Why Paul never quotes Jesus

[davidlau17]

If the historian's first task is to try to establish what can be independently known about the origin of the sources, I don't know how we justify reading any of Paul's letters as if they were penned in the mid first century.

Paul indicates that the temple is still standing in Jerusalem with its sacrificial systems still running (1 Corinthians 10:18, Romans 9:4), and frequently mentions Jerusalem as a viable destination. Each of these seem to indicate a situation in Judea before the year 70.

[ABuddhist]

If the historian's first task is to try to establish what can be independently known about the origin of the sources, I don't know how we justify reading any of Paul's letters as if they were penned in the mid first century.

Paul indicates that the temple is still standing in Jerusalem with its sacrificial systems still running (1 Corinthians 10:18, Romans 9:4), and frequently mentions Jerusalem as a viable destination. Each of these seem to indicate a situation in Judea before the year 70.

With all due respect, a forger trying to create documents from an earlier period (such as, in this case, the 1st century CE) could easily make such references.

[davidlau17]

With all due respect, a forger trying to create documents from an earlier period (such as, in this case, the 1st century CE) could easily make such references.

At that point, we'd have to accept that all of Paul's letters were forged. We would essentially be concluding that Paul was just a legendary character. It's possible, but it's a conclusion without any internal evidence to back it up.

In a less dramatic alternative, we could conclude that any 1st century CE references were interpolated. But this would be a case of simply assuming interpolation whenever a text doesn't fit a hypothesis.

[GakuseiDon]

What is the theological argument in the scriptures for the general resurrection? I'm guessing that some of the early converted Christians were converted from Sadduccees or those of similar beliefs, so they didn't believe in a general resurrection. It appears that there was an on-going debate amongst the Jews around a resurrection of the dead.

I thought your point was that the Acts passage was evidence that Paul convinced people that Jesus was Christ on the basis of the scriptures, and that same Acts passage says that that proof involved Christ's resurrection from the dead.

Yes, but a general resurrection of the dead is the issue. That's what's being argued in 1 Cor 15, where apparently some Christians believed that Christ was raised but didn't believe in a general resurrection of the dead. Paul argues against them by linking it to Christ's resurrection: he argues that if they believe that Christ was raised (which they apparently did), then they have to also believe that there is also a general resurrection of the dead.

The idea of a general physical resurrection of the dead is one that was never resolved, at least in popular Christianity. Do we lie sleeping in our graves until the End Times when our physical bodies are resurrected, or is it that when we die our spirits go to heaven and that's the last we ever see of our physical bodies? Those different points of views exist in popular Christianity despite most Christians agreeing that Christ was physically resurrected. (Imagine what Gnostics would have felt about those ideas!)

[ABuddhist]

With all due respect, a forger trying to create documents from an earlier period (such as, in this case, the 1st century CE) could easily make such references.

At that point, we'd have to accept that all of Paul's letters were forged. We would essentially be concluding that Paul was just a legendary character. It's possible, but it's a conclusion without any internal evidence to back it up.

In a less dramatic alternative, we could conclude that any 1st century CE references were interpolated. But this would be a case of simply assuming interpolation whenever a text doesn't fit a hypothesis.

I am not saying that I disagree with your overall point, but I would rephrase it as:

At that point, we may have to have to accept that all of Paul's letters were forged, which may in turn lead us to conclude that Paul was just a legendary character. It's possible, but it's a conclusion without any internal evidence to back it up.

In a less dramatic alternative, we could conclude that any 1st century CE references were interpolated. But this may be a case of simply assuming interpolation whenever a text doesn't fit a hypothesis.

[neilgodfrey]

What is the theological argument in the scriptures for the general resurrection? I'm guessing that some of the early converted Christians were converted from Sadduccees or those of similar beliefs, so they didn't believe in a general resurrection. It appears that there was an on-going debate amongst the Jews around a resurrection of the dead.

I thought your point was that the Acts passage was evidence that Paul convinced people that Jesus was Christ on the basis of the scriptures, and that same Acts passage says that that proof involved Christ's resurrection from the dead.

Yes, but a general resurrection of the dead is the issue. That's what's being argued in 1 Cor 15, where apparently some Christians believed that Christ was raised but didn't believe in a general resurrection of the dead. Paul argues against them by linking it to Christ's resurrection: he argues that if they believe that Christ was raised (which they apparently did), then they have to also believe that there is also a general resurrection of the dead.

The idea of a general physical resurrection of the dead is one that was never resolved, at least in popular Christianity. Do we lie sleeping in our graves until the End Times when our physical bodies are resurrected, or is it that when we die our spirits go to heaven and that's the last we ever see of our physical bodies? Those different points of views exist in popular Christianity despite most Christians agreeing that Christ was physically resurrected. (Imagine what Gnostics would have felt about those ideas!)

So why did Paul not argue for the general resurrection on the basis of Scripture, too? He had enough data -- Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, are fairly obvious references. Why did he resort to a lot of analogies from nature instead, like a pagan philosopher, thus confusing his point, in your view, that he was trying to prove the general resurrection from Christ's resurrection?

[Charles Wilson]

'N what of Jairus' Daughter? Lazarus? Does ORDER of Resurrection matter? If God couldn't raise Lazarus four days dead but Jesus could, what Dynamics are at work here?

Interpretation of Statments made to cover new ideas ("...but he was speaking of the Temple of his body..." does NOT imply that "Jesus" was 46 years old. A pointer to a completely different set of facts turns a story into a shambles since "Existence MUST be a Predicate...") makes understanding problematic.

Which leaves the OP a good question...

[neilgodfrey]

Re the side-discussion on the dating of Paul's letters, my original remark was only intended to underscore a fundamental principle found in other historical research. Yes, the letters need to be understood in their own terms, but when we seek to explain what they say in terms of a specific context that is not otherwise verified, then we are in the realm of speculation.

[GakuseiDon]

Yes, but a general resurrection of the dead is the issue. That's what's being argued in 1 Cor 15, where apparently some Christians believed that Christ was raised but didn't believe in a general resurrection of the dead. Paul argues against them by linking it to Christ's resurrection: he argues that if they believe that Christ was raised (which they apparently did), then they have to also believe that there is also a general resurrection of the dead.

The idea of a general physical resurrection of the dead is one that was never resolved, at least in popular Christianity. Do we lie sleeping in our graves until the End Times when our physical bodies are resurrected, or is it that when we die our spirits go to heaven and that's the last we ever see of our physical bodies? Those different points of views exist in popular Christianity despite most Christians agreeing that Christ was physically resurrected. (Imagine what Gnostics would have felt about those ideas!)

So why did Paul not argue for the general resurrection on the basis of Scripture, too? He had enough data -- Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, are fairly obvious references. Why did he resort to a lot of analogies from nature instead, like a pagan philosopher, thus confusing his point, in your view, that he was trying to prove the general resurrection from Christ's resurrection?

I'm sure that a lot of early converted Christians actually did believe in a general resurrection of the dead based on Scriptures. But apparently there were some -- the 'Sadducee' Christians (not to mention pagan converts) -- who did not. It's those that Paul addresses:

1 Cor 15.12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

So some were not convinced.

Tertullian wrote two books that look at the subject: one was on the flesh of Christ, and the other on the 'fleshly' general resurrection of the dead:
1. On the Flesh of Christ
1. On the Resurrection of the Flesh

In the latter, Tertullian refers to 'Sadducee' Christians:

Since there is even within the confines of God's Church a sect which is more nearly allied to the Epicureans than to the prophets, an opportunity is afforded us of knowing what estimate Christ forms of the (said sect, even the) Sadducees. For to Christ was it reserved to lay bare everything which before was concealed: to impart certainty to doubtful points; to accomplish those of which men had had but a foretaste; to give present reality to the objects of prophecy; and to furnish not only by Himself, but actually in Himself, certain proofs of the resurrection of the dead. It is, however, against other Sadducees that we have now to prepare ourselves, but still partakers of their doctrine. For instance, they allow a moiety of the resurrection; that is, simply of the soul, despising the flesh, just as they also do the Lord of the flesh Himself...
...
Besides, no question could be raised whether we are to marry or die again or not, without involving in doubt the restoration most especially of that substance which has a particular relation both to death and marriage--that is, the flesh. Thus, then, you have the Lord affirming against the Jewish heretics what is now encountering the denial of the Christian Sadducees--the resurrection of the entire man...

For the pagans, there were philosophical arguments against the 'fleshly' resurrection of the dead. One that pops up is this: a fisherman dies at sea. He is eaten by fish, so his flesh becomes part of the fish. The fish is caught and eaten by another fisherman, so the fish becomes part of the flesh of the second fisherman. When the resurrection happens, who gets the flesh? Interesting stuff!

[schillingklaus]

Now I will outline how the interpolated 1 Cor 11:23-26 served to shape Luke's cena. It is bets imaginable with interlinear or marginal glosses, frequently employed by copyists and translators of old. Differences of the Lukan recensions of the cena can be now explained byb different strategies to integrate the glosses into the pre-synoptic cena.

It is important to see that there is a great variety of reading variants of the Lukan cena. Compared to the pre-synoptic version, the words on the bread have been inserted, and the words on teh cup were often updated. But there are two possibilities for the insertion of the bread: Right after the words on the paschal meats, or at the very end of the original cena.

Cureton's version inserts just the bread and leaves the words on the cup essentially unadultered, videlicet, there are only the eschatological words. This preserves the Pauline order bread-cup (although Paul only writes the words of the cup of the coveneant) .

Beza D places the bread after the eschatological words on the cup, violatibng the order bread-cup; but it has the esthetical advantage to leave the eschatological pair (meat and cup) of pre-Lukan tradition unadultered.

Many other recensions, however, do also insert the words on the cup of the covenant. Note that by identifying the content of the cup physically as the blood of the Christ, previously established equivalence of pseudo-Paul's formulation of the words of the covenant and the eschatological words is violated beyond recognition.

The received text of Luke is of a long recension, with the order paschal meat - eschatological cup - bread - cup of the covenant. This is the only version of the cena which employs two cups.