jjramsey

It does not follow that the gossip in question would necessarily be in letters where it isn't that pertinent.

spamandham

Paul spoke on divorce.

(I am unaware of any argument that this passage is a later insertion)

This is one of the very few places (the only one?), where Paul claims to be repeating a teaching of 'the lord'.

"Jesus" spoke on divorce

In Mark 10:2-12, what Jesus says is congruent with what Paul says. But in Matthew 19:3-9, it is not. In Matthew, an out is added for infidelity.

So, it seems to me, that the predominant writer of 1 Cor 7, was probably familiar with Mark (or a tradition it was based on), but not Matthew (assuming Markan priority).

...at any rate, Paul does seem to show some knowledge of Jesus, that overlaps Mark.

aa5874

This is another indication that the author of 1 Corinthians was alive after the Gospels were written.

The author of 1Corinthians is claiming that Jesus who was raised from the dead has given him a command for married women, but this command appears to be the words of the author of gMark and gMark was written after Paul was supposed to be dead, based on Church History's record of Paul's death.

GakuseiDon

True. I wish mythicists shared the same obsession, though.

Yes, that's an interesting one. So, what are the implications on historicity?

Paul saw Jesus, did he not? Why didn't Paul mention what Jesus looked like, or at least what the presence felt like?

It includes that, yes. First, Paul says that Christ "crucified" is a stumbling block:

1Cr 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness

Then, he quotes scriptures to show that the stumbling block was laid in Zion (Jerusalem):

Rom 9:32 For they [Israel] stumbled at that stumbling stone.
Rom 9:33 As it is written: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame".

Finally, he quotes scriptures to say that the Deliverer will come out of Zion, to create a new covenant:

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob
Rom 11:27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins".

Paul appears to be convinced that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. What is the most reasonable explanation for that? I suggest the most reasonable one is "Because someone called Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem".

dog-on

GD, isn't an equally valid interpretation of the aforementioned passages that the deliver came out of Zion, simply because the scriptures said so, regardless of actual historical fact?

Toto

The minimal implication is that Paul did not know if Jesus were married.

No, he didn't. Why would you say this?

This is a breathtaking exercise in eisegesis. Paul speaks in metaphors and Scriptural allusions. Is there any reason to take any of it literally. much less impose your particular interpretation on it?

GakuseiDon

I guess it is a possibility, but why would it be an equally valid interpretation?

dog-on

Because it doesn't assume any additional knowledge on the part of Paul, himself...

GakuseiDon

True enough.

1 Cor 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?

What is Paul saying then, IYO?

Toto

The word "see" here is a form of horao Strong's Number: 3708, and can mean stare at with the eyes, or understand clearly. Why would you interpret this as physical sight? Do you know of any scholar or commentator who thinks that Paul saw Jesus with his eyes? Even Acts has him blinded.

Paul is taking the Hebrew Scriptures and interpreting them. I see no indication that he is talking about an actual crucifixion in Jerusalem, or any other real event.