Why Paul never quotes Jesus

[Jagd]

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

It seems that the common denominator between the Pauline and Gospel traditions are seeing Christ as a source of divine power: in the case of Paul, that is through revelation and scripture, and through the Gospel legends, that is through teachings and miracles. Paul is much more concerned with theological and ecclesiastical issues, esp. in relation to Hebrew scripture, so it is likely his view is tied to the "learned" proto-clergy, while the Gospels reflect narratives that would've been shared with the laypersons. That being said, this can all trace back to an older form of Christianity that is a general mysticism based on the eucharist and the notion of eternal life, both of which have many cognates in the Eastern Mediterranean mystery religions.

So at first you have a vague divine figure of Christ (so ambiguous that it isn't clear if he is solely earthly, solely heavenly, an incarnation, an apparition, etc.) and then Paul and the original Gospel authors draw different pictures of who their Christ is - and in both cases, there is no hint of a historical person (aside from the historical setting of the Gospels, which in many major ways is an inaccurate portrait of 1st century Judaea and Judaism). After them, people kept the Pauline scriptural-hyperlinking tradition up and interpolated the heck out of the Gospels, trying to turn them into the Tanakh 2.0 and their Christ into a deeply eclectic idea of a messiah.

[davidlau17]

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

I agree. Let's consider what Paul said in Galatians for a bit. Paul had visions/hallucinations of Jesus Christ. He considered this a life-changing, divine revelation. He believed this Jesus Christ figure was someone who had walked the earth, had disciples who walked with him, the "super-apostles", maybe even living family members.

Did he seek out any of these people? No. "I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus" (Galatians 1:16-17). And he waited three years. Finally, he went to Jerusalem (probably on account of another vision) and, even then, he saw only Cephas and James. He does not seem like he was at all interested in whatever Jesus said or did here on Earth.

[John2]

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.

According to 1 Cor. 2:2, Paul appears to have been more concerned about Jesus' crucifixion (which seems like the Philippians hymn in a nutshell, since both are concerned about Jesus' name and his status as Christ and his crucifixion).

For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

[davidmartin]

Paul had visions/hallucinations of Jesus Christ. He considered this a life-changing, divine revelation. He believed this Jesus Christ figure was someone who had walked the earth, had disciples who walked with him, the "super-apostles", maybe even living family members.

Did he seek out any of these people? No. "I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus" (Galatians 1:16-17). And he waited three years. Finally, he went to Jerusalem (probably on account of another vision) and, even then, he saw only Cephas and James. He does not seem like he was at all interested in whatever Jesus said or did here on Earth.

Paul may be the last of the 'apostle' type Christian - who by direct personal revelation becomes an incarnation of Christ. Part of the tension in his gospel is he wants his followers to be like him, but also not like him - he doesn't want these autonomous incarnations running around with their own revelations! The super apostles are incarnations just like Paul, but are not exactly on the same page as him and his gospel, they are rivals

So if it's correct to say Paul isn't interested in what Jesus said or did then the source of that stuff comes from his rivals. We have a ready source of where it might have came from using Paul's own account of rival groups. And sure enough the gospels are far from an ideal fit with the Paul gospel

This little hypothesis relies on Paul's own statements to posit the origin of the gospels in rival Christian sects to Paul's. I think this makes it more explicable how come there's a slightly later offshoot without sayings of Jesus and an earlier grouping that did have them - but the gospels came along 'later' from the earlier rivals. I think without some convoluted explanation it's just impossible to make sense of and I agree - but really this hypothesis isn't convoluted it just takes literally some of the stuff Paul said himself about the existence of his rivals

[spin]

[Paul] does not seem like he was at all interested in whatever Jesus said or did here on Earth.

Had Jesus said or done anything on earth at the time of Paul's writing? We simply assume by convention that the Jerusalem people were "Christian", though nothing indicates that they were. We only hear about Jesus from Paul's mouth. He tells them his salvation gospel in private, but comes away from the meeting unimpressed. We know they were practising Jews, who were not of the traditional line of belief, if traditionally raised Paul harrassed people like them, but beyond that we know little about them. They were probably messianic, if Paul sought some recognition from them. The rest is eisegesis.

[davidmartin]

Had Jesus said or done anything on earth at the time of Paul's writing? We simply assume by convention that the Jerusalem people were "Christian", though nothing indicates that they were. We only hear about Jesus from Paul's mouth. He tells them his salvation gospel in private, but comes away from the meeting unimpressed. We know they were practising Jews, who were not of the traditional line of belief, if traditionally raised Paul harrassed people like them, but beyond that we know little about them. They were probably messianic, if Paul sought some recognition from them. The rest is eisegesis.

It's irrelevant whether it's convention to assume the prior adherents of the Christian sect were Christian, it's just natural when examining the setting Paul describes to see it that way, with the caveat that 'Christian' is loosely defined at this point. Otherwise how come he has rivals? Are they not rivals within the same broader movement? The movement which has existed long enough to split into competing sects - a situation continued all the way down to the heresiologist's reports of the mid 2nd century. Why make Paul the starting point when even he admits he is the last apostle and not worthy to be called one?
What you are implying is that Paul is coming at them with something completely new and invented, but that clashes with Paul's own reports of rival teachers existing before him. I think Paul likely was revolutionary and his cross gospel may have been new within a broader movement but that can't eclipse that he is self admitted last in line of apostles
I think this is where the mythicist position founders, we are expected to ignore the evidence of the earliest witness himself that he wasn't the earliest witness there's just something screwy with that.
Correct to say we know little about the 'Jerusalem people' so let's leave it a blank canvas there's no reason to assume anything about them beyond they existed, who they were or what they were is unknown

[spin]

It's irrelevant whether it's convention to assume the prior adherents of the Christian sect were Christian,

Did the Jerusalem people know anything about Jesus before Paul told them his gospel? I think that is quite a relevant question.

Paul is our earliest writer on the subject of Jesus. Working from Paul's letters is there any reason to believe that there were earlier believers?

it's just natural when examining the setting Paul describes to see it that way, with the caveat that 'Christian' is loosely defined at this point. Otherwise how come he has rivals? Are they not rivals within the same broader movement? The movement which has existed long enough to split into competing sects - a situation continued all the way down to the heresiologist's reports of the mid 2nd century. Why make Paul the starting point when even he admits he is the last apostle and not worthy to be called one?

1 Cor 15:3-11 is extremely problematic, not the least because it renders the logic of 15:12-19 a waste of breath arguing for resurrection when there ostensibly are resurrection eyewitness accounts in verses 4-7.

What you are implying is that Paul is coming at them with something completely new and invented, but that clashes with Paul's own reports of rival teachers existing before him. I think Paul likely was revolutionary and his cross gospel may have been new within a broader movement but that can't eclipse that he is self admitted last in line of apostles

At the same time as calling himself an abortion (ἐκτρώμα), when in fact he considers he was set apart by God before birth.(Gal 1:15)

The material in 15:3-11 appears to be orthodox ad hominem against Paul.

I think this is where the mythicist position founders, we are expected to ignore the evidence of the earliest witness himself that he wasn't the earliest witness there's just something screwy with that.

I'm not a mythicist. And frankly I get tired of such black-and-white thinking. I'm attempting to read Paul without the eisegesis of later Christian theology. The onus has always and ever been on whoever asserts a positive position to provide evidence, though all we ever get from those who assume Jesus historicity is a gish gallop of non-contemporary reports in non-Christian texts (Josephus ~95 CE, Tacitus ~117 CE, etc.) and a final surrender to the necessity that the gospels contain a nugget of veracity. It may, but it cannot just be assumed.

Correct to say we know little about the 'Jerusalem people' so let's leave it a blank canvas there's no reason to assume anything about them beyond they existed, who they were or what they were is unknown

That's not sufficient, as the position you seem to be espousing just sidesteps the Jerusalem group while accepting that there were Jesus believers before Paul. There certainly were messianists before Paul, people who expected the son of David. John the Baptist left a heritage of messianic expectation, which apparently Apollos adhered to until we are told Priscilla and Aquila set him straight.(Acts 18:26) Was Baptist-type messianic expectation the core of the Jerusalem group's beliefs? Paul seems to add an important twist to messianic expectation, that the messiah had already been once to perform a salvific sacrifice. (It's a very weird development, seen with 2000 years hindsight.)

Did anyone know about Jesus before Paul started proselytizing?

[andrewcriddle]

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

What novel is that?

This possibly refers to resemblances between the story of Lazarus and the Egyptian tale of Setme and his son Si-Osiris.
See http://www.attalus.org/egypt/khamuas.html

Andrew Criddle

[Sinouhe]

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

What novel is that?

https://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org/2 ... 05/5629-2/

In this same Novel, our young hero is born thanks to a miracle of a god. The god said to the father : « your child will accomplish wonders ».
Later in the story, he conversed with scribes in a temple and they were amazed by his teachings.
He was 12 years old

[davidlau17]

[Paul] does not seem like he was at all interested in whatever Jesus said or did here on Earth.

Had Jesus said or done anything on earth at the time of Paul's writing? We simply assume by convention that the Jerusalem people were "Christian", though nothing indicates that they were. We only hear about Jesus from Paul's mouth. He tells them his salvation gospel in private, but comes away from the meeting unimpressed. We know they were practising Jews, who were not of the traditional line of belief, if traditionally raised Paul harrassed people like them, but beyond that we know little about them. They were probably messianic, if Paul sought some recognition from them. The rest is eisegesis.

Well according to Paul, Jesus was born of a woman, crucified, and was buried. From this, it's heavily implied that Jesus had lived on earth before Paul's writing. He also tells us that one of the people in Jerusalem was James, "the Lord's brother." I suppose the argument is that we can't really know what Paul meant by the phrase "the Lord's brother"... however, the natural implication is that this James person was the brother of the same person Paul has consistently been referring to as "the Lord". Thus, Jesus would appear to have had at least a brother in Jerusalem.

Now, whether the folks Paul was writing to knew anything about Jesus, we have no idea, and it's a different question.