David Conklin

For those interested in further research into how much Paul knew about Jesus the following sources were found in an article by James D. G. Dunn (“Jesus Tradition in Paul,” Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (E. J. Brill, 1994): 155-178.)

D. C. Allison, “The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels,” New Testament Studies 28 (1982): 1-32.

F. Neirynck, “Paul and the Sayings of Jesus,” L,Apotre Paul (Peeters, 1986): 265-321.

J. Piper, “Love your Enemies”: Jesus’ Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and the Early Christian Paraenesis (CUP, 1979): esp. 102-119.

D. Wenham, “Paul’s Use of the Jesus Tradition. Three Samples,” The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels (JSOT Press, 1985): 7-37.

T. Holtz, “Paul and the Oral Gospel Tradition,” Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition (JSOT Press, 1991): 380-393.

David Conklin

James D. G. Dunn, “Jesus Tradition in Paul,” Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (E. J. Brill, 1994): 155-178.

“... the Jesus who was featured in the kerygma had lived and ministered for a number of years within the lifetime of the first generation of converts.” [page 156]

That the early Christians would have been taught about the life and death of Jesus can be seen by the repeated emphasis on teaching and tradition. For instance, see the following texts: 1 Thess. 4:1; 2 Thess. 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2; and Col. 2:6. Note also the “central role of teachers in the congregation” (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor. 12:28; Gal. 6:6). [page 158]

“In an oral community the treasury of sacred tradition and of tried and tested wisdom would have to be largely entrusted to those whose special gift or responsibility it was to retain and retell the tradition and wisdom on behalf of the community.” [page 158]

On page 159 Dunn states that it would “be ludicrous to assume that all the Pauline congregations were wholly ignorant of such material [as that of Mark 2:1-3:6; 4:35-5:43; etc. which he refers to as “earlier blocks of material” and cites one H. W. Kuhn, Altere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1971)] until they received their copy of Mark’s Gospel.” [page 159]

David Conklin

James D. G. Dunn, “Jesus Tradition in Paul,” Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (E. J. Brill, 1994): 155-178.

“One of the most convincing examples, would, by general consent, be Rom 12:14. Certainly, the echo of the saying of Jesus preserved in Luke 6:27-28 and Matt 5:44 seems fairly clear. ... That this was, at least in some degree, a distinctively Christian teaching is indicated by two factors. (1) The sense for eulogeo as “bless” is characteristically and distinctively Jewish rather than Greek, where it would more naturally mean “speak well of, praise, eulogize.” [footnote refers the reader to and article by H. W. Beyer, TDNT (1964) 2:754-63.] (2) But the thought of returning blessing for cursing is something of an advance on the more typical lex talionis assumption of Jewish covenant faith that God would curse those who cursed his people (Gen 12:3; 27:29; Num 24:9; 1QS 2:1-10; 10:17-21). Matthew 5:43-44 puts the claim to distinctiveness more strongly.

Moreover the saying is hardly Pauline in formulation (Paul nowhere else uses {katarauomai}, “curse”), and has echoes elsewhere (1 Cor 4:12; 1 Pet 3:9; Did. 1:3). ... the testimony of the Jesus tradition is clear that Jesus was remembered as a saying something to this effect, it would be somewhat perverse to look for a different source of this distinctively Christian teaching. ... The variation between the Pauline and Gospel forms is no greater than the variation between the Lukan and Matthean forms. The fact that Jesus’ exhortation was remembered in different versions simply indicates that the Jesus tradition was not yet in a firmly fixed form, but could be adapted to different settings.” [pages 161-2]

David Conklin

From James D. G. Dunn, “Jesus Tradition in Paul,” Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (E. J. Brill, 1994): 155-178.

Page 162-3:
The second example he presents is Romans 14:14; he says that this is dependent “in some measure” {scholarly speak to cover one’s ...} on Mark 7:15. He goes on to say that the weaker form of this saying is found in Matt. 15:11 and GOT 14. Ho goes on to claim that the earliest Christian community appears to have been unwilling to apply the unequivocal Mark 7:15 (see Acts 10:14; 11:2-3; Gal. 2:12) and that the best way to resolve this issue is “by assuming both that Jesus’ original words had been more ambiguous than Mark represents (closer to Matthew’s version), and that Mark 7:15 _and_ [his emphasis] Rom 14:14 demonstrate the use made of the saying and interpretation given to it when the question of clean and unclean foods emerged as a central issue in the Gentile mission.”

I have to disagree with his last phrase or so. The difference between clean and unclean foods wasn’t a major issue--they were symbolic of the Gentile mission as a whole. And if you will recall Peter’s famous dream (Acts 10) it wasn’t clean vs. unclean it was unclean vs common (vs. 14-15, 28)--i.e., that which was clean was somehow “contaminated” by association with the unclean.

On page 166:
On Romans 16:19 as compared to Matt. 10:16 Dunn notes that the unusual formulation (for Paul) “and the similarity in emphasis and intent to a distinctive feature of the Jesus tradition” combine to “point more strongly than has usually been appreciated to the conclusion that Paul here was dependent in substantial measure on a community memory of Jesus’ preaching and enacting of the kingdom.” [footnote here refers the reader to A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Paul and Jesus: The Problem of Continuity” in _Paul and Jesus. Collected Essays_ (JSOT Press, 1989): 101-15.

On page 158:
“As is now becoming more clearly recognized, the Gospels themselves _do_ [emphasis in the original] display a biographical interest in Jesus--not in terms of modern biography, but in terms of ancient biography. That is to say, they display a didactic concern to portray the character of the subject matter by recounting things he did and said.” [footnote here refers the reader to the following sources: D. E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Westminster, 1987): 17-76; R. A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (CUP, 1992)]

On page 168:
“We have already noted that the Gospels display a biographical interest in Jesus’ behaviour as much as in his teaching. And passages like Rom 6:17, 8:15-16 [on these two verses he refers the reader to the appropriate pages in the commentary on Romans that he wrote for the Word Biblical series]; 2 Cor 8:9 [Dunn’s, Christology in the Making. (Westminster, 2nd ed, 1989):121-3], 2 Cor 10:1; Gal 1:18 [Dunn’s article “The Relationship between Paul and Jerusalem according to Galatians 1 and 2,” NTS 28 (1982): 463-6; reprinted in his Jesus, Paul and the Law. Studies in Mark and Galatians (Westminster, 1990): 108-28] and Phil 2:5 [P. T. O’Brien, Philipians (New International Greek Testament Commentary, Eerdmans, 1991): 253-66] strengthen the _a prior_ {emphasis in the original} likelihood that Paul would have shared a similar interest.”

After looking at a number of places where Paul appeals to the example of Jesus Dunn states:

“What emerges from this brief discussion is the interesting likelihood that a central feature of Paul’s paraenesis was determined by a combination of Jesus’ teaching and example--the two elements of the Jesus tradition (words and deeds) mutually reinforcing one another, as we might expect.” {footnote refers the reader to: M. Thompson, Clothed with Christ. The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1-15.13 (JSOT Press, 1991): 208-36}

An earlier post in this series noted the presence of echoes and allusions of the Jesus tradition in Romans. On page 177 Dunn has a footnote that is worth quoting in full.

“That Romans has such a high proportion of such allusions is significant, since Paul could not have passed on such traditions to the Roman believers himself. He must have been able to assume, nevertheless, that the churches in Rome, or elsewhere, had been furnished with a stock of Jesus (and kerygmatic) tradition similar to that which Paul himself drew on. This tells us much about the breadth and relative fixedness of the Jesus tradition passed on to new churches.”

This footnote was given in the context of how the early church would have been taught the Jesus tradition by the apostles and teachers and that this tradition “would have entered into their own thinking and quite quickly have begun to shape their own language as well as their lives, and so also to shape their discourse one with another. The letter of James provides another clear example of the same phenomenon.” {the footnote here provides a number of examples: James 1:5, 17 with Matt. 7:7, 11; James 1:6 with Matt. 21:21; James 1:22-3 with Matt. 7:21, 24-7; James 4:12 with Matt. 7:1; James 5:12 with Matt. 5:34-7}

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: David Conklin ]</p>

David Conklin

From John P. Meier’s A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (Anchor Bible Reference Library, vol. 1: Doubleday, 1991)

on page 46:
“... in most of these case we should not speak of Paul “quoting” the words of Jesus. They are allusions rather than citations, since except in the case of the eucharistic words of Jesus, Paul gives simply the gist of Jesus’ teaching, always with an eye to the application Paul wishes to make as he argues with the Corinthians. The very fact, though, that Paul (1) can allude in passing to sayings of Jesus, (2) can expect the Corinthians to recognize them and accept them as normative, and (3) can appeal at times to precise teaching about Jesus that Paul received after his conversion and imparted to the Corinthians after their conversion (1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3) argues for a certain fund of teachings from and about Jesus circulating among first-generation Pauline churches. It is surely significant that, in each case in 1 Corinthians where Paul appeals to teachings from or about Jesus, we find parallel material in the Synoptics. It is likewise noteworthy that Paul carefully distinguishes (1 Cor 7:10-13) between Jesus’s saying on divorce and Paul’s own application of that saying to a new situation (marriages between Christians and pagans). For all his claims to apostolic authority, Paul does not feel free to create teachings and put them into the mouth of Jesus. We might ask: Who in the first generation did?”

David Conklin

From David L. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul. (Fortress, 1971) conclusion to his study, page 149:

“If Paul was a part of the larger pattern of Synoptic tradition-transmission as Gerhardsson argues, and represents an early stage of its interpretation and application, as we have ... shown to be the case, and if it is precisely Paul’s characteristic way to _cite_ sayings of the Lord by doing so allusively, then the argument that Paul knew only a few sayings, because he mentions only a few openly, falls to the ground, and the numerous verbal correspondences between his text and those of the Synoptic gospels, as well as other more distantly related parallels in ethical exhortation, show that Paul actually used --_cited_-- a considerable number of Jesus’ teachings.” He also notes that the earlier the church father the more likely they were to have _cited_ Jesus, Paul, or the OT allusively; compare for instance Tertullian and Irenaeus with Polycarp and Ignatius.

The above “automatically destroys the allied argument that Paul was not interested in the sayings of Jesus, and also shows how anachronistic [Albert] Schweitzer’s question was [given on page xxiv--from Schweitzer’s Paul and His Interpreter’s (1912): 42f]. Paul _was_ ‘sheltering himself’ behind the authority of the Lord because his readers would generally have recognized Who was speaking in Paul’s words.” [page 150] all emphasis in the original

Dungan also points out the obvious that “in Paul’s letters one sees concern focused primarily on the Risen Lord’s present rule and future victory.” [page xxx]

Sojourner553

I'd like to focus on this part of your post (you can add to this later, of course)

I notice you are following quoting from authorities -- rather than going out and looking at the verses yourself...

Their proof seems to be (correct me if I am missing something) that Paul "should have" known the same stories of Jesus as the other disciples.

I concur entirely.

But you are making the assumption that around this time it was generally believed Jesus was a miracle worker and born of a virgin.

I would argue these were myths that developed during later periods.

My proof: Paul does not seem to be aware of any signs and miracles of Jesus:

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul was writing re: the difficulties he experienced in Greece of converting the Jews and the Greeks:

"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom".

This passage was written in Paul's first letter to the Christian congregation in Corinth, Greece. Paul had obviously been debating with Jews and Greeks as to why they should convert to Christianity, but found them "foolishly" refusing to accept the truth. The Jews wanted a "sign" first from God in order to believe. The Greeks, steeped in their tradition of philosophy (ie their search for "wisdom") must have NOT been convinced by Paul's arguments on the truth of Christ.

As the gospel stories are full of miracles, signs, and moral wisdom parables, it is surprising that Paul should not have referenced these-- if he had known of them. Although Paul did not feel it necessary to be instructed by the original apostles in Jerusalem, yet he should have been AWARE that such miracles and moral stories existed through his contacts with other Christians. Even more revealing in reading Paul’s letters is that when Paul refers to moral sayings, he rarely attributes these to Jesus.



If Christians were forced to rely solely on Paul's letters for information
regarding the life of Jesus, there would be hardly ANY details for the
faithful to revere. For Paul quotes really only one event on the life of
Jesus in detail--and that is the scene of the Eucharist, or Last Supper
(which some scholars believe have important parallels with the rites of the
mystery religions, especially those of Mithra).

Apart from the event of the Eucharist, Paul's only other references to the
historical Jesus are:

* Jesus was born of a woman (Galatians 4:4)
* Jesus was descended from David (Romans 1:2)
* Jesus was crucified and resurrected after three days (Romans 3:3, etc)
* Jesus was "seen" by various apostles and followers (Paul gives NO
details--including WHERE the appearances happened or WHAT was said
or felt)

Paul appears to be quite disinterested with the PERSONAL details of Jesus' life on EARTH. Indeed in 1 Corinthians 2:1-4, Paul states as much
when he wrote that he decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ
and him crucified."



Moral Teachings by Paul NOT Referencing Jesus' Authority

Paul states that as an apostle of Jesus, he has authority from God Himself
to issues statements covering moral teachings. Interestingly, Paul (with one
possible exception) almost NEVER refers to Jesus as the source of his moral
teachings!

That is, in the following areas of moral law, Paul NEVER states that
he is quoting from the authority of Jesus--although he cites references
from the Old Testament. A literal reading of these passages would
indicate that Paul believes that HE is the source of authority on these
matters:

* According to Romans 13:8-9, Paul stated that any man who loved one
another had fulfilled the Law. That if there were any other commandment
(other than the ones forbidding adultery, killing, stealing, coveting,
and bearing false witness) that it was this, "namely, 'Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself."

* In 1 Thess. 4:9, Paul tells us that God (not Jesus) had
taught Christians to love one another.

* In 1 Thess. 5:15, Paul taught that it is better to never render
evil for evil: "Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are
unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all
men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow
that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men."

* In Romans 12:14-5, Paul urges his congregation to "Bless them which
persecute you: bless, and curse not. Rejoice with them that do rejoice,
and weep with them that weep." (SEE Mt. 5:44, Lk. 2:28)

* In Romans 12:17, Paul states "Repay no one evil for evil, but take
thought for what is noble in the sight of all."

* In Romans 19-20, Paul states, "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but
leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will
repay, says the Lord'. No, 'if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is
thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon
his head. (Paul is quoting from Proverbs 25:21-2 in the Old Testament,
which states "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be
thirsty, give him water to drink; For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his
head, and the Lord shall reward thee.")

"In Romans 21, Paul states, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome
evil with good."

*In Romans 14:13, Paul says "Let us not therefore judge one another any
more..."

*In Romans 13:6-7, Paul exhorts his congregation to pay their Roman taxes:
"Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is DUE..."

*In 1 Thessalonians 5:2, Paul says, "the day of the Lord comes as
a thief in the night" (Matthew's Jesus uses similar imagery of a thief
breaking into a house in Matthew 24:42)

* In 1 Corinthians 13: Paul states "I may have faith strong enough to
move mountains, but if I have no love I am nothing." (The reference to
faith moving mountains does have its parallels in the gospels. However
the gospels present belief in and of itself as the ONLY important criteria
for salvation. see Mt. 10:14-5, Mt. 18:6, Mt. 25:40,45, Jn 3:18,36)

Paul even quotes from the Old Testament and not from Jesus to
support the following theological doctrines:

* that mankind is justified by faith in Jesus and NOT from following
Jewish laws.

*that God's new covenant of salvation is given not exclusively to the
Jews (whom Paul hopes will all convert), but to ALL believers in
Christ.

As noted above, there is one possible exception where Paul's writings
do directly reference Jesus as an authority--and that is on the prohibition
against divorce. This occurs in 1 Corinthians 7: 10, which is quoted below:

"To the married, I give charge, NOT I BUT THE LORD, that the wife should
not separate from the husband (but if she does, let her remain single or
else be reconciled to her husband)--and that the husband should not divorce
his wife." (emphasis mine).

Note the sentence starts off with Paul commanding ("I give charge"), and
then he appears to have second thoughts ("not I but the Lord"). It's
really not an important point, but it is "possible" that this could have
been an insertion by some early Christian copyist.

Some English translations give mixed renderings on whether Paul
is referencing Jesus in other verses or not. For example, on the matter of
eating nonkosher food:

In Romans 14:14, Paul wrote "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus,
that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him that esteemeth any
thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. (The NEB version renders
"persuaded by the Lord Jesus" as "convinced as a Christian).

On matters of sexual conduct, Paul states in 1 Thessalonians that he is
repeating orders already given "through the Lord Jesus (4:2). Some scholars
believe that in the original Greek, this phrase implies "because of the
inspiration of the Lord Jesus")

Where Paul Does Refer to the Authority of Jesus

Paul does refer to the authority of Jesus in two areas of doctrine:
the sacrament of the Eucharist and the resurrection of believers during
the Second Coming:

* Paul quotes at length from Jesus, in imparting Jesus' words of the
Eucharist to his disciples: "And when he [Jesus] had given thanks he
broke [the bread], and said 'This is my body which is for you.
Do this in remembrance of me..." (see 1 Corinthians 11:23-6)

* In Thessalonians, Paul writes that "by word of the Lord", those
Christians who died before the Second Coming, would still participate in
the general resurrection. "then we who are alive, who are left, shall be
caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air"
(1 Thessalonians 4:15-7)

* In 1 Corinthians 15:51 again Paul states that he is imparting knowledge
of the "mystery" of the general resurrection to his congregation:
According to Paul this mystery means "We shall not sleep, but we shall
all be changed" into immortal souls bearing "the image of the heavenly".

taken from which is referencing Wells

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/NATURE2.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/NATURE2.TXT</a>

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

Sojourner

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ December 07, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

David Conklin

You assumed too much. I checked the verses when I first read the book--several years ago. Did you go to the local library to see if you can read a copy first-hand?

You are not correct. One of their proofs is that Paul did NOT quote Jesus but could merely cite by allusion, i.e., Paul knew what they already knew so he didn't have to quote and could merely allude to what Jesus said.

David Conklin

1) There is no evidence that they were developed in later periods.

2) All the early Christians were Jews and Jewish thought had no room for a god coming down and having sexual intercourse with a woman (unlike the pagans).

David Conklin

I noted that in the last paragraph of the last msg before your post. Paul's interst lay elsewhere and he didn't have to dwell on the life of Jesus because he knew they already knew all about it.