Why Paul never quotes Jesus

[spin]

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.

The kappa infix is a morpheme, so plainly we are dealing with morphology. Jesus.

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?

I find this like a vehicle you're in that you aren't in control of. The translation isn't accurate. It's interpretive. The "lordly day" would be much safer. Here is the phrase in Obadiah 15: ημερα κυριου. That's similar to Mal 4:5 and the same as 1 Thes 5:2. If you want to say "the day of the Lord", it's that simple. You need to explain why you want to translate something else in the same way as that. Yet for some reason, you find yourself forced to assert the orthodox line with hokey appeals to English analogies no less. Deal with what the text actually says; don't just rehearse the accepted dogma.

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.

To give you back a hokey English analogy, if I say, "it's a sunny day" are you going to insist that can be read as a "it's a day of the sun"? (Just feed back in here some of the nonsense you were saying with your Biden administration spiel.)

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.

This all means you didn't grasp the motivation for reading the phrase neutrally as "lordly meal".

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."

Would you really like to reassert that κυριακον δειπνον means the same as δειπνον κυριου? That's what you've been asserting on nothing but hokey English analogies.

...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.

That just means you still haven't read the material. I linked to it a page or so back.

Paul doesn't allow you to reach such a conclusion with his expression.

Funny.

Thanks for the hand waving.

That's how I intended to leave, and should have left, this post of yours. I really don't like picking through the wreckage these days.

[davidlau17]

I think it should also be noted that the letters fail to mention a single miracle that Jesus supposedly performed. A striking omission, considering the fact that, according to the gospels, he performed so many of them. If Paul was trying to convince his audience (a superstitious lot) of the divinity of Jesus, any mention of miraculous feats would be useful to his cause.

[davidmartin]

I think it should also be noted that the letters fail to mention a single miracle that Jesus supposedly performed. A striking omission, considering the fact that, according to the gospels, he performed so many of them. If Paul was trying to convince his audience (a superstitious lot) of the divinity of Jesus, any mention of miraculous feats would be useful to his cause.

interesting point, even the later Hebrews text doesn't mention these or any words (except prayers) either
all this is confusing but it might be expected if there were some disconnect between the original movement and the Pauline type of Christianity, which maybe found it more of an advantage to consciously ignore such things than to make us of them, kind of like a reboot. As has been pointed out on here before the idea of a logos and intermediary was fertile ground already and Paul uses this concept far more than the messiah idea (i'm not even sure he identifies Jesus with the messiah anywhere). Thus the rebooted Paul Christianity would be at odds with non-rebooted original while sharing many similarities
I can easily see why all this gives fuel to doubt Jesus existed at all but i think it's more likely there's some other explanation

[schillingklaus]

On to the next interpolated passage of the Markan cena, the cup of the new covenant. Unlike 1 Cor 11 23-26, the late patcher of Mark lets Jesus talk about the content of the cup, not the cup itself; but this is absurd after the cup has been passed around and emptied. It makes no difference for the eschatological words.

So the source text of the triple tradition only contained the eschatological cup, which Jesus would not drink again before being in the kingdom come. This attempted to provide an etiological account for the wine in the non-Jewish celebrations of the eucharist, celebrations which had originally only known the bread, the etiological myth for it being the account of the feeding miracles.

Next I will address the changes made by a pre-Lukan redactor to the text of the triple tradition.

[Irish1975]

...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.

That just means you still haven't read the material. I linked to it a page or so back.

No, I read it.

It's a nasty habit to allege that someone who doesn't agree with you must not have read or understood what you've argued. All it does is undermine your credibility.

The following excerpt epitomizes the hopelessly circular nature of the argument in that thread for the claim that Mark-->Luke-->1 Cor

The relationship between Luke & 1 Cor should be evident from the above, so the simplest conclusion from the data is that 1 Cor used Luke as its source for the last supper. One could try the approach of those who deny the existence of Q (by claiming Luke used Mark & Matt) and posit that Luke used both Mark and 1 Cor, though that has nothing to support it, so we are left with a chronological order for the development we see in the text of the last supper of Mark to Luke to 1 Cor.

The logical form of which, if "p" = the claim that Mark-->Luke-->1 Cor, is:

1. p is the simplest conclusion
2. Perhaps not-p
3. But not-p has nothing to support it
4. Therefore, p


The obvious alternative to Mark-->Luke-->1 Cor is that

1 Cor-->Mark/Marcion/Matthew/Luke

--but this isn't even considered.

If A and B are correlated, it is invalid to infer or assume that A caused B. One has to consider the possibility that B caused A, or that some other factor caused both A and B. Elementary stuff.

The fact that there are close verbal agreements between Luke (or Mark) and 1 Cor does not warrant any conclusion about which came first.

Anyone who worries that I might be misrepresenting that thread can judge for themselves--

Now for the Lukan source:

Mt 26	Mk 14	Lk 22	1 Cor 11
26 ...Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, λαβων ο ιησους αρτον ευλογησας εκλασεν	22 ...he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, λαβων αρτον ευλογησας εκλασεν	19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it και λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας εκλασεν	23 ...[he] took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it ελαβεν αρτον και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν
and gave it to the disciples, και δους τοις μαθηταις	and gave it to them, και εδωκεν αυτοις	and gave it to them, και εδωκεν αυτοις
and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." και ειπεν λαβετε φαγετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου	and said, "Take; this is my body." και ειπεν λαβετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου	saying, "This is my body, λεγων τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου	and said, "This is my body και ειπεν τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα
		which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν	that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." το υπερ υμων τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; και λαβων ποτηριον ευχαριστησας εδωκεν αυτοις λεγων πιετε εξ αυτου παντες	23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. και λαβων ποτηριον ευχαριστησας εδωκεν αυτοις και επιον εξ αυτου παντες	20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, και το ποτηριον ωσαυτως μετα το δειπνησαι	25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, ωσαυτως και το ποτηριον μετα το δειπνησαι
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. τουτο γαρ εστιν το αιμα μου της καινη διαθηκης το περι πολλων εκχυννομενον εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων	24 He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. και ειπεν αυτοις τουτο εστιν τω αιμα μου της διαθηκης το εκχυννομενον υπερ πολλων	saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood that is poured out for you." λεγων τουτο το ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη εν τω αιματι μου υπερ υμων εκχυννομενον	saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. λεγων τουτο το ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη εστιν εν τω εμω αιματι

Luke is working from Mark and improving his source. The specific agreements between Luke & the other synoptics against 1 Cor are in azure. Those between Luke & 1 Cor against the other synoptics are in yellow. The one example between 1 Cor and the other synoptics against Luke is in green (and I put that one occasion down as cross fertilization by a copyist). The relationship between Luke & 1 Cor should be evident from the above, so the simplest conclusion from the data is that 1 Cor used Luke as its source for the last supper. One could try the approach of those who deny the existence of Q (by claiming Luke used Mark & Matt) and posit that Luke used both Mark and 1 Cor, though that has nothing to support it, so we are left which a chronological order for the development we see in the text of the last supper of Mark to Luke to 1 Cor. This doesn't make sense, as 1 Cor was written before Mark, so it strengthens the case for the last supper material in 1 Cor being a later inclusion.

The effect of the inclusion of verses 23-27 was to confuse Paul's argument, for its reference to "body" separates the term's use in v.29 from the earlier part of his discourse and in so doing had the interesting effect of causing a secondary interpolation as a misguided explanation of "body" in v.29. Codex Sinaiticus includes a 7th century second corrector's effort to clarify "body" as "body of the Lord". The same correction was later made in Codex Ephraemi and onwards into the 14th century. Paul intended the "body" in v.29 to refer to that of the individual engaging in his lordly feast, but later readers lost sight of Paul's discourse through the inclusion of last supper and read the "body" as that "of the lord".

In sum:

1. Paul's discourse relates to a communal meal of an association of brothers, not a reenactment of the last supper.

2. Verses 23-27 add nothing to the discourse and do not follow from the context. It has only the most generic lexical hook onto what precedes it, ie "for" (γαρ), and nothing really to hang it on. And there is nothing made of verses 23-27 in what now follows, no development from anything in the verses. The best that can be said is that it deals with a meal of sorts.

3. Verses 23-27 break the structure of Paul's argument—a structure outlined in the first table above.

4. Verses 23-27 contain as use of "the Lord" which unexplainably conflicts with that in v.32. (It also reflects a use of the term which is unprecedented in the literary milieu Paul was writing in).

5. Verses 23bii-24 reflect a version of the last supper dependent on Luke, which is an apparent anachronism. (Working from Pervo & Tyson, Luke was written a centry after Paul.)

6. The inclusion of verses 23-27 confused later readers, as seen by a later interpolation in v.29.

It's too bad, because the hypothesis itself is not obviously false, and deserves some respect as one possible interpretation. But the argument entirely begs the question.

[Irish1975]

There is no morphological issue. No one disputes that κυριακὸς is an adjective.

The kappa infix is a morpheme, so plainly we are dealing with morphology. Jesus.

Lol. It's fine to impress the rubes with fancy words like "infix" and "morpheme," but everyone can see that you're not even saying what "the morphological issue" is.

If you care to cite an authoritative lexicon or grammar of koine Greek to the effect that this type of adjective (κυριακός, -ή, -όν) means something special over against a genitive noun, go for it. Otherwise, you got nothing.

[spin]

Now for the Lukan source:

Mt 26	Mk 14	Lk 22	1 Cor 11
26 ...Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, λαβων ο ιησους αρτον ευλογησας εκλασεν	22 ...he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, λαβων αρτον ευλογησας εκλασεν	19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it και λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας εκλασεν	23 ...[he] took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it ελαβεν αρτον και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν
and gave it to the disciples, και δους τοις μαθηταις	and gave it to them, και εδωκεν αυτοις	and gave it to them, και εδωκεν αυτοις
and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." και ειπεν λαβετε φαγετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου	and said, "Take; this is my body." και ειπεν λαβετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου	saying, "This is my body, λεγων τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου	and said, "This is my body και ειπεν τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα
		which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν	that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." το υπερ υμων τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; και λαβων ποτηριον ευχαριστησας εδωκεν αυτοις λεγων πιετε εξ αυτου παντες	23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. και λαβων ποτηριον ευχαριστησας εδωκεν αυτοις και επιον εξ αυτου παντες	20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, και το ποτηριον ωσαυτως μετα το δειπνησαι	25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, ωσαυτως και το ποτηριον μετα το δειπνησαι
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. τουτο γαρ εστιν το αιμα μου της καινη διαθηκης το περι πολλων εκχυννομενον εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων	24 He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. και ειπεν αυτοις τουτο εστιν τω αιμα μου της διαθηκης το εκχυννομενον υπερ πολλων	saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood that is poured out for you." λεγων τουτο το ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη εν τω αιματι μου υπερ υμων εκχυννομενον	saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. λεγων τουτο το ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη εστιν εν τω εμω αιματι

Luke is working from Mark and improving his source. The specific agreements between Luke & the other synoptics against 1 Cor are in azure. Those between Luke & 1 Cor against the other synoptics are in yellow. The one example between 1 Cor and the other synoptics against Luke is in green (and I put that one occasion down as cross fertilization by a copyist). The relationship between Luke & 1 Cor should be evident from the above, so the simplest conclusion from the data is that 1 Cor used Luke as its source for the last supper. One could try the approach of those who deny the existence of Q (by claiming Luke used Mark & Matt) and posit that Luke used both Mark and 1 Cor, though that has nothing to support it, so we are left which a chronological order for the development we see in the text of the last supper of Mark to Luke to 1 Cor. This doesn't make sense, as 1 Cor was written before Mark, so it strengthens the case for the last supper material in 1 Cor being a later inclusion.

Thanks for citing the table.

As you can see there is a literary relationship between Lk and 1 Cor—word-for-word in places, indicated by the yellow highlighted phrases—that is not shared by the other two gospels. There is nothing in the texts to suggest any direct relationship between Mk + Mt and 1 Cor (unless you want to argue for ειπεν in the third row but not the sixth). One has to account for that relationship somehow. At the same time some Marcan material made it into Lk (but not into 1 Cor) which shows a relationship between Mk and Lk (not seen in 1 Cor) and which fits a well known relationship that forms the basis of the synoptic theory and Marcan priority. One has to account for the Mk/Lk relationship as well.

a: Mk > Lk > 1 Cor

can explain the relationships we see and, while

b: 1 Cor > Lk

can explain part of the issue, how does one include Mk so it explains the evidence? Mk contains sufficient material found in Lk but not 1 Cor to force the need for an explanation that is not forthcoming, given the well established Marcan priority regarding Lk. The problem doesn't arise with the first option.

[spin]

Lol. It's fine to impress the rubes with fancy words like "infix" and "morpheme," but everyone can see that you're not even saying what "the morphological issue" is.

If you care to cite an authoritative lexicon or grammar of koine Greek to the effect that this type of adjective (κυριακός, -ή, -όν) means something special over against a genitive noun, go for it. Otherwise, you got nothing.

Would you really like to reassert that κυριακον δειπνον means the same as δειπνον κυριου? That's what you've been asserting on nothing but hokey English analogies.

?

[davidmartin]

so, how come Paul never quotes Jesus. did anyone answer that in the end?
I think because he chooses not to, not that there was nothing to quote but it's either one or or the other
anyone who thinks there was nothing to quote has to grapple with some weighty problems, good luck to them - for example Paul complains about rivals and the existence of the sect before him. If he isn't hallucinating then would those folk have had words of Jesus? If so it's pretty obvious where the synoptics got them from, thus it's most likely Paul chooses not to quote. Simple and clean logic

[Jagd]

There is also a parable of Luke which probably comes from a first century Egyptian novel.

What novel is that?