Why Paul never quotes Jesus

[Paul the Uncertain]

to admit something I have never denied.

Not never. Your response to my offering a hypothesis with appropriate foundation was

Yes, we can imagine all sorts of scenarios. But that's now how historical research is done.

I assumed that you intended to type not, rather than now, since but suggests a contrast between the clauses it conjoins.

But now that I've remarked on that, it's

All historical research is done "by the formulation of hypotheses".

Your position is unclear. I don't much care whether or not you "admit" one or the other of the positions you've staked out for yourself. I agree with one of them and disagree with the other, and I don't see why you'd think there is something personal in my expressing that opinion.

Finally, on a personal note

My impression is that you are always ready to nip at my heels

I'll just pass on the inappropriateness of likening me to a dog. You and I don't have the kind of relationship where that would come off as friendly banter.

On the merits of your accusation, I respond to very few of your posts, and in some conversations, I hold off participating until somebody else engages you, so that I can address the issue without addressing you personally. Sometimes, I just self-censor rather than express my opinion about something you've claimed.

If you have some other impression, than that's your look-out.

[neilgodfrey]

If you have some other impression, than that's your look-out.

I'm sorry you feel so strongly about my failure to respond to your comments in a way you had hoped. I was not aware of any deep ill-feeling or animosity between us. We simply have very different approaches and aims in discussions such that there is not enough in common to have a productive discussion.

[schillingklaus]

Now we look at the corruptions of the previously described cena in the source of the triple tradition on their way to the cena of Mark and Matthew, which, as we remember, only contained the eschatological words on the cup. After awareness of 1 Cor 23-26, the words on the bread were inserted, in Pauline order, before the words on the cup; and the words of the covenant were inserted on the same cup , not separately, after the action of grace.

Unlike in pseudo-Paul's formulation and its Lukan adaptation, the content of the cup is addressed directly and equated with the blood of Jesus, just as the bread is identified as the flesh of Jesus.

It was not possible this way to re-employ pseudo-Paul's words "and likewise for the cup after the dinner", as Luke did (who had seperated the two cups and placed the bread inbetween).

[Paul the Uncertain]

If I may ask either the OP or the community: How do we know whether or not Paul quoted or paraphrased Jesus?

What's lacking on the received page is Paul acknowledging that he is quoting Jesus. Is that lack of acknowledgment strong grounds for inferring that Paul didn't quote Jesus? Is there a foundation for the apparent assumption that Paul wouldn't use Jesus's teaching without saying each time (or most times) that he was doing so?

After all, if this is an admissible hypothesis for examination,

Others say that it was natural given that the recipients of the letters were familiar with Jesus' sayings or had access to them in some form, so there was no need to repeat them.

Would it not also be admissible to consider whether "it was natural given [recipients' familiarity] with Jesus' sayings ...[that] there was no need for Paul to acknowledge their source?" Or for that matter, perhaps sometimes no need to quote Jesus extensively, but rather to refer to a saying by writing only as much of it as was needed for the saying to be recognized by Paul's first audiences?

[GakuseiDon]

Is there a foundation for the apparent assumption that Paul wouldn't use Jesus's teaching without saying each time (or most times) that he was doing so?

I think the first assumption to address is: Was Paul's Jesus a teacher in the first place? Everything that Paul writes about Jesus pretty much refers to the meaning of his death and how it conforms to scriptures.

The assumption that Jesus was a teacher comes from the Gospels. But if we remove the Gospels from the data being weighed, we don't get that picture from Paul alone.

On the other hand, the gMark writer appears to be aware of Paul's letters and also delves into the scriptures to write his story. So why make a story about a teacher Jesus if Paul's Jesus wasn't a teacher? (It's a rhetorical question since I don't think there is enough evidence to come to a solid conclusion.)

[Paul the Uncertain]

I think the first assumption to address is: Was Paul's Jesus a teacher in the first place? Everything that Paul writes about Jesus pretty much refers to the meaning of his death and how it conforms to scriptures.

That's definitely part of the problem.

There is at least one place where Paul seems to acknowledge Jesus as a source (one part of the divorce-and-remarriage guidelines), and another where Paul narrates an overt episode of Jesus teaching (the explanation of what becomes the ritual eucharist). Paul situates the latter at a reasonably specific time and place (if not clearly denoted unless the audience already knows the context, something which mythicists would say that we the living do not know; fair enough).

If it helps, then my question can be made conditional. On the assumption that Jesus taught, is there a foundation for the apparent additional assumption that Paul wouldn't use Jesus's teaching without saying each time (or most times) that he was doing so?

[GakuseiDon]

If it helps, then my question can be made conditional. On the assumption that Jesus taught, is there a foundation for the apparent additional assumption that Paul wouldn't use Jesus's teaching without saying each time (or most times) that he was doing so?

When we talk about Paul, I think we should always keep him in context with the other texts we have. How many epistles do we have that quote Jesus as we might have expected Paul to quote Jesus? We have epistles in the New Testament that even mythicists believe were written by historicists (e.g. 2 Peter and 1 Timothy) that don't quote Jesus directly.

The challenge is: what is the earliest text which quotes Jesus the way that we would have expected Paul to have quoted Jesus? Without that context to form a baseline for us, it's hard to judge Paul in this regards. His epistles don't seem any different to the other epistles in that regard.

Apologies, it's a slight tangent to what you are asking, but it's important to view Paul in context with the other early writings that we have. Too often the assumption is that Paul is odd, different from other early writers. But that isn't the case. The scarcity of quotes from Jesus is a feature of early writings, at least for the first couple of centuries.

[spin]

When we talk about Paul, I think we should always keep him in context with the other texts we have. How many epistles do we have that quote Jesus as we might have expected Paul to quote Jesus? We have epistles in the New Testament that even mythicists believe were written by historicists (e.g. 2 Peter and 1 Timothy) that don't quote Jesus directly.

It's quite inappropriate to use the 20th century notion "historicist" about people writing 1900+ years ago. They had no idea of historicity. Lucian of Samosata showed in his work "How Not to Write History" that most of those trying to write history had no idea.

The best you can hope for is people writing who believed Jesus to have been real.

The challenge is: what is the earliest text which quotes Jesus the way that we would have expected Paul to have quoted Jesus? Without that context to form a baseline for us, it's hard to judge Paul in this regards. His epistles don't seem any different to the other epistles in that regard.

Apologies, it's a slight tangent to what you are asking, but it's important to view Paul in context with the other early writings that we have. Too often the assumption is that Paul is odd, different from other early writers. But that isn't the case. The scarcity of quotes from Jesus is a feature of early writings, at least for the first couple of centuries.

Given that Paul is our earliest writer on the subject of Jesus, you must not retroject ideas from later works to bring Paul into their fold. Relevance in tradition only goes foward, not backward. We must look at Paul's Jewish cultural background to contextualise and understand him. That's why we look at the LXX, intertestamental works and the works of Philo to develop a picture of Paul. It is out of these that Paul's thought bloomed. And it is out of him that the first Christian literature is derived. You must understand Paul before you can use later literature, not the other way round. So look at the emerging messianic thought comming through the Songs of Solomon and other such works. How does the suffering servant relate to messianism and is Paul the nexus? Is his saviour derived from historical reality or his theological necessity?

And one has to decide how much of Paul's letters is his work and how much is later incrustations, remembering the title of J.C. O'Neill's essay "Paul wrote some of all, but not all of any". Adding to Paul's work helped to bring him into the fold. Consider the Petrine inclusion in Gal 2:7b-8: after Paul talks about the uniqueness of the one gospel, the one he was given by revelation, we learn in Gal 2:7b-8 that there is a gospel to the circumcised, that of the apostle Peter, and one to the uncircumcised, that of Paul. This is the only Pauline passage that mentions Peter. Paul generally uses Cephas, so people make ad hoc excuses for Peter's appearance here. Paul's work preserved by Christian scribes is fair game for orthodox improvement.

[GakuseiDon]

It's quite inappropriate to use the 20th century notion "historicist" about people writing 1900+ years ago.

C'mon, we use modern terms all the time to categorise ancient writings: 'Middle Platonist', 'Neo-Platonist', 'Gnostic', 'mystery religion'. Yes, we need to be careful using modern categories when grouping ancient beliefs, but as long as we ourselves understand the term being used those categories can be useful.

They had no idea of historicity. Lucian of Samosata showed in his work "How Not to Write History" that most of those trying to write history had no idea.

Had no idea about what? History? A 'historicist', as used on this forum, is someone who believes that Jesus appeared at some point on earth in history, so that if we had a time-machine, we could see him with our eyes.

The best you can hope for is people writing who believed Jesus to have been real.

According to some mythicist theories, Paul thought Jesus was real. He just thought that Jesus never came to earth. So it's a little more than that.

To me, using the modern term 'historicist' to refer to the thoughts of ancient people seems useful and non-confusing. But I'm happy to use any terminology as long as it's clear what people mean. I'm an amateur, I haven't any training at all in ancient languages so I'm happy to use whatever people more knowledgeable than myself thinks is best. But we've developed our own amateur terminology on this board. If we can improve on that, I'm happy to use those improvements.

Given that Paul is our earliest writer on the subject of Jesus, you must not retroject ideas from later works to bring Paul into their fold. Relevance in tradition only goes foward, not backward. We must look at Paul's Jewish cultural background to contextualise and understand him. That's why we look at the LXX, intertestamental works and the works of Philo to develop a picture of Paul. It is out of these that Paul's thought bloomed.

I understand your point, and I agree with what you mean, but if the topic is the number of times Paul quotes Jesus, then examining contemporaries and near-contemporaries who wrote letters where Jesus might have been expected to have been quoted must also be useful. Looking at the LXX, intertestamental works and the works of Philo in that regard will be short work! Though obviously they are useful in other contexts.

The problem is that often whenever the topic is "Why did Paul...?", the comparison point is the Gospels. When Paul is put into context with other early writings, the content of Paul isn't so odd or unexpected.

And one has to decide how much of Paul's letters is his work and how much is later incrustations, remembering the title of J.C. O'Neill's essay "Paul wrote some of all, but not all of any". Adding to Paul's work helped to bring him into the fold. Consider the Petrine inclusion in Gal 2:7b-8: after Paul talks about the uniqueness of the one gospel, the one he was given by revelation, we learn in Gal 2:7b-8 that there is a gospel to the circumcised, that of the apostle Peter, and one to the uncircumcised, that of Paul. This is the only Pauline passage that mentions Peter. Paul generally uses Cephas, so people make ad hoc excuses for Peter's appearance here. Paul's work preserved by Christian scribes is fair game for orthodox improvement.

Fair point. Why didn't the Christian scribes add quotes from the Gospel Jesus into Paul, in your opinion? Do you think they thought that Paul's writings didn't need that particular kind of improvement?

[spin]

GakuseiDon, I'm responding by phone, so bear with me...

You are a historicist, in that you apply some notion of historicity to what you consider relevant sources to argue that Jesus participated in life on earth. I understand from what Paul says that he believed Jesus participated in life on earth. What you do here and what Paul does is quite different. In fact most people through the ages have believed like Paul that Jesus had an earthly life. There is no analytical interaction with historical sources involved in that belief. Yes, a lot of people bandy about "historical Jesus" as a modern mantra without understanding it, at best using it in contrast to the magic Jesus notion. It is a misuse. Historical Jesus requires some notion of source-based analysis, rather than simple belief.

To be continued. Battery.