive, in order that they may offer us as a sacrifice to the dead slain long since..."

1 Corinthians 11: 17 (RSV):

[17] But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.

Do tell. Note the Correspondences.

[18] For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it,
[19] for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

The Civil War between the Vitellians and the Flavians. "...And the winners are..."

[23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
[27] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

You want Interpolations? "...that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread." The "Betrayal" came at the hands of Cestius in Acts as Cestius is bribed to leave Jerusalem. Now, the betrayal is given as the End of Vitellius at the ascension of the Flavians. Titus is to be Deified and just as suddenly is amalgamated into the savior-god story.

"For these are the meats of consecration that Vitellius and Vespasian give us while we are yet alive, in order that they may offer us as a sacrifice to the dead slain long since..."

CW
Hadrian
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2022 5:21 am

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by Hadrian »

Perhaps because he never knew him in life? Remember, Paul's authentic letters were written/sent before Mark finished his narrative. Paul may have been familiar with collections of Jesus' sayings that were circulating but this is unknowable. It is likely that he had been briefed by his masters when he was an investigator for the Sanhedrin but who knows what he'd been instructed (although it's likely it wasn't positive). Paul states in I Cor. Jesus told him what He'd said at the Last Supper so there was some sort of metaphysical communication between the two and of course, there was the event on the Damascus Road, too. An absence of evidence is no evidence, after all.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by Irish1975 »

spin wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:39 pm Paul's ritual meal has been turned into a Last Supper with the close citation from Luke's gospel. The dependence of that on Mark is evident, so the origin of 1 Cor 11:23b-25 is based on that chain, Mark > Luke > 1 Cor. One cannot justify any other trajectory based on a linguistic analysis of 1 Cor 11 & the synoptics.

It was common in the era for associations to have ritual meals. Paul's εκκλησιαι were no exception. He called it κυριακὸν δεῖπνον, "lordly meal", κυριακὸς being an adjective. He presents it as a meal not a ceremony.
κυριακός, -ή, -όν is indeed an adjective. But so what? Adjective vs. possessive genitive is often, as here, a distinction without a difference. If someone refers to "Biden's administration" or "The Biden Administration" or "The Administration of Biden," it all means the same thing.

This bit of “linguistic anaysis” does not support the desired conclusion, that the original Pauline “lordly meal” was some humble Jewish affair nothing like a rite or ceremony.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by mlinssen »

schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by schillingklaus »

Already Jean Magne demonstrated in Les Paroles sur la Coupe that Mark's cena is late patchwork, and not the source of Luke's. Our resident Neil Godfrey had a copy of this article once. The monograph by the same author (Logique des Sacrements) reconstructs the redactional history of the cena.

Especially the cup of the covenant and the bread are interpolated, and these are the elements of the Cena taken from the Inter-Paul-ated passage in 1 Cor 11:23-26. The original Cena only contained the eschatological words on the cup. The bread specifically appears in an interpolation marked by a reprise, as do many interpolations in the New Testament. Our resident Giuseppe is an expert for these.

The interpolatedness of the bread becomes more obvious as it is eulogized, not eucharisted like the cup, another treacherous sign of interpolation.

Even placing the cena to preparation day is a corruption. More originally, Jesus would have said the eschatological words already the day before at Bethany, right after being treated by the unknown woman for the impending entombment and right before marching off to Gethsemane. Only this would make sense of the immediacy of the death of Jesus at the same moment as that of the immolation of the paschal lambs.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

schillingklaus wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 8:41 pm Even placing the cena to preparation day is a corruption. More originally, Jesus would have said the eschatological words already the day before at Bethany, right after being treated by the unknown woman for the impending entombment and right before marching off to Gethsemane. Only this would make sense of the immediacy of the death of Jesus at the same moment as that of the immolation of the paschal lambs.
This would make sense about why "Simon the Leper" didn't like the action of the unknown woman. If, as Klinghardt argues, he was Simon Peter in proto-Luke, then his is another case of opposition to the idea of a crucified Christ (remember the vade retro satana episode), i.e. Simon Peter denies that the Christ was crucified, therefore he is the docetist Simon Magus (docet Detering).
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by davidmartin »

So that's the only real question: why doesn't Paul say

"And our sweet Lawd Geewsus said..." and so on

but instead merely USES his words without maximising their potential as we think that he should have, being such an evangelist for the cause?
ML maybe its because none of the sayings in the canonicals or Thomas really supports the Pauline gospel - they're a kind of rival path to salvation
What's interesting to me is that even the Odes which are a sort of alternative-to-Paul gospel allude only lightly to any words that were spoken
It's almost as if those sayings were, as Thomas says, private sayings for the initiated alone and not widely disseminated or talked about. Even the Gospel of John doesn't repeat them. An obscure tradition would explain it not withstanding they got plastered all over the synoptics at some point with emphasis that everyone heard them, well maybe they didn't
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by spin »

Irish1975 wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 10:00 am
spin wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:39 pm Paul's ritual meal has been turned into a Last Supper with the close citation from Luke's gospel. The dependence of that on Mark is evident, so the origin of 1 Cor 11:23b-25 is based on that chain, Mark > Luke > 1 Cor. One cannot justify any other trajectory based on a linguistic analysis of 1 Cor 11 & the synoptics.

It was common in the era for associations to have ritual meals. Paul's εκκλησιαι were no exception. He called it κυριακὸν δεῖπνον, "lordly meal", κυριακὸς being an adjective. He presents it as a meal not a ceremony.
κυριακός, -ή, -όν is indeed an adjective. But so what? Adjective vs. possessive genitive is often, as here, a distinction without a difference. If someone refers to "Biden's administration" or "The Biden Administration" or "The Administration of Biden," it all means the same thing.

This bit of “linguistic anaysis” does not support the desired conclusion, that the original Pauline “lordly meal” was some humble Jewish affair nothing like a rite or ceremony.
You seriously have to do better than this. At least when one makes an analogy it needs to be sufficiently applicable. Yours is just lacking any sense, as it is unrelated to the morphological issue. Consider κοιλιακός "abdominal", ἡλιακός "solar", καρδιακός "cardiac". They are all derived from nouns and have a life of their own, related somehow to the noun.

That Paul calls his feast a "lordly meal" doesn't allow you to assume that he intended it to be a rehearsal of the last supper (nor should y ou trivialise the topic: "some humble Jewish affair"). But the only reason you might think we can ignore the distinction between "lordly meal" and "lord's supper" is due to the citation of Lk in 1 Cor 11:23b-25 and it's implication that lord = Jesus. Paul doesn't allow you to reach such a conclusion with his expression.
Last edited by spin on Mon Jan 31, 2022 6:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by Irish1975 »

spin wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 6:27 am You seriously have to do better than this.
Well that's condescending.

I guess I'm not surprised. A person who is constantly saying "there is no alternative to my interpretation!" is, when challenged, not likely to be fair or polite, much less interested in alternative perspectives.
At least when one makes an analogy it needs to be sufficiently applicable. Yours is just lacking any sense...
Any calmly attentive person can understand the relevance of my analogy. In the phrase "The Biden Administration," "Biden" functions as an adjective, because it means "having to do with Biden" (--> "having to do with the Lord"). And one says the same exact thing with "Biden's Administration" (--> the Lord's supper), even though "Biden's" is a possessive noun (which in Greek would be expressed in the genitive).
...as it is unrelated to the morphological issue.
There is no morphological issue. No one disputes that κυριακὸς is an adjective.
Consider κοιλιακός "abdominal", ἡλιακός "solar", καρδιακός "cardiac".
Yes. And nothing interesting follows. BDAG defines κυριακός, -ή, -όν as belonging to the Lord, the Lord's. As in Revelation 1:10, ἐν τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ ("on/in the day of the Lord). Again, what is the significance of all this?
They are all derived from nouns and have a life of their own, related somehow to the noun.
Indeed they are derived from and related to the noun. But "they have a life of their own"? Whatever that is supposed to mean, the semantic relationship between your adjectives and the sun, the heart, the abdomen hasn't gone anywhere just because you've waved a rhetorical wand.
That Paul calls his feast a "lordly meal" doesn't allow you to assume that he intended it to be a rehearsal of the last supper
Notice the projection here. This isn't about any theory of mine about the supposed "intentions of Paul" (a concept in which I put no stock). You are the one making the claim that there is an interpolation here, and a dependence on Luke. It is fallacious to try to fend off criticism by making baseless conjectures about what I do or do not assume. You have already demonstrated perfect indifference to any interpretations other people might make of said passage.
But the only reason you might think we can ignore the distinction between "lordly meal" and "lord's supper"
This is begging the question. You assume the very claim you pretend to have established, that there is some meaningful distinction between "lordly meal" and "lord's supper."
...is due to the citation of Lk in 1 Cor 11:23b-25 and it's implication that lord = Jesus.
Well that settles it. Anyone who doesn't already accept your assumption must be an irrational traditionalist clinging to the Gospel accounts. What is also assumed is that you have already demonstrated that 1 Cor depends on Luke. You haven't.
Paul doesn't allow you to reach such a conclusion with his expression.
Funny.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by schillingklaus »

It is not Simon the Leper who is said to disprove of the action of the unknown woman. The scene occurs in Simon's house but Simon himself does not say or do anything.

Back to the Cena, which contains yet another interpolation with repetition, and this interpolation announces the impending delivery by the hands of one of the disciples; further, that disciple is cursed. This passage elaborates on the specification made by 1 Cor 11:23-26 that Jesus did something in the night in which he was delivered.

Many people mistake paradidonai for prodidonai and think of a betrayal; but nothing like that can be concluded from the Pauline passage -- it is all posterior imagination.
Post Reply