Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by davidmartin »

Why should Paul quote Jesus? His system doesn't require it
A body of sayings associated with a historical Jesus and interpretations thereof would undermine his authority if they didn't align with his own teaching
I think he is choosing to ignore the existence of them, which people misrepresent as indicating they did not exist when it's obvious that Paul is self confident in his own ideas. So what people do is ignore Paul's self confidence and assume something. They assume that even though Paul didn't need the words of a historical Jesus, the fact he omits them is proof they didn't exist. But if he didn't need them, why would he quote them?
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by Irish1975 »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:42 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:07 am 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.
Thanks for the reference.

It's odd that people are saying that Paul "doesn't quote Jesus" like it's an established fact.

We've seen from spin that this can be maintained by arguing that (a) the Paul doesn't refer to Jesus as "the Lord" and (b) that 1 Cor 11 is interpolated. However, neither of these are matters of fact. I'm pretty sure that someone could maintain that either or both are plausibly not true. In which case, it's at least plausible that Paul did "quote Jesus." Maybe more than that, depending on what you think of the interpolation hypothesis and the identification of the Lord as not being Jesus hypothesis.
I basically agree with this. In general I think we're better off without the rhetoric of "established facts"; but certainly on this topic.
that 1 Cor 11 is interpolated
IIUC, spin's claim is that Paul's Last Supper narrative (1 Cor 11:23-26) was inserted into the Pauline corpus by someone who wrote or at least knew the Last Supper narrative of the Gospels (primarily Luke). This conclusion may or may not follow from spin's other claim, presented in a new thread (to which I will respond at some point), that Paul does not refer to Jesus when he speaks of "the Lord" w/o qualification. But here I just want to remark on my own reasons for doubting an interpolation at 1 Cor 11:23-26. (Interpolation theories in general are tied up with claims of authenticity, but that's for a different discussion.)

The passage in 1 Cor coheres poorly, in at least two critical respects, with the framework of Gospels-Acts.

First because there is the Pauline confession that he received the whole thing directly from the Lord, not from the church or any brothers or other apostles or disciples of the HJ.
Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου (11:23)
It's hard to believe that an editor would have interpolated the story in this way if, at a late time in the editorial process, they were merely inserting a Pauline version of the Last Supper to complement that of the Gospels. Since the Gospels place the Last Supper in historical time, before Jesus' death and resurrection and before Paul was anywhere in sight, Paul should have had no direct knowledge of it.

Another problem is that since the editors are framing Paul's entire testimony in the epistles as a post-Resurrection testimony, why would they have him "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Cor 11:26) but not his resurrection?

Arguments from incoherence are often faulty or fallacious, but I think this one is sound. Both the question of direct apostolic revelation and authority, and the question of Jesus' resurrection, are so fundamental, that I don't see this passage being included in the canonical NT unless it was already an integral part of the Pauline tradition, before Gospels/Acts took center stage.
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: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:16 amIIUC, spin's claim is that Paul's Last Supper narrative (1 Cor 11:23-26) was inserted into the Pauline corpus by someone who wrote or at least knew the Last Supper narrative of the Gospels (primarily Luke).
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.

To understand my issues with 1 Cor 11:23-27 I did a write-up here.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by schillingklaus »

No, there is no dependence ofg the Lukan cena on Mark's but on prior pre-canonical sources. Only Markan priorists hallucinate a dependence of the Lukan cena on the Markan one.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by spin »

schillingklaus wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:55 pm No, there is no dependence ofg the Lukan cena on Mark's but on prior pre-canonical sources. Only Markan priorists hallucinate a dependence of the Lukan cena on the Markan one.
We need evidence, not assertions.
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 »

spin wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:01 pm
schillingklaus wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:55 pm No, there is no dependence ofg the Lukan cena on Mark's but on prior pre-canonical sources. Only Markan priorists hallucinate a dependence of the Lukan cena on the Markan one.
We need evidence, not assertions.
It's fairly evident that Luke is mainly "Marcion" yet that it got greatly expanded, and naturally those expansions come from elsewhere, and Mark is one possible choice for any scenario - of course.

Mark 4:21 He said to them, "Is the lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed? Isn't it put on a stand?

Luke 8:16 "No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a container, or puts it under a bed; but puts it on a stand, that those who enter in may see the light

It is evident that Luke gets the bed from Mark here - just as evident as this entire story originating from pre-canonical sources. Both can be true, it's not like one precludes the other

viewtopic.php?p=125462#p125462 for the full story
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by spin »

The subject we were dealing with was the relationship between 1 Cor 11:23b-25 and the last supper accounts in the synoptic gospels!
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 »

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!
True. Just demonstrating that a text can be based on more than one source - but I'll get back to that last turn in this thread.
καινὴ forms a very interesting link here, being a rare synonym for 'new'. Follow the word in the Gospels. Make sure to look for καιν so you'll find καινὸν as well

μνημεῖον (a tomb) καινόν (new) is no accident either

But how do you ascertain the link between Corinthians and the gospels? I've gone back a few pages in this thread but can't find anything on it
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Why Paul never quotes Jesus

Post by davidmartin »

I think Paul should be approached in a totally neutral fashion - the Pauline gospel is a standalone and unique entity - just as it says of itself
It confesses that it doesn't depend on prior teachings. That it makes use of Hebrew scriptures is irrelevant to our purposes

So on one level it doesn't make sense that Paul doesn't make quoting Jesus foundational
On another level it makes perfect sense since his gospel doesn't require it

So what I am saying is taking Paul's lack of Jesus quotations as evidence that they did not exist is flimsy and non-sensical
All it means is that to make his point Paul didn't feel any need to quote them, and if others felt that need then he didn't
This is not to plunge the analysis into chaos - it's merely to acknowledge the possibilities of multiple levels of importance attached to such sayings, and that Paul is one of those who didn't witness such importance. The Pauline school of thought denies he said anything of value it doesn't say it didn't exist
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 »

davidmartin wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:44 am I think Paul should be approached in a totally neutral fashion - the Pauline gospel is a standalone and unique entity - just as it says of itself
It confesses that it doesn't depend on prior teachings. That it makes use of Hebrew scriptures is irrelevant to our purposes

So on one level it doesn't make sense that Paul doesn't make quoting Jesus foundational
On another level it makes perfect sense since his gospel doesn't require it

So what I am saying is taking Paul's lack of Jesus quotations as evidence that they did not exist is flimsy and non-sensical
All it means is that to make his point Paul didn't feel any need to quote them, and if others felt that need then he didn't
This is not to plunge the analysis into chaos - it's merely to acknowledge the possibilities of multiple levels of importance attached to such sayings, and that Paul is one of those who didn't witness such importance. The Pauline school of thought denies he said anything of value it doesn't say it didn't exist
The entire implication of this thread only now dawns to me

Paul definitely is working on "sayings of Jesus", he's just not selling them as such. The flesh, the body, the circumcision, the soul, (not) abolishing the law - it's all there, in plain sight

Peter pointed there already, viewtopic.php?p=131650#p131650

He also reveals that he did get them (dunno whether that's original or not):

Galatians 1:11 For I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

I'd agree with
GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:25 pm But, as I've said many times, the wider scope is that Paul rarely quotes anyone directly, not just Jesus; and Paul rarely gives time and place about anything, not just Jesus (whether earthly or celestial).
Paul's main mission seems to be to establish as truth the existence of a relatively global presence of "his religion" by making up all the churches so conveniently located far away. He defends material that we only, or at least mainly, know from "the Jesus as we know him" presented in the Gospels and other texts, yet indeed he never ever quotes - or rather, cites - anyone or anything

This is not about any Jesus being historical or not, that has nothing to do with any of it - all of us can quote Harry Potter (with or without saying "Harry Potter said ..") and we all know that, as a character in a story, "he is for real". None of any story every is any proof of anyone's real existence

The OP best redefines what it's all about:
Philologus wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 5:35 pm I believe Paul's silence is odd without comparing it to any texts. And I don't believe we need to.

The entire point of Paul's life's career at that point was Jesus. All the contents of his letters are directly or indirectly about Jesus. How is it not odd that he doesn't quote Jesus?
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
?
Post Reply