Gospel of Paul
With help from James Bishop’s blog, I’ve compiled quotations from Paul which elaborate upon his understanding of Jesus’ life (a sort of mini-gospel):
But when the fullness of time had come, Gxd sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children.
Galatians 4:4 (NRSVue)
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of Gxd, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of Gxd with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the gentiles for the sake of his name, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, to all Gxd’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from Gxd our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:1–7 (NRSVue)
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was [handed over] took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for[f] you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
1 Corinthians 11:23–5 (NRSVue)
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of Gxd in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews [NB: not all Jews categorically, but just a subset of Judeans, analogous to the subset of Thessalonians persecuting the church there] who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out; they displease Gxd and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the gentiles so that they may be saved.
1 Thessalonians 2:14–6 (NRSVue)
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified!
Galatians 3:1 (NRSVue)
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
1 Corinthians 15:3–7 (NRSVue)
And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, Gxd made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it.
Colossians 2:14 (NRSVue; note that Col. is deutero-Pauline)
In an attempt to hit on all of these points: Jesus was a human descendant of David, born (like most of us!) of a woman. In life, he taught the fulfillment of the Law through Love. Then he was arrested and crucified by fellow Jews who had apparently opposed the extension of salvation to the nations. However, he had foretold his death as well as his resurrection three days later, after which he appeared to Cephas, then to the ‘twelve’, then to five hundred others, then to his literal bio-brother James the Just, and finally to the apostles (who at this point in time were categorically distinct from the disciples; think of Paul etc.). Through death, Jesus redeemed our debts under the Law so we could be adopted by Gxd. Through his resurrection, he himself was adopted as the Son of Gxd (though he was also already apparently the Son of Gxd before being born—is this a difference of Christology, or a matter of human versus divine perspective?).
Missing are: general historical details (accurate or otherwise), a special birth narrative, tales of exorcisms and miracles, the march on Jerusalem, and the Temple’s occupation. We shouldn’t argue from silence about what were or were not considered to have really happened by the Church (or by various assemblies) at the time of Paul, much less what really happened historically, but that should give us some hints in terms of what parts of the Gospels were written from ‘tradition’ versus what parts were invented by nature of them being (literarily speaking) a Greco-Roman divine biographies.
How much of this is Paul as opposed to the larger community? I lean towards Paul being not as controversial as is sometimes assumed. I actually wonder if he has better relations with the twelve than with James who, I realize, is not counted amongst the twelve! Is James, despite being Jesus’ literal brother, as much of an outsider as Paul even despite the former’s position as leader of the assembly in Jerusalem? Keep in mind the twelve all kind of fucked off and ministered elsewhere anyway. I understand and accept that Acts is not a reliable narrative, but it seems like it’s not unfair to locate James as a geographically limited leader in the Assembly, compared not just to Paul but to the twelve. Maybe, then, it’s fair that Paul asks James to stop messing with his assemblies w.r.t. matters of the Law. Maybe we should read the various councils in Acts as the twelve trying to reconcile Paul with James as fellow community leaders, rather than James being a birthright hegemon whose authority is gradually wrested away. Anyway, I see zero central leadership in this. Every figure seems unsure of what to do or how to collaborate on paper, acting on their hunch faster than they can agree on what they’re doing. See poor Cephas/Peter getting chastised by James for eating with gentiles, and then by Paul for not eating with gentiles, in Gal. 2:11–3; this seems to culminate in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, where they all finally get together to talk it out. Slow-motion train wreck.
The following are teachings of Jesus according to Paul:
Therefore one must be subject [to the authorities], not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are Gxd’s agents, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not murder; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.
Romans 13:5–10 (NRSVue)
To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord [Jesus]—that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband) and that the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say—I and not the Lord—that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
1 Corinthians 7:10–2 (NRSVue)
Do you not know that those who work in the temple service get their food from the temple and those who serve at the altar share in what is sacrificed on the altar? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
1 Corinthians 9:13–4 (NRSVue)
[Jesus] himself granted that some are apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of Gxd, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.
Ephesians 4:11–3 (NRSVue)
As you can tell, these are all referred to in passing as common knowledge (that is, as an appeal to what the audience independently understand as sayings of Jesus). I’ve noticed a common assumption that Paul and his audience had some access to a sayings gospel such as the ever-elusive, hypothetical Q. Speaking of, I’ve ordered a critical edition of Q which will be interesting to read! It both seems that something like Q existed but also, w.r.t. the composition of the Synoptic Gospels, it seems more likely that Luke wrote from Matthew (or vice versa) rather than independently integrating Q with Mark. And I’m not an expert; it just seems like a reasonable position.
I’m writing this down to specifically compare with Q. I know the common understanding is that Paul takes the apocalyptic prophet Jesus and ascribes to him divinity, turning him (in the words of James Tabor) from the “proclaimer” into the “proclaimed”. Simultaneously, I don’t think Paul is so removed from the cultural or theological context of Jesus. After all, at least one other (and relatively recent) rabbi was understood by his followers in life and after death to be the Messiah and even an incarnation of Gxd. Despite being technically unorthodox on paper, it seems like a recurrent pattern in Jewish thought. So, you know—it’ll be interesting to compare and see if Paul’s gospel is so deviant and if Jesus’ teachings are so conservative (speaking relatively to his time).
I think, "seems like a recurrent pattern in Jewish thought," is way overstating that case. There's no comparison between sectarian messianism after 15 centuries Pauline Christianity being culturally hegemonic and Paul's messianism in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that, while Paul didn't invent Jewish messianism, he does seem to have invented incarnational theology. It is a novel understanding of (well, he understands it to be) monotheism that is not really equivalent to any non-Christian belief, even superficially similar ones.
And while it's right to fit Paul and Jesus both into the Jewish context they were grounded in, they also were very much teaching at odds with other established articulations of Jewishness. See, for example, Jesus's, "the sabbath is made for man, not man for the sabbath," episode in the Gospels or Paul's project of expanding the bounds of the Christian community beyond the, "Israel of the Flesh," without circumcision.
hi wazbar, thank you for reading/commenting! i fully agree both with your analysis and that i overstated the facts. once every 2000 years and only in fringe groups is a good batting average, and it's also obviously exceptional like you say, but i think it's funny / interesting to have happened at least twice.
Deletei also totally agree as to paul and jesus' teachings being exceptional/deviant, but i was curious whether scholars thought that the conservative leaning in matthew (where jesus, unlike in mark and luke, seems to advocate for strict torah observance) was original or a renegotiation. seems like Q---if we take it as accurately reconstructed---has a more radical jesus than luke, but at the same time i don't know if we can trust that reading about a hypothetical text whose derivatives go in opposite directions.
My understanding of the scholarship, as a non-specialist, is that it's by no means settled what the relationship was between Jesus and the Torah norms of his day. For that matter, it's not particularly settled what those norms were; we know some of the distinctive practices (scrupulous tithing, eating everyday food in ritual purity) of the proto-Rabbinite Jews of the 1Cs BCE and CE, but not how widely followed those were.
DeleteI really can't speak to Q, I didn't realize that there was enough material evidence to reconstruct a text in the first place. My guess is that any veritable sayings of Jesus would be—like any preaching—multifarious, if for no other reason than Jesus was probably trying to speak to multiple different audiences.
I also feel a certain amount of hesitancy around the project of trying to uncover the teachings of the historical Jesus as distinct from the miracle-narratives or the teachings attributed to him by early Christians. It strikes me as a little (for lack of a better expression) hyper-protestant—protestant squared—that is, attempting to stand in the relation to protestantism that protestantism stands in to catholicism? Puts me in mind of things like, "The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ," or for that matter the likely apocryphal anecdote that Jefferson cut all the passages pertaining to miracles out of his bible with a razor to get at its ethical core (and of course, he was a model of ethics 🙄). Just that people doing this kind of intellectual archeology have a suspicious pattern of coming back having found that the True, Historical Teachings of Jesus are what they thought to begin with.
Deletevery much agree, and my own suspicion is why i picked it up! having read through it now, i agree with that one scholar goodacre that it comes across more like stupid matthew than anything that looks like a real text. and, like you said, the whole project of reconstructing what the historical jesus taught feels theologically and academically silly. we're always interpreting! i doubt that any sayings we have are more authentic than the people who didn't think to write down any sayings.
DeleteDang girl, got a little angry with this one. You alright?
ReplyDeleteSo much of these thoughts/ interpretations hinge on belief. Folks who do not believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead and ascended to the right hand of God the Father Almighty (ala the Apostles Creed) will come up with all sorts of hypotheses about Paul and what he believed (his theology). Lots of guesses . . . that's all they are in the end. And probably very bad guesses as historical and cultural distance lead to bad guesses.
But if you believe that Paul really did encounter the risen Jesus on his way to Damascus to throw Christians in jail for believing in what he believed to be a messianic fraud . . . well, that changes things. If you believe that the risen Christ instructed a Christian named Annanias to pray for him and restore his sight and that he spent time with believers who answered his questions and shared with them what they knew of Christ, his teachings and such . . . that changes things.
Also, when it comes to the Q theory. If you interpret the early Christian communities as power brokers who were trying to come up with their own interpretations for . . . I guess, "reasons," then all sorts of theories that sound strangely like the "information wars" of our own times (maybe projecting the present on to the past/ the "other"). But if you understand the early Christian community as the Scriptures describe them (and many early non-Christian sources), as a community who witnessed Jesus do real miracles, heard him teach with real authority and an insight that was not present in other teachers, saw him killed, laid in a tomb and then encountered him raised from the dead, and on the day of Pentecost, received the Holy Spirit, who loved the Lord Jesus (as Lord and friend) and loved each other . . . well, a lot of theories sound very silly.
The western materialism in western academia is always the elephant in the room. Refusing to say that everything is just simply because God did it is one thing (i.e. trying to understand how things work and such). But ruling out everything that might considered to be supernatural/ writing off everything supernatural as a hoax (thereby implying that people like Paul had "ulterior motives" and were not simply testinfying to what they had seen/ heard/ experienced) . . . that something's else; something that probably has some ulterior motives in and of itself