PhiloVoid: "this tact on Paul that you are dredging out...smacks of a lack of critical thinking."
LOL, it is inspired by David Dungan's scholarly book, "The Saying of Jesus in the Churches of Paul." And I have taught at Harvard and been a Theology professor for 12 years.
Referring to Dungan's book is great and all, and a source I'll add to my list, but surely, you don't just read one book and go with it's conclusions, right? I've never done that in my academic work... (Although, kudos to you for your work at Harvard!)
PhiloVoid: " Many seem to love spotting that Paul doesn't much quote Jesus' words directly. when they resort to spotting this supposed "deficiency" of Paul..."
I'll excuse your misreading on the grounds of deficient reading comprehension. I just got through defending Paul on the grounds that his teaching was approved by the Jerusalem apostles. No "deficiency" is insinuated.
No, the first part of your previous post is all fine and dandy in that you affirm that Paul was approved by the Jerusalem council. The problem I have with your position is in the caveat you present.
"How would have Paul "quoted" Jesus? Where exactly were the "real life" social connections, venues, or literary sources by which Paul would have quoted Jesus?"
Here is the scholarly consensus: Before there were written Gospels, there were sayings collections like Q and the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, collections of controversy stories, and "signs" sources. Concurrently, there was a memorized oral tradition. To see just how demanding rabbinic memorization programs were in Jesus' era, read Birger Gerhardsson's magisterial "Memory and Manuscript." We have no certain information on the extent of Paul's sources of Jesus' sayings. That fact is one of the reasons why I posted the thread in question. By "quote" I of course mean the form of Jesus' sayings in either current oral tradition or Paul's written sources. Paul's audience would want to know as much as possible about Jesus' words and deeds!
And so? How does this response of yours actually answer the questions I posed. It doesn't, despite your nice reference you've given. You just offer what appears to be a kind of consortium opinion about supposed conclusions that we have little to no direct evidence of, and you admit that "We have no certain information on the extent of Paul's sources of Jesus' sayings. "
What we need to know is:
Where and when and from whom was "
Q," specifically? We don't know, precisely.
Where and when and from whom was the
Gospel of Thomas, specifically? We don't really know.
Where and when and from whom were there "
controversy stories"? You tell me.
Where and when and from whom were there
"signs" sources available? You tell me.
Where and when and in what precise form and nature was there an
Oral Christian Tradition? We sit here and can guess all day with our academic caps pulled firmly on our heads as to what this entailed, apart from Paul.
PhiloVoid: "First off, Paul did not give an exception."
Oh yes he did--in the same way that Matthew adds the exceptive clause to the same prohibition (5:43; 19:9). Christians in untenable marriages wanted to know if their divorce, actual or impending, violated Jesus' prohibition. Paul wants divorced Christian spouses either to remain single or seek reconciliation. Then Paul shifts his focus to marriages between Christians and unbelievers ("To the rest, I say...") in which the unbeliever is in the process of securing a divorce.
This doesn't seem to be an exception: in fact, we see Ezra do something much more counter, and drastic, in relation to all of this kind of thing in the OT (in Ezra and Nehemiah, specifically). There's no repudiation of Ezra by Jesus ...
Paul's reassurance in 7:15 allows such divorces as an exception to Jesus' rule. The divorced Christian in this situation has not sinned due to a divorce which may have left him/her with no choice. The question that remains is this: Can the divorced Christian remarry? Hans Conzelman's Commentary provides the obvious answer:
"Once again the law of freedom prevails: the Christian is not subject to any constraint because of the pagan's behavior. He can marry again (p. 123)." "In such a case, the believer is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you (7:15)."
And yes, I agree with this. So, is this problematic for the extent to which we hold Paul as having legitimate, apostolic authority? (If your point with all of this is the opposite of what I think it is--i.e. downing Paul--and you're not really downing Paul in any form or fashion, then I apologize for my corrections I've put forward. But if you are downing Paul...)
You also miss the point in 9:14 about Paul's repudiation of Jesus' authorization of missionary salary rights. Paul's tentmaking skills make him an exception to Jesus' rule, but it is still an exception! In both 7:10, 15 and 9:14-15 , Paul uses common sense in a way that would hardly have offended Jesus.
Actually, the main thrust of the passage was in Paul's defending himself against accusations that he was deflecting, as is implied in verse 9:12...where by the way, he refers to financial provision of Christian ministers as a "right," one that can be declined.
Here is the most important point that eludes you. Why doesn't Paul ever explicitly quote or allude to a saying of Jesus in a context where Paul has no intention of pointing out an exception? And just how much did Paul and his congregations really know about the words and deeds of the historical Jesus? Those are the questions that prompted my addendum to my preceding thread.
I'll take a look at your preceding post(s)...I haven't read much of anything you've posted outside of this thread we're on at the moment. But it sounds like your "downing" Paul.
2PhiloVoid
Great point; thank you.
