Chaucer

This is just plain wrong. We know no such thing. In fact, quite the opposite. In fact, it's an urban myth that I encounter again and again and again. In fact, for the umpteenth time, Paul _does_ quote Jesus directly -- in quotes -- cited -- referenced -- in at least one of his letters -- _1_ _CORINTHIANS_ -- and this letter is even one of those unusual half dozen or so for which Pauline authorship is generally accepted to this day.

Look, nothing in NT scholarship is certain, but _probabilities_ are definitely what _is_ entailed in the most rigorous research that's out there -- _as_ _it_ _is_ _also_ _most_ _emphatically_ _front_ _and_ _center_ _in_ _all_ _historical_ _research_ _in_ _the_ _ancient_ _world_, _period_, _both_ _outside_ _of_ _Biblical_ _research_ _and_ _within_ _it_! This is _not_ a research model specifically "dispensed" for NT research only!

I'm saying that in order to forestall the inevitable -- and typically dishonest -- moving of the goal posts that I _know_ can come up once the unusual textual consensus surrounding 1 Corinthians comes up.

We already have a goal post set up here in show_no_mercy's post: He(?) has written with no extra qualifications or specifications that "Paul never quotes Jesus". That alone is simply plain _wrong_ on the face of it. No fancy analysis is needed to address this. It is a fact: Paul _does_ quote Jesus in one of his letters, and show_no_mercy is therefore _wrong_.

Now, I reference the current scholarly consensus on 1 Corinthians _only_ to underscore the sheer ludicrousness of such an urban myth -- particularly ludicrous when one considers just how little suspicion has ever been voiced concerning this particular letter where Jesus is quoted.

Look, I know that show_no_mercy is not setting out here to voice a direct lie. But he(?) has thoughtlessly adopted a blatant urban myth without checking his facts. One can generate all the suspicions one wants about 1 Corinthians. One can even come up with fancy suppositions on what specifically Jesus is quoted in that letter as saying. But show_no_mercy's bald statement here does _not_ take account of any such suspicions. His statement consists of four totally unhedged words: "Paul never quotes Jesus". That's it. So it's too late to change the goal posts now. And. That. Statement. Is. Wrong.

Bottom line: Do we have a letter where Paul quotes Jesus directly? #*%^%^%^%^#$% YES!!!!!!!!! Is show_no_mercy -- and the dozens of other posters who say repeatedly that "Paul never quotes Jesus" -- right? #%^**$%^#$#$% NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chaucer

ApostateAbe

Chaucer, merry Christmas.

Toto

1 Cor 11: There's been a lot of discussion about this. Paul quotes words attributed to Jesus, but the source is unclear.

Paul does not quote any of Jesus' teachings or moral precepts, and does not quote Jesus' word or deeds in cases where a quote would be expected.

ApostateAbe

I think you are right. The quote is found in the gospels, but it is not exactly something that we would expect of the historical Jesus, unless he knew he was going to die very soon, which is unlikely. A bit more likely is that it was a Christian myth attributed to Jesus, a myth shared by Paul and the gospels. The quote, especially in the context of the Passover meal, does however turn on its head the idea that Paul thought of Jesus as merely mystical, which seems to be a weirdly popular opinion among MJ advocates.

spin

While you're falling over your presuppositions, you might read my blog entry on 1 Cor 11's last supper.


spin

ApostateAbe

Cool, spin, I read your blog posting, and I think that is a great topic for a new thread. It is the sort of attention to detail that is needed in the debate. I have a counterpoint to make, and I'll deliver it if you make a new thread out of it. I seem unable to post a comment within the blog itself.

Petergdi

Thanks, Spin, but the slavery metaphor really is central to Paul's teaching


There is a big difference between actual blasphemy, and something that makes you say "What?" before figuring it out.

I would be somewhat interested in your recostruction, but I'm wary of the idea of subtracting from a text just to make it fit a neat theory.

Peter.

Chaucer

Can't. It's inaccessible. I'd like to know why.

Chaucer

Chaucer

Quoting words attributed to Jesus is the same as quoting Jesus. It's no different. When one quotes words and attributes them to someone, then one is actively quoting that someone. It has nothing to do with whether or not the quote is accurate. It's to do with whether or not a letter-writer chooses to ascribe a quote to a third party or not, period. Paul chose to ascribe certain words to Jesus. He is therefore quoting from Jesus.

Now, this is just getting silly. Plainly, show_no_mercy didn't talk about context here, and he didn't talk about anything else either. He said "Paul never quotes Jesus". That's it. Now, is that correct or not?

Petergdi

That is true, but it was on account of what they saw as his antinomianism, not his christology.

The Ebionites regarded Jesus as an extraordinary man, not as an ordinary man.

The same is true of Paul.

Both regarded Jesus as the Son of God by God's choice. Neither meant the silliness that you frequently assert that "Son of God" denotes - as far as I know no one does - it is just your silliness.

Please don't give silly caricatures and expect me to take you seriously.

Peter.