Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by Irish1975 »

We shouldn’t omit:
1 Thss 4:15

For we say this to you by the word of the Lord (Τοῦτο γὰρ ὑμῖν λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου), that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep.
In the Pauline Corpus, there is no basis for distinguishing a remembered tradition of what some possibly historical Jesus said, versus a revealed “word” from the heavenly/resurrected Jesus.

It is only by faith in the canonical story of Acts that anyone can say, “this ‘word of the Lord’ in Paul is a revelation from heaven, whereas that one is a tradition Paul received from other apostles who knew the historical Jesus.
Philologus
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:13 pm

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by Philologus »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 12:34 am
Philologus wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:17 pm Why does Paul never quote Jesus, unambiguously, even in contexts where it would have helped his arguments?

1 Corinthians 7
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Thanks for bringing up those two examples. Before commenting on them, I'll say that, compared to the sheer wealth of Jesus' parables, sayings and teachings that we have elsewhere, the fact that Paul barely managed to mention those two possible quotes does very little to explain the mystery in my opinion.

Nevertheless, the two counterexamples are weak in my view. Beginning with the first one:

1- This passage seems more consistent with Paul's general theme of discouraging marriage altogether than Jesus' supposed new teachings regarding divorce and relevant Jewish laws regarding divorce.

2- The quote itself seems like a strange way to quote someone. Why didn't Paul say, "As Jesus said," instead of saying, "Not I, but the Lord"? The phrasing indicates that he's communicating an original idea, not quoting an existing one that people would have been familiar with. It kind of hints at the thought being a revelation that Paul received, not a quotation that other people heard Jesus say, and so he needed to go out of his way to explicitly disambiguate his personal thoughts from revelations he was sharing.

3- Given (1) and (2), it appears to be more likely that the anti-divorce narrative in later traditions actually derived from Paul, if anything, and built on it. Rather than being a guideline for believers to follow (as it first was), it later became an overturning of Mosaic law and a sin.

4- Even if we assume that that passage from Paul is in fact a direct quote from the earthly Jesus, it actually does not necessarily constitute an original teaching, but is rather more consistent with an apocalyptic leader who thought there was not much time for marriage and divorce. The language in Paul does not have the same legalistic phrasing of overturning a law and equating violators with adulterers. So it can be argued that this counterexample is not really a counterexample at all.

1 Corinthians 11

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night 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, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

I also view this as a weak counterexample. It does not constitute an original teaching of Jesus but, if we assume its authenticity, is nothing more than a soon-to-be-martyred leader saying his last words to his followers. My argument was not that Jesus literally never said anything. I meant to say that he never taught anything new. His significance to his early followers had absolutely nothing to do with any new teachings, but rather his role in an apocalyptic movement that ended with him being executed. As such, the idea of Jesus being a wisdom teacher who had many clever things to teach and routinely impressed his audience and humiliated his opponents seems like a wholesale invention by later generations.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

Philologus wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:42 amMy argument was not that Jesus literally never said anything. I meant to say that he never taught anything new.
is not there the risk of begging the question? If Jesus was not original, then what did the difference, given the fact that there were a lot of apocalypticists in the region?

A good explanation is that, differently from other apocalypticists, the historical Jesus introduced only the original meme that the temple had to be destroyed/purified, so the pauline metaphor of the new temple etc could be easily a new variant of it.

Even so, a prophecy on the coming purification/destruction of the temple would require by Jesus the probable appeal to (not only divine) violence.
Philologus
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:13 pm

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by Philologus »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 12:24 pm
Philologus wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:42 amMy argument was not that Jesus literally never said anything. I meant to say that he never taught anything new.
is not there the risk of begging the question? If Jesus was not original, then what did the difference, given the fact that there were a lot of apocalypticists in the region?

A good explanation is that, differently from other apocalypticists, the historical Jesus introduced only the original meme that the temple had to be destroyed/purified, so the pauline metaphor of the new temple etc could be easily a new variant of it.

Even so, a prophecy on the coming purification/destruction of the temple would require by Jesus the probable appeal to (not only divine) violence.
Why did Jesus have to have original teachings to be different or unique? What would that explain?

If you're talking about the success of Christianity, there are plenty of factors that have nothing to do with Jesus. For example, the overlapping political and social events, the capture and traumatic execution of Jesus, the conversion of an extremely effective proselytizer (Paul), the proximity of the destruction of the Temple, the subsequent conversion of countless non-Jews in the following centuries (which was Paul's doing), etc.

It is very conceivable that all of the above would have happened with any other apocalyptic leader. Sometimes a figure just happens to be in the right place. No original teachings or ideas are needed.
Philologus
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:13 pm

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by Philologus »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 2:37 am The parables are unprecedented, and you want to suggest that someone just made them up as fillers? Why, how, where from?
I'm assuming you must agree that someone did in fact make up the parables. It's only a question of who.

Scholars agree that many of the parables do not go back to Jesus himself. So it is conceivable that none of them do. There seems to be an agreement that later Christian communities invented parables, teachings, and sayings that they attributed to Jesus. There's nothing extraordinary about this thread's hypothesis.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 3:35 am Paul quotes very a lot the Risen Christ.
Which passages do you mean?
davidlau17
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:45 am

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by davidlau17 »

Paul was a fervently spiritual man who liked to boast about his own revelations. He would prefer to paraphrase a ghost rather than to regurgitate whatever others claimed Jesus to have said in the flesh. Why is that so inconceivable?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by Ken Olson »

Philologus wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:42 am Nevertheless, the two counterexamples are weak in my view. Beginning with the first one:

1- This passage seems more consistent with Paul's general theme of discouraging marriage altogether than Jesus' supposed new teachings regarding divorce and relevant Jewish laws regarding divorce.

2- The quote itself seems like a strange way to quote someone. Why didn't Paul say, "As Jesus said," instead of saying, "Not I, but the Lord"? The phrasing indicates that he's communicating an original idea, not quoting an existing one that people would have been familiar with. It kind of hints at the thought being a revelation that Paul received, not a quotation that other people heard Jesus say, and so he needed to go out of his way to explicitly disambiguate his personal thoughts from revelations he was sharing.
This doesn't have a direct bearing on the question of whether the sayings on divorce that Paul attributes to Jesus were really spoken by the historical Jesus or not. The linked video does explain, however, from the POV of a (or the) leading expert on Paul, something about the context of the prohibition of divorce and why Paul distinguishes between what he is saying from what the Lord had said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZNijc_-4Lk&t=3s

It's kind of a long video, so if you don't want to watch the whole thing, this may be helpful:

00:00 Introducing the speaker
04:50 E.P. Sanders introduces the topic of whether Paul's sexual ethics are relevant to us today
18:00 The eschatological context of 1 Cor. 7
24:00 The background of Jesus' prohibition of divorce
28:48 Paul's distinction between what Jesus had said and what Paul is now saying

Best,

Ken
Philologus
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:13 pm

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by Philologus »

davidlau17 wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:30 pm Paul was a fervently spiritual man who liked to boast about his own revelations. He would prefer to paraphrase a ghost rather than to regurgitate whatever others claimed Jesus to have said in the flesh. Why is that so inconceivable?
That's a good theory. Paul expressed what sounded like jealousy, if we may call it that, of the apostles who knew Jesus and stressed on multiple occasions that his status is just as important.

It wouldn't be surprising if he intentionally ignored all the material attributed to the earthly Jesus because none of it mattered in his mind.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

Philologus wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 1:08 pm
Why did Jesus have to have original teachings to be different or unique? What would that explain?
I think that it is a rational question, to ask: why just Jesus ? Why not Theudas? Why not Judas the Galilean? Why not Jesus b. Ananias? Etc...
Post Reply