Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:59:18.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Dale C. Allison Jr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The question, What did Paul know about Jesus of Nazareth?, has long been debated by students of the New Testament. The debate has not issued in any consensus. Indeed, critical appraisals of Paul's relation to the Jesus of history and to traditions about him have been unusually disparate. Thus, on the one side, W. D. Davies has argued that ‘Paul is steeped in the mind and words of his Lord.’ On the other side, R. Bultmann could claim that ‘the teaching of the historical Jesus plays no role, or practically none, in Paul’. The contrast between these two assertions is puzzling, and all the more so as neither can be regarded as idiosyncratic: Davies is not alone in avowing that sayings of and traditions about Jesus were of momentous significance for Paul, and it is not difficult to find critics at one with Bultmann. Moreover, as our two quotations do not simply represent two circles of opinion but also mark poles between which appears a variety of viewpoints, matters are even further complicated.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 1982 , pp. 1 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

[1] The most helpful survey is that of Furnish, V. P., ‘The Jesus-Paul Debate: From Baur to Bultmann’, BJRL 47 (1965), 342–81.Google Scholar

[2] Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (rev. ed.; New York, 1967). p. 140.Google Scholar See pp. 136–46 for the argument, and Davie's, later work on The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 341–66.Google Scholar

[3] Theology of the New Testament (New York, 1951), I, p. 35.Google ScholarCf., pp. 187–9.Google ScholarBultmann, has dealt with the question at length in two essays: ‘The Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul’, Faith and Understanding, ed. Funk, R. (New York, 1969), pp. 22046Google Scholar and ‘Jesus and Paul’, Existence and Faith, ed. Ogden, S. M. (New York, 1961), pp. 183–201.Google Scholar

[4] Léon-Dufour, X., The Gospels and the Jesus of History (New York, 1970), pp. 59–64;Google ScholarLongenecker, R. N., Paul, Apostle of Liberty (New York, 1964), pp. 136–8, 187–90.Google Scholar

[5] Schmithals, W., ‘Paulus und der historische Jesus’, ZNW 53 (1962), 145–60;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPerrin, N., The New Testament. An Introduction (New York, 1969), p. 286;Google ScholarBornkamm, G., Paul (New York, 1971), pp. 109–11.Google Scholar

[6] For views somewhere between those of Davies and Bultmann see Keck, L. E., Paul and his Letters (Philadelphia, 1979), pp. 37–42;Google ScholarFurnish, V. P., Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville, 1968), pp. 51–65.Google Scholar

[7] In addition to what follows below and the works cited there see Schrage, W., Die konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinischen Paränese (Gerd Mohn, 1961), pp. 238–49.Google Scholar

[8] In addition to what follows below and the works cited there see Selby, D. J., Toward the Understanding of St. Paul (Englewood Cliffs, 1962), pp. 305–9, 339–45;Google ScholarBrown, J. P., ‘Synoptic Parallels in the Epistles and Form-History’, NTS 10 (1963), 27–48;CrossRefGoogle ScholarOrchard, J. B., ‘Thessalonians and the Synoptic Gospels’, Biblica 19 (1938), 19–42.Google Scholar

[9] See esp. Fraser, J. W., ‘Paul's Knowledge of Jesus: II Corinthians 5:16 Once More’, NTS 17 (1971), 293–313 and the literature referred to there.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[10] On the details of Jesus's life in Paul's epistles see Feine, P., Jesus Christus und Paulus (Leipzig, 1902), pp. 295–7.Google Scholar Relevant for the problem of the character of Jesus in Paul are: Weiss, J., Paul and Jesus (London, 1909);Google ScholarDodd, C. H., History and the Gospel (New York, 1938), pp. 65–8;Google ScholarBousset, W., Kyrios Christos (Nashville, 1970), pp. 154–5;Google ScholarPorter, F. C., The Mind of Christ in Paul (New York, 1930);Google ScholarStantion, G. N., Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching (SNTSMS 27; Cambridge, 1974), pp. 99–110.Google Scholar

[11] The literature is immense and only a selection can be offered: Heitmüller, W., ‘Zum Problem Paulus und Jesus’, Das Paulusbild in der neuern deutschen Forschung, ed. Rengstorf, K. H. and Luck, U. (Wege der Forschung 24; Darmstadt, 1969), pp. 124–43;Google ScholarBultmann, , Theology, 1, pp. 187–9;Google ScholarWilckens, U., ‘Hellenistisch-christliche Missionsüberlieferung und Jesustradition’, TLZ 89 (1964), 517–20;Google Scholaridem, ‘Jesusüberlieferung und Christuskerygma – zwei Wege urchristlicher Überlieferungs-geschichte’, Theologia Viatorum 10 (1966), 310–39;Google ScholarSchoeps, H. J., Paul (Philadelphia, 1961), pp. 59–87;Google ScholarDodd, C. H., The Apostolic Preaching and 1st Developments (Chicago, 1937);Google ScholarBauernfeind, O., ‘Die Begegnung zwischen Paulus und Kephas. Gal. I 18–20’, ZNW 47 (1956), 268–76;CrossRefGoogle ScholarKilpatrick, G. D., ‘Galatians 1:18 ΙΣΤΟΠΗΣΑΙ kgr;ΗΘΑΝ’, New Testament Essays, ed. Higgins, A. J. B. (Manchester, 1959), pp. 144–9;Google ScholarDavies, , Setting, pp. 453–5;Google ScholarHengel, M., ‘Zwischen Jesus und Paulus. Die ‘Hellenisten’, die ‘Sieben’ und Stephanus (Apg 6,1–15; 7,54–8,3)‘, ZTK 72 (1975), 151–206;Google Scholaridem, ‘Christologie und neutestmentliche Chronologie. Zu einer Aporie in der Geschichte des Urchristentums’, Neues Testament und Geschichte, ed. Baltenswiler, H. and Reicke, B. (Zurich/Tuuml;bingen, 1972), pp. 43–67.Google Scholar See further below, n. 124. Theissen, G., (‘Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie urchristlicher Missionäre’, NTS 21 [1975], 192–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar) has recently proposed that Paul and his churches belonged to a different social stratum than the wandering charismatics who are primarily responsible for the Jesus tradition. Others have claimed that Paul's opponents in Corinthe were bearers of the Jesus tradition; so, for example, Kuhn, H. -W., ‘Der irdische Jesus bei Paulus'’, ZTK 67 (1970), 295–320.Google Scholar

[12] Cerfaux, L., ‘La tradition selon Saint Paul’, Recueil Lucien Cerfaux (Gembloux, 1954), II, pp. 553–63;Google ScholarCullmann, O., ‘The Tradition’, The Early Chruch, ed. Higgins, A. J. B. (abridged ed.; Philadelphia, 1966), pp. 55–99;Google ScholarDaives, , Setting, pp. 464–80, 354–66;Google ScholarHunter, A. M., Paul and His Predecessors (new rev. ed.; London, 1961);Google ScholarWegenast, K., Das Verständnis der Tradition bei Paulus und in den Deuteropaulinen (WMANT; Neukirchen, 1962);Google ScholarGerhardsson, B., Memory and Manuscript (ASNU 22; Uppsala and Lund, 1961);Google Scholaridem, Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity (CN 20; Lund, 1964);Google ScholarGoppelt, L., ‘Tradition nach Paulus’, KD 4 (1958), 213–33;Google ScholarRiesenfeld, H., ‘The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings’, The Gospel Tradition (Philadelphia, 1970), pp. 1–29;Google ScholarSmith, M., ‘A Comparison of Early Christian and Early Rabbinic Tradition’, JBL 82 (1963), 169–76.Google Scholar

[13] The literature is vast. See especially Jüngel, E., Paulus und Jesus (Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 2; Tübingen, 1962);Google ScholarWendt, H. H., ‘Die Lehre des Paulus verglichen mit der Lehre Jesu’, ZTK 4 (1894), 1–79;Google Scholar Bultmann, ‘Significance’; idem, ‘Jesus and Paul’ Fridrichsen, A., ‘Jesus, St. John and St. Paul’, The Root of the Vine, Fridrichsen, A.et al.(Edinburgh, 1953), pp. 37–62;Google Scholar; idem, ‘Jesus und Paulus’, in Heilsgeschichte, pp. 439–56;Google ScholarScott, C. A. A., ‘Jesus and Paul'’, Essays on Some Biblical Questions of the Day, ed. Swete, H. B. (London, 1909), pp. 329–77;Google ScholarWeiss, , Paul and Jesus, pp. 56–131;Google ScholarCollange, J. F., ‘Vers une ethique du Nouveau Testament’ (unpublished thesis, Strasbourg, 1979);Google ScholarGoguel, M., ‘De Jésus à ľapôtre Paul’, RHPR 28 (1948), 1–29.Google Scholar

[14] Cf. 1 Cor., 9. 21.Google Scholar It has been claimed that this phrase designates the teaching of Jesus. So Davies, , Paul, pp. 144–5;Google ScholarDodd, C. H., ‘Έννομος χριστο’, More New Testament Studies (Grand Rapids, 1968), pp. 134–48.Google Scholar For criticism see Furnish, , Ethics, pp. 59–65,Google Scholar and for further discussion Schürmann, H., ‘“Das Gesetz des Christus” (Gal. 6,2). Jesu Verhalten und Wort als letztgültige sittliche Norm nach Paulus’, Neues Testament und Kirche, ed. Gnilka, J. (Freiburg, 1974), pp. 282–300Google Scholar and Bammel, E., ‘Έννομος χριστο’, Studia Evangelica Vol. III, ed. Cross, F. L. (TU 88; Berlin, 1964), pp. 120–8.Google Scholar

[15] Many have been persuaded that Paul's evangelistic gospel must have contained many references to the words and story of Jesus. The epistles, being occasional and something other than initial kerygma, are said to be no evidence to the contrary. See, for example, Moule, C. F. D., ‘Jesus in New Testament Kerygma’, Verborum Veritas, ed. Böcher, O. and Haacker, K. (Wuppertal, 1970), pp. 15–26.Google Scholar The problem has a long history. See Furnish, , ‘Debate’, pp. 343, 351,359,367, 375, 376.Google Scholar

[16] ‘Der Ursprünge der christlichen Mission’, NTS 18 (1971), 34Google Scholar n. 63. Contrast Heitmüller, , ‘Problem’, pp. 126–7.Google Scholar

[17] Qtations of the Scriptures are from the RSV. For obvious reasons, Acts, 20. 35 is left out of the following list.Google Scholar

[18] Some have also claimed that 1 Thess. 4. 15–17 is taken over from the synoptic tradition. See, for example, Hartmann, L., Prophecy Interpreted (CB, NTS 1; Lund, 1966), pp. 181–90.Google Scholar But this is not at all clear. Others have argued that 1 Thess. 4. 16–17 is a dominical saying which failed to make its way into the canonical gospels. So, for example, Jeremias, J., Unknown Sayings of Jesus (London, 1957), pp. 5, 64–7.Google Scholar But Henneken, B. (Verkündigung und Prophetie im I. Thessalonicherbrief lsqbSBS 29; Stuttgart, 1969], pp. 73–98) is not alone in concluding that ‘das Herrenwort, mit dem Paulus zu den Thessalonichern spricht, ist ein Wort des erhöhten Herrn, das in einer besondern Offenbarung an Paulus erging’ (p. 98).Google Scholar

]19] Cf., M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel (New York, n.d.), P. 242.Google Scholar The remarks of Dibelius should be contrasted with those of Schweitzer, A.: ‘So far as possible he [Paul] avoids quoting anything from the preaching of Jesus, or, indeed, mentioning it at all’ (The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle [New York, 1956], p. 173).Google Scholar

[20] Dunn, J. D. G. (‘Prophetic “I”-Sayings and the Jesus Tradition: The Importance of Testing Prophetic Utterances within Early Christianity’, NTS 24 [1978], 180) observes that Paul ‘regards his “opinion” as inspired (vii. 40 – δοκωμ δè κάγω¯ πνεν¯μα Θεον¯ έχειν), but this makes the distinction he holds between Jesus-tradition and inspired opinion all the more significant”.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[21] For example, on the failure of Paul to cite explicitly ‘words of the Lore’ with any frequency see below.

[22] Note, for example, the following remarks of Furnish (Ethics, , pp. 55–6): ‘Not once does Paul refer to Jesus as a “teacher”, to his words as “teaching”, or to Christians as “disciples”. The word “disciple” is never used by him, and while many related ones are (“teacher”, “to teach”, “teaching”, “to learn” …), they are never applied to Jesus himself, his message, or his mission.’Google Scholar

[23] Philadelphia, 1973.

[24] See pp. 41–135. Dungan argues that just as Paul allows divorce despite the apparent meaning of the Lord's command, so the editors of the gospels, including Mark, permit divorce.

[25] Pp. 79–80. But see below, pp. 12–13, 16.

[26] Dungan himself fmds it necessaiy to bring in other considerations (for example, the absence of explicit citations of words of Jesus in early Christian literature in general) before thawing his final conclusion.

[27] Furnish, , Ethics, , pp. 51–9;Google ScholarResch, A., Der Paulinismus und die Logia Jesu in ihrem gegenseitigen Vertältnis untersucht (TU, n.f. 12; Leipzig, 1904).Google Scholar

[28] Davies, , Paul, pp. 138–40.Google Scholar

[29] In this paper Colossians, as well as 2 Thessalonians, will be treated as Pauline. But the results reached herein would not be significantly altered if the two epistles proved to be non-Pauline. Ephesians and the Pastorals, on the other hand, will be left out of account.

[30] ‘Debate, ’, p. 374.Google ScholarCf., Stanton, Jesus, p. 98.Google Scholar

[31] ‘The Use of Parables and Sayings as Illustrative Material in Early Christian Catechesis’, JTS, 3 (1952), 72–9.Google Scholar

[32] ‘Parabolic Language in the Pauline Epistles’, The Gospel Tradition, pp. 187–204.Google Scholar

[33] ‘Pauline Allusions to the Sayings of Jesus’, CBQ 23 (1961), 26–39.Google Scholar

[34] Uppsala: Theologiska Institutionen, 1974.

[35] Mark's Èπì τ χλωρ χόρτω is not derived from the LXX (which has είς τόπον χλόής) but seems to depend upon the Hebrew text, ℵ(Doupt)ℸ π┐π.

[36] But see Kertelge, K., Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium (SANT; München, 1970), p. 134.Google Scholar

[37] Hom., II. 12. 28–29;Google Scholar IG 12. 2, 8–9; Luke, 14. 29Google Scholar and Arist., PA 668a19;Google ScholarPhilo, , Som. 2:8; Eph. 2:20;Google ScholarRom., 15:20 respectively.Google Scholar

[38] Philo, , Gig. 30;Google ScholarJos, . Ant. 11,93; 15,391;Google ScholarEpict, . Diss. 2: 15;Google Scholarcf., arn24; 1 Tim. 6. 19;Google Scholar 2 Tim, . 2. 19;Heb, . 6. 1; 1 Clem, . 33. 3; cf., Matt. 16. 18.Google Scholar

[39] Jer. 1. 10; 24. 6; 49. 10 (LXX); Deut, . 20. 5–6; 1 Q S VIII. 5–6.Google Scholar

[40] See pp. 86–7 for discussion.

[41] διατάσσω is used in Cor., 9. 14Google Scholar to introduce the saying on support from Matt, 10. 10 par. How can is also function as an allusion to a paragraph in Luke 3?Google Scholar

[42] Epist., Arist, . 20, 22;Google Scholar I Esdr, . 4. 56;Google ScholarJos, . Ant. 12:28;Google Scholar I Macc, . 3. 28;Google Scholar 14. 32; cf., Ign.Pol. 6:2.Google Scholar

[43] Sandmel, S., ‘Parallelomania’, JBL 81 (1962), 1–13.Google Scholar

[44] The First Epistle of St. Peter (2nd ed.; London, 1947), p. 8.Google Scholar

[45] Synoptic Tradition, pp. 65–77. This comparison opens Fjärstedt's section on Paul, and one suspects that the author himself recognizes it as the best case for his thesis.Google Scholar

[46] Others, of course, have supposed that Paul was acquainted with a missionary discourse; see, for example, Schürmann, H., ‘Gesetz’, p. 284.Google Scholar

[47] See Bultmann, , Theology, p. 188;Google ScholarFurnish, , Ethics, pp. 53–4;Google ScholarKümmel, , Heilsgeschichte, p. 84 n. 10;Google ScholarKuhn, , ‘Jesus bei Paulus’, p. 296, 314–15;Google ScholarSchrage, , Die konkreten Einzelgebote, p. 243 n. 250;Google ScholarSchürmann, , ‘Gesetz’, p. 286.Google Scholar

[48] It has been suggested (and quite plausibly) that missionary activity in the pre-Easter period already supplied a Sitz im Leben for collection of dominical words. See Schürmann, H., ‘Die vorösterlichen Anfänge der Logientradition. Versuch eines formgeschichtlichen Zugangs zum Leben Jesu’, Der historische Jesus und der kerygmatische Christus, ed. Ristow, H. and Matthiae, K. (Berlin, 1960), pp. 342–70.Google ScholarEllis, E. E. has even proposed that such collections were written down before Easter (‘New Direction in Form Criticism’, Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity [Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1978], pp. 237–53.Google Scholar

[49] On pre-Markan collections see Kuhn, H. W., Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (SUNT 8; Göttingen, 1971);Google ScholarRobinson, J. M., ‘LOGOL SOPHON: On the Gattung of Q’, Trajectories Through Early Christianity, Robinson, J. M. and Koester, H. (Philadelphia, 1971), pp. 71–113.Google Scholar Also important is the recent essay of Kennedy, G., ‘Classical and Christian Source Criticism’, The Relationships Among the Gospels, ed. Walker, W. O. Jr (San Antonio, 1978), pp. 125–55.Google Scholar

[50] Cf., Davies, Paul, pp. 138–40.Google Scholar

[51] Contrast the list of evangelical texts listed by Davies (Ibid.) with those referred to by Selwyn, , st. peter, pp. 363–466.Google Scholar

[52] Paul, pp. 138–9.Google Scholar

[53] Davies gives 6. 38 as the parallel, but this must be a misprint.

[54] See the survey of opinion in Marshall, I. H., Commentary on Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, 1978), pp. 243–4.Google Scholar

[55] For discussion see Lührmann, D., ‘Liebet eure Feinde (Lk 6, 27–36/Mt 5, 39–48)’, ZTK 69 (1972), 412–58;Google ScholarDupont, J., Les Béatitudes (new ed Louvain, 1958), I, pp. 189–204;Google ScholarTaylor, V., ‘The Original Order of Q’, New Testament Essays (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1972), pp. 98–104;, esp. 448–9.Google Scholar

[56] So, for example, Schürmann, H., Das Lukasevangelium (HTKNT III/I; Freiburg, 1969), I, pp. 385–6;Google Scholar Lührmann, ‘Liebet eure Feinde’ and Piper, J., ‘Love Your Enemies. ‘Jesus’ Love Command (SNTSMS 38; Cambridge, 1979), pp. 134–6.Google ScholarLührmann, and Piper, do not include vv. 37–38. But see below, n. 115.Google Scholar

[57] See Schürmann, , Lukasevangelium, 1, p. 386.Google ScholarCf., J. Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus (2nd rev. ed.; New York, 1972), pp. 92–3.Google ScholarLuke, 6. 39 marks a transition from logical development to connection by verbal association.Google Scholar

[58] Cf., Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, 1, p. 386;Google ScholarGuelich, R. A., ‘The Matthean Beatitudes: ‘Entrance-Requirements’ or Eschatological Blessigs?’, JBL 95 (1976), 415–34.Google Scholar

[59] An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd ed.; Oxford, 1967), pp. 179–81.Google Scholar

[60] ‘In Rom. 12. 14 Paul changes his construction from participle to imperative (the participle appears again in the next sentence)- a fact which suggests that he employs borrowed words and does not trouble to adapt them to their grammatical context. ‘So Hunter, , Predecessors’, p. 47.Google Scholar

[61] There are, however, parallels both within and without Judaism. See Piper, , ‘Love Your Enemies’, pp. 19–49.Google ScholarAhlkar, 2. 19 should be added to Piper's list.Google Scholar

[62] Lukasevangelium, , I, p. 386.Google ScholarCf., J. M. Robinson, ‘Kerygma and History in the New Testament’, The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. Hyatt, J. P. (Nashville, 1965), pp. 114–50.Google Scholar Both Schürmann and Robinson also find parallels to Luke, 6. 20–26Google Scholar and thus conclude that Paul knew a source in which 6. 20–26 and 27–38 were already associated. But the parallels are not compelling; cf., Kuhn, ‘Jesus bei Paulus’, p. 315 and below, n. 115.Google Scholar

[63] See Lührmann, , ‘Liebet eure Feinde’, pp. 427–36;Google ScholarPerrin, N., Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York, 1967), pp. 46–9.Google Scholar

[64] It has been observed that even if a parallel between Paul and the synoptics is established, this does not guarantee the direction of borrowing. The gospel tradition may have been influenced by Paul., Cf. M. Bruckner, ‘Zum Thema Jesus und Paulus’, ZNW 7 (1906), 112–19Google Scholar and more recently Hawthorne, G. F., ‘Christian Prophecy and the Sayings of Jesus’, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1975, ed. MacRae, G. (Missoula, Montana, 1975), II, pp. 112–14.Google Scholar In this connection the so-called Paulinisms of the gospels, especially of Mark, become important. For recent study see Romaniuk, K., ‘Le Problème des Paulinismes dans 1'Evangile de Marc’, NTS 23 (1977), 266–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[65] See the analyses of Hoffmann, P., ‘Lk 10, 5–11 in der Instruktionsrede der Logienquelle’, Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Vorarbeiten Heft 3 (Zlirich/Neukirchen, 1971), pp. 37–53;Google ScholarSchulz, S., Q. Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zurich, 1972), pp. 404–7;Google ScholarHahn, F., Mission in the New Testament (SBT 47; London, 1965), pp. 41–6.Google Scholar

[66] I Tim, . 5. 18Google Scholar and Did, . 13. 1–2 are no evidence to the contrary.Google Scholar

[67] This is the real significance of Dungan's work. Markan priority stands, but there are primitive elements in Matt., 10Google Scholar. Although not touched upon by Dungan, the interesting parallels between – Matt. and John, 15. 18–16.Google Scholar 4 may support this judgment. See Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John (xiii–xxi) (AB 29A; Garden City, New York, 1970), pp. 693–5.Google Scholar

[68] A favourable verdict on the authenticity of the central core of the missionary discourse is probably to be accepted. Cf., Hahn, Mission, p. 46;Google ScholarHengel, , ‘Mission’, pp. 35–6;Google ScholarJeremias, J., New Testament Theology (New York, 1971), pp. 231–40;Google ScholarGoppelt, L., Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Erster Teil (Göttingen, 1976), pp. 259–60.Google Scholar

[69] There is one more parallel between Paul and the missionary discourse. Cf., I Cor., 10. 27Google Scholar (‘Eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience’) with Luke, 10. 7, 8 (‘And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide ⃜ Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you’). But the Lukan text is perhaps an editorial addition, and certainly a secondary element of the discourse.Google Scholar

[70] Vaganay, L., ‘Le schématisme du discours communautaire à la lumière de la critique des sources’, RB 60 (1953), 203–44;Google ScholarDescamps, A., ‘Du discours de Marc IX, 33–50 aux paroles de Jésus’, La formation des évangiles (RBib 2; Bruges/Louvain, 1957), pp. 157–77;Google ScholarKnox, W., The Sources of the Synopitc Gospels. Vol. One. St. Mark (Cambridge, 1953), pp. 67–8.Google Scholar

[71] The motive for this intrusion is said to be structural; after each passion prediction (8. 31; 9. 31; 10. 33–34) there follows a misunderstanding on the part of the three leading disciples (Peter, , 8. 32–33;Google ScholarJohn, , 9. 38–41;Google ScholarJames, and John, , 10. 35–45).Google Scholar

[72] Kuhn, , Sammlungen, pp. 32–6;Google ScholarSchnackenburg, , ‘MK 9, 33–50’, Synoptische Studien: Festschrift für A. Wikenhauser (München, 1953), pp. 184–206;Google ScholarAmbrozic, A. M., The Hidden Kingdom (CBQMS; Washington D.C., 1972), pp. 172–4.Google Scholar

[73] Das Markusevangelium II. Teil (HTKNT II/2; Freiburg, 1977), p. 102.Google Scholar

[74] ‘Mark's Preservation of the Tradition’, L' Evangile selon Marc. Tradition et redaction, ed. Sabbe, M. (BETL 34; Leuven, 1974), pp. 28–9.Google Scholar

[75] Black, , Aramaic Approach, pp. 169–71.Google Scholar

[76] ‘Preservation’, p. 29. Knox, Cf., St. Mark, p. 68 n. 1.Google Scholar

[77] Cf., F. Neirynck, ‘The Tradition of the Sayings of Jesus: Mark 9, 33–50’, Scripture. The Dynamism of Biblical Tradition (Concilium 20; New York, 1967), pp. 62–74.Google Scholar Pesch even argues that 43–47 as a unit probably goes back to Jesus (Markusevangelium, II, p. 116).Google Scholar

[78] The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (MNTC; New York, n.d.), p. 218.Google Scholar

[79] Ibid., p. 218 n. 1.

[80] Liddell and Scott give no example of a transitive use of σκανδαλίξεω outside of the gospels. Ps.Sol.16. 7 may be the only instance attested in pre-Christian times. For details see Stählin, G., σκáνδαλον, TDNT 7: 339–344.Google Scholar A semitic background for the use of σκανδαλίξεω in the New Testament seems likely. The af. of ℸΡΠ is possible. Cf. Targ. Mal.2. 8 and Targ. Lamen. 1. 4. See further Black, , Aramaic Approach, p. 170.Google Scholar

[81] Matt.18. 7 = Luke17. 1 is usually assigned to Q, but Matt.18. 6 = Luke17. 2 is perhaps drawn from Mark. Matthew and Luke may have independently associated the saying in Mark with a like saying in Q. Scholars are divided on the origin of Matt.5. 23–30: it has been assigned to Q, M, and Mark. For the problems involved in deciding the issues see Thompson, W. G., Matthew's Advice to a Divided Community, Mt. 17, 22–18, 35 (AB 44; Rome, 1970). Thompson finds Matt.5.22–30 to be an editorial doublet (117–118) and argues, that Matt.18. 6 and Luke 17. 2 are dependent upon Mark (141–142, 231). If Thompson is correct, then the transitive use of σκανδαλίξεω in Luke and Matthew is derived from Mark.Google Scholar

[82] Branscomb, B. H., The Gospel of Mark (MNTC; London, 1937), p. 173.Google Scholar

[83] See Lightfoot, J. B., St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (London, 1879), pp. 232–3.Google Scholar

[84] Col.4. 3 = Mark, 4. 11;Google Scholar Col.4. 6 = Luke, 12. 12;Google ScholarMatt, . 10. 19; Mark 13. 11;Google ScholarLuke, 21. 14;Google Scholar Col. 4. 12 = Luke, 21. 36;Google Scholar 13. 24; Matt, . 5. 48.Google Scholar

[85] Predecessors, pp. 45–51, 126–8.Google Scholar

[86] The existence of a special ‘Q community’ that had no interest in the passion of Jesus is probably a myth of modern scholarship. Cf., M. Hengel, The Son of God (Philadelphia, 1976), p. 75 n. 132;Google ScholarKümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (rev. ed.; Nashville, 1975), pp. 71–4.Google Scholar

[87] Cf., Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2, pp. 21–2.Google Scholar There is, however, a growing tendency to deny the existence of a pre-Markan passion narrative. See the review of opinion by Donahue, J. R., ‘Introduction: From Passion Traditions to Passion Narrative’, The Passion in Mark, ed. Kelber, W. H. (Philadelphia, 1976), pp. 1–20.Google Scholar But see the criticisms of Pesch, , Markusevangelium, 2, pp. 7–10.Google Scholar The arguments of Jeremias, (The Eucharistic Words of Jesus [London, 1966], pp. 89–105Google Scholar) have yet to meet convincing rebuttal. Indeed, we believe that the recent reconstruction of Pesch (who assigns more material to the pre-Markan passion narrative than Jeremias) deserves serious consideration. In addition to Markusevangelium, II, pp. 1–25Google Scholar see his article on ‘‘Die Überlieferung der Passion Jesu’, Rückfrage nach Jesus, ed. Kertelge, K. (Quaestiones Disputatae 63; Freiburg, 1974), pp. 148–73.Google Scholar

[88] Jeremias, (Eucharistic Words, p. 96Google Scholar) assigns the Last Supper to the ‘long account’ of the passion. The ‘long account’ represents a pre-Markan stage. A fair number of scholars are now prepared to argue that Mark himself is responsible for the placment of the Last Supper. But againstthis see Pesch, , ‘Abendmahl und Jesu Todesverständnis’, Der Tod Jesu, ed. Kertelge, K. (Quaestiones Disputatate 74; Freiburg, 1976), pp. 137–87.Google Scholar

[89] It is true that ‘since this word denotes in the tradition the whole process of “betrayal” and “self-oblation”, it must not be taken too narrowly in the present passage, i.e. merely of Judas' betrayal’ (Conzelmann, , I Corinthians [Philadelphia, 1975], p. 197 n. 44).Google Scholar But see Moffatt, J., The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (MNTC; New York, n.d.), pp. 167–8.Google Scholar

[90] Cf., Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2, p. 21.Google Scholar Even if, following Kuhn (‘Jesus bei Paulus’, p. 308), έν τη¯ νυκτί ‘zur ubernommen Kultformel gehört’, ‘the opening of the Lord's Super passage requires to be supplemented, if it is to be understood, by some sort of “Passion Narrative”, however short’. So von Campenhausen, H., The formation of the Christian Bible (Philadelphia, 1972), p. 109.Google Scholar

[91] Zur urchristlichen Geschichtsschreibung (Stuttgart, 1979), p. 45.Google Scholar According to Marshall (Luke, p. 794), 1 Cor. 11. 23–26 ‘is in all probability the distillation of a longer account and presupposes a further knowledge of the circumstances of the last supper; already in 1 Cor. 5. 7 the paschal character of Jesus’ death is recongnized, and in 1 Cor. 10. 16 f. the idea of a new Passover is present. It is probable that the eucharistic narrative originally stood in a paschal context’.Google Scholar

[92] Schoeps, (Paul, p. 56 n. 3) asserts that to argue along these lines is to ‘take refuge in probabilities’. This is a peculiar criticism. That which is probable at least has the merit of not being improbable; and if one rejects that which is probable, the only alternative would seem to be acceptance of something which is less than likely.Google Scholar

[93] Some have suggested, however, that Col. 4. 2 (‘Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful…’) recalls Jesus's instructions to the disciples in Gethsemane (Mark, 14. 38).Google Scholar

[94] The Origins of the Gospel Tradition (Philadelphia, 1979), p. 40.Google Scholar

[95] Paul's epistles ‘are often pieces of polemical writing, one sided theological treatises, they do not contain the whole of the apostle's teaching, and we falsify their aim as soon as we think of them as manuals of a complete system of theology’. So Cerfaux, L., Christ in the Theology of St. Paul (New York, 1966), p. 179.Google Scholar

[96] So Feine, , Jesus, p. 71;Google ScholarDodd, , Romans, p. 205;Google ScholarGoppelt, , Theologie, 2, p. 367;Google ScholarFurnish, , Ethics, p. 53;Google ScholarHunter, , Predecessors, p. 47;Google ScholarStanley, , ‘Allusions’, p. 33.Google Scholar

[97] So Bultmann, , Theology, 1, p. 188;Google ScholarGoppelt, , Theology, 2, p. 367;Google ScholarDavies, , Paul, p. 138;Google ScholarLongenecker, , Apostle, p. 189;Google ScholarHunter, , Predecessors, p. 107.Google Scholar Cf. Gal. 5. 14. But see Furnish, , Ethics, p. 57.Google Scholar

[98] Albertz, M., Die synoptischen Streitgespräche (Berlin, 1921), pp. 16–31;Google ScholarTaylor, V., St. Mark (2nd ed.; London, 1966), p. 101;Google ScholarSchweizer, E., The Good News According to Mark, p. 243.Google Scholar This is not, however, a universal opinion. For criticism see Kuhn, , Sammlungen, pp. 39–43.Google Scholar Important for the question is D. Daube's proposal that Mark, 12. 13–37Google Scholar follows the traditional structure of the Passover liturgy: The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism London, 1956), pp. 158–69.Google Scholar

[99] Pesch argues that Mark, 12. 13–17Google Scholar belonged to the pre-Markan passion narrative: Markusevangelium, II, pp. 224–5.Google Scholar

[100] On the synoptic saying see Roloff, J., Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus (Göttingen, 1970), pp. 166–9Google Scholar and Ebeling, G., ‘Jesus and Faith’, Word and Faith (Philadephia, 1963), pp. 229–30.Google Scholar The phrase ‘to move mountains’ was proverbial in Judaism; but its connection with faith is first found in Christian sources. According to Robinson, (‘Kerygma’, p. 128),Google Scholar Paul criticizes the saying ‘or, more exactly, he criticizes the use made of it, much as in the case of speaking in tongues, where Paul recognizes a factor as a divine gift and still criticizes its misuse. I Cor. 13. 2 would then tend to suggest the Corinthians were misusing sayings of the Lord.’ Cf., Kuhn, ‘Jesus bei Paulus’, pp. 314–15.Google Scholar

[101] On Mark 10. 12 par. see Jeremias, , Theology, pp. 224–5Google Scholar and Dungan, , Sayings, pp. 102–31.Google Scholar

[102] The phrase ‘I know and am persuaded in [by?] the Lord Jesus’ perhaps refers to the words of Jesus; cf., Davies, Paul, p. 138;Google ScholarDodd, , ‘έννομος χριστον¯’, p. 144.Google Scholar But see Furnish, , Ethics, p. 53 n. 78.Google Scholar

[103] On Mark 7. 15/Matt. 15. 11 see, in addition to Hübner (n. 106), Perrin, , Rediscovering, pp. 149–50;Google ScholarBraun, H., Jesus of Nazareth (Philadelphia, 1979), pp. 54–5.Google Scholar

[104] “Ακριβω¯ς οīδατε (v. 2) might be taken to refer to their [the hessalonians'] acquaintance with the tradition of the Sayings [of Jesus] ⃜ But it may refer to the catechetical instruction they had received.’ So Dodd, ‘The “Primitive Catechism” and the Sayings of Jesus’, More New Testament Studies, p. 24 n. 1.Google Scholar

[105] According to Jeremias, (Parables, p. 50), since ‘the symbol of the theif is foreign to the eschatological imagery of late Jewish literature’, one may infer that it goes back to Jesus. Given the fragmentary remains of the sources, such an argument is uncertain. And yet the fact that the image does not occur at all in extant Jewish sources but is frequent in early Christian documents (Luke 12. 39–40/ Matt. 24. 43–44; 1 Thess. 5. 2, 4; 2 Pet. 3. 10; Rev. 3. 3; 16. 15) is probably not coincidence.Google Scholar

[106] On Mark 11. 23/ Matt. 21. 21 see Bultmann, , History of the Synoptic Tradition (rev. ed.; New York, 1963), pp. 25, 56Google Scholar. On Mark 10. 12/ Matt. 5. 32; 19. 3–9/Luke 16. 18 see the works cited by Hultgren, A. J., Jesus and His Adversaries (Minneapolis, 1979), p. 143 n. 58.Google Scholar On Mark 7. 15 and its context see now Hübner, H., Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition (Witten, 1973), pp. 142–75.Google Scholar It seems likely that Luke 12. 39–40/ Matt. 24. 43–44 belonged to a source which is now represented by Luke 12. 22–46. Cf., Dodd, ‘“Primitive Catechism”’, p. 18.Google Scholar

[107] Dodd (ibid., pp. 23–4) however finds several points of resemblance between 1 Thess. 5 and Luke 12.

[108] Pesch has adopted Kuhn's thesis (Sammlungen, pp. 146–91Google Scholar) that Mark 10. 2–12, 17–23, 25, and 35–45 represent a pre-Markan collection. Thus, noting that Paul refers to Mark 10. 12, Pesch concludes that the apostle probably knew the pre-Pauline collection (Markusevangelium, II, pp. 128–30Google Scholar). But Kuhn's reconstruction is doubtful (see Best, E., ‘Mark 10: 13–16: The Child as Model Recipient’, Biblical Studies. Essays in Honor of William Barclay, ed. Mckay, J. R. and Miller, J. F. [Philadelphia, 1976], pp. 119–34, 209–14); and it remains likely that Mark 10. 12 circulated in isolation.Google Scholar

[109] Barrett, C. K., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC: New York, 1968), pp. 87–8.Google Scholar

[110[ One may conjecture that Paul does not return to the mlssionary discourse in 2 Corinthians because his earlier use of it accomplished nothing.

[111] Smith, M., ‘The Report about Peter in I Clement V. 4’, NTS 7 (1960), 96–8.Google Scholar

[112] Cf., D. A. Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testament in Clement of Rome (NovTSup 34; Leiden, 1973), pp. 135–51;Google ScholarKoester, H., Synoptische Überlieferung bei den apostoloschen Vätern (TU 65; Berlin), p. 15.Google Scholar

[113] See Hagner's, chart: Clement, p. 133.Google Scholar

[114] We may recall here the words of W. Sanday: ‘The differences in these extra-canonical quotations do not exceed the differences between the Synoptic Gospels themselves; yet by far the large proportion of critics regard the resemblances in the Synoptics as due to a common written source…’ (The Gospels in the Second Century [London, 1876], p. 65).Google Scholar

[115] The parallels between 1 Clem, 13 and Luke 6 are confined to Luke 6. 31, 36, 37, 38. This supports our suggestion (above. pp. 11–12) that in the source behind Luke 6 vv. 37–38 were already associated with 27–36. It also in part justifies treating 27–38 as a tradition independent of 20–26.

[116] Dodd, (History and the Gopel, p. 65Google Scholar) apparently assumes that Paul knew ‘a’ collection of sayings. Cf., Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, p. 295.Google Scholar

[117] Pace Furnish(Ethics, p. 54), who writes that ‘it is tempting to suppose that Paul perhaps had access to this very “document”’.Google Scholar

[118] This is relevant in view of Robinson's, J. A. T., unconventional dating of Mark: Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia, 1976), pp. 86–117.Google Scholar

[119] Cf., Davies, Paul, pp. 143–4. This conclusion perhaps vitiates somewhat the contention that Q, which has no passion narrative, arose in a community for which the death and resurrection of Jesus were only of marginal import. See further n. 86.Google Scholar

[120] In both Mark and Q the missionary discourse is delivered within the context of disciples being sent out and then returning.

[121] So also Dodd (n. 104 above). According to Kuhn (‘Jesus bei Paulus’, p. 296), άκριβω¯ς οīδατε is ‘einer Art Zitationswendung’.

[122] See further Dungan, , Sayings, p. 147.Google Scholar

[123] It is interesting that the material in Mark, 9. 33–50, which preserves one of the collections which Paul evidently knew, is constructed around catchwords – probably for mnemonic purposes. This may be a sign that Paul and his churches memorized sayings from the tradition. Certainly 1 Cor. 11. 23–26 and 1 Cor. 15. 3–7 point in that direction.Google Scholar

[124] The authorship of Luke-Acts is not unimportant for answering the question of Paul's knowledge of the Jesus tradition. If Luke, Paul's companion (Col. 4. 14; Phm. 24; 2 Tim. 4. 11) wrote Luke-Acts (so recently Hengel, , Geschichtsschrelbung, p. 60;Google Scholarcf., E. Franklin, Christ the Lord [Philadelphia, 1975], pp. 173–85) then obviously Paul cannot be isolated from those who preserved the teaching of Jesus. (This also follows if the author of the second gospel be identified with another of Paul's missionary associates, John Mark; cf. Acts 12–15; Col. 4. 10; Phm. 24; 2 Tim. 4. 11).Google Scholar

[125] This should be related be related to the close connection between receiving instruction and imitating the instructor. See Williams, D. M., ‘The Imitation of Christ in Paul with Special Reference to Paul as Teacher’ (unpublished PhD dissertation; Columbia, 1967).Google Scholar

[126] Paul freely bends the Scriptures throughout his letters. But this does not entail that the OT text had no identity or integrity of its own. The scriptural tradition must be isolated from the various uses to which it was put.

[127] This is even more striking if the Johannine epistles are directed against ‘heretical’ interpretations of the fourth gospel or traditions very close to those of the fourth gospel, as Brownnau, R. E. believes: The Community of the Beloved Disciple (New York, 1979).Google Scholar

[128] Theologie, II, p. 370.Google Scholar

[129] See further Goppelt, L., Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times (New York, 1970), pp. 154–5;Google ScholarMoule, , ‘Kerygma’, pp. 18–20,25.Google Scholar

[130] It is ‘erstaunlich, wie wenig die “Bedürfnisse” der Gemeinden, wie wir sie aus den neutestamentlichen Briefen kennen, in den synoptischen Evangelien hervortreten. Oft muΠ man sie gewaltsam in die synoptischen Texte hineinlesen’. So Hengel, , Geschichtsschreibung, p. 29. The Jesus of the synoptics does not discuss spiritual gifts, baptism, or speaking in tongues. Few references are made to the Holy Spirit. No sayings unambiguously solve the problems of the mission to the Gentiles. There is no discussion of circumcision, certainly one of the most burning issues in the early church. Even the word ekklesia occurs only twice, and then in late, special Matthean material. The implications of these simple observations have rarely been taken to heart.Google Scholar

[131] More New Testament Studies, p. 21.Google Scholar

[132] ‘Love your Enemies’, p. 139. Cf., Further pp. 134–8, 172.Google Scholar

[133] See further Goppelt, L., ‘Jesus und die “Haustafel”-Tradition’, Orientierung an Jesus. Für Josef Schmid, ed. Hoffmann, P., Brox, N., and Pesch, W. (Freiburg, 1973), pp. 93–106.Google Scholar

[134] ‘The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings’ (see n. 12).

[135] Memory and Manuscript; Tradition and Transmission; Origins (see ns. 12 and 94).

[136] Cf., Davies, Setting, pp. 464–80 and Smith, ‘Tradition’.Google Scholar

[137] There is, however, something to be said for the contention that the greatest alteration in the history of the tradition took place in the transition from the oral to the written realm. Cf., E. Trocmé, Jesus as Seen by His Contemporaries (Philadelphia, 1973), pp. 24–5.Google Scholar

[138] In his more recent work (Origins, pp. 87–9) Gerhardsson admits that several synoptic texts have been treated with ‘artistic freedom’.Google Scholar

[139] According to Davies, (Setting, p. 478), ‘in Paul reminiscences of Jesus’ words already appear undifferentiated from his own. In the later canonical gospels the process of fusion has gone further ‘.This statement assumes that the treatment of Jesus’ words in the letters accurately reflects the process of their transmission. But, as we have argued, one must distinguish between the transmission of blocks of material and the uses made of those blocks. Apart from this, it is nowhere likely, in any instance where Paul and the synoptics overlap, that Paul preserves a more original version of a saying. And if the gospels are really the product of a process of fusion which has only partially begun in Paul, the observations made in n. 130 are quite difficult to explain.Google Scholar

[140] The nineteenth century debate on Jesus and Paul is reviewed by Regner, F., ‘Paulus und Jesus’ im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 1977). Regner reviews only German work.Google Scholar