Paul and the Synoptic Jesus Tradition

Heinz Hiestermann

• Publisher: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9783374049837
• eBook ISBN: 9783374051090
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

This study compares the Jesus traditions in Paul's genuine letters to the synoptic Jesus tradition. The aim is to identify parallels between Jesus traditions in the Pauline letters and synoptic Gospels and to determine whether the wording of the Pauline Jesus traditions is closer to any particular synoptic Gospel or Q. Paul's quotes of words of the Lord (1 Cor 7: 10–11; 9: 14; 11: 23–25) as well as possible allusions to Jesus traditions in Paul's letters are investigated and compared to similar synoptic sayings of Jesus. Allusions to Jesus traditions in 1 Thessalonians and Romans are revisited. Special attention is paid to possible allusions in Galatians. The findings show that Paul does make use of Jesus traditions resembling those of the synoptics, particularly the Gospel of Matthew.[Paulus und die synoptische Jesustradition]In dieser Arbeit wird die Jesustradition in den Proto-Paulinen mit der synoptischen Jesustradition verglichen. Ziel der Untersuchung ist es, Parallelen zwischen den Jesustraditionen in den Paulusbriefen und Synoptikern aufzuweisen und festzustellen, ob die von Paulus benutzte Jesustradition im Wortlaut näher an einer der Synoptiker bzw. Q ist. Die Zitate der Herrenworte in 1Kor 7, 10-11; 9, 14 und 11, 23-25 werden erneut untersucht, sowie mögliche Anspielungen des Paulus auf die synoptische Jesustradition im ersten Thessalonicherbrief und im Römerbrief. Ein Schwerpunkt wird auf den Galaterbrief gestellt. Die Untersuchung zeigt, dass Paulus in seinen Briefen synoptische Jesustraditionen benutzt, die vor allem mit dem Matthäusevangelium Gemeinsamkeiten aufzeigen.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The debate over the relationship between Jesus and Paul, and subsequently the debate over how much Paul knew about Jesus, started more than 200 years ago. In the history of the debate, consensus on the scope of the Jesus tradition available to Paul could not be – and has not been – reached. Some researchers have questioned whether Paul was at all interested in acquainting himself with information about Jesus. Others presuppose that Paul knew a large part of the Jesus traditions contained in the synoptics, if not more.

The disagreement on how much Paul knew about Jesus is largely caused by the apostle’s infrequent use of Jesus traditions in his letters. He explicitly quotes the Lord on only a few occasions (cf. 1 Cor 7:10; 9:14; 11:23b–25). These sayings later became part of the synoptic Jesus tradition.

Current estimations on how much Paul knew about Jesus vary so much that the researchers who have been looking for parallels between the synoptics and the Pauline epistles are often divided into minimalists, maximalists and those with a moderate view.1

Minimalists claim that Paul is only quoting words of the Lord in two or three instances. Everyone seems to agree on 1 Cor 7:10–11 and 9:14. Others add 1 Cor 11:23–25 as a third quote of the word of the Lord by Paul.2 Paul’s other explicit references to words of the Lord (e. g. 1 Thess 4:15) are not seen as actual quotes of words of the earthly Jesus by the minimalists, because a synoptic parallel cannot be agreed upon, or the saying is not believed to be authentic.

A. Resch (1904)3 is normally used as the chief example of someone representing the maximalist few. Resch assumed that all the epistles attributed to Paul were, in fact, written by him and he found more than 1000 parallels between Paul’s letters and the synoptics.4

Those with a moderate view represent the largest group in the debate over the number of parallels between Paul and the synoptics, but even within this group, there are significant differences. There is no consensus on the amount of implicit references to words of the Lord used by Paul. Zimmermann adequately described the situation by observing that between the extremes of the minimal and maximal hypotheses, almost all possibilities are represented in regards to the amount of Jesus tradition that Paul implicitly used.5

When one looks at the debate over Paul’s use of the Jesus tradition in general, the minimalists and the maximalists (and those with a moderate view) do not seem to enter into conversation with one another. Those who find more than just two or three allusions to words of the Lord in the Pauline letters do not seem to take the concerns of the minimalists seriously, and vice versa. This has been already recognized by Dungan, who states: “And so the debate continues, as each side periodically makes additional contributions from within its own presuppositions and, largely, for its own audiences”.6 This problem has to be rectified if one is to come to a broader consensus about the number of allusions.

Contributing to the lack of agreement on the scope of Paul’s knowledge of the Jesus tradition is the fact that the question of how Paul got to know the sayings of Jesus has not been sufficiently cleared. As long as there is disagreement on where, when and from whom Paul learned his Jesus traditions, opinions on the amount of knowledge Paul had about Jesus will remain divided. A look at Paul’s biography is necessary and can provide more insight into the matter.

Another shortcoming concerning the search for parallels between the synoptic gospels and Paul is that there is no comprehensive overview of the history of the search for parallels.7 While the listing of parallels has “become almost a special literary genre within the literature of Paul”,8 there is no history of this “special literary genre”. Most scholars who have searched for parallels begin their works with an overview of the general history of the Jesus-Paul debate. No one has provided a comprehensive history focussing solely on the search for parallels between Paul and the synoptic gospels, nor of the methods used to identify such parallels. A history of the search for parallels is much needed to identify research gaps in the history of the debate and to give an overview for future scholars.

Concerning the synoptic problem, the few quotes or so-called explicit references to the Lord’s words in Paul’s letters do not provide enough evidence to draw any kind of certain conclusion regarding the relationship of the Jesus traditions in Paul’s epistles with those in the synoptics. It is therefore necessary to look for further parallels between Paul and the synoptics in order to find out if Paul knew more than the few Jesus traditions that he actually quotes. Paul’s allusions to words of the Lord – those passages in which he uses words similar to those of Jesus’ statements in the synoptics without indicating it – might reveal more about the Jesus tradition used by Paul and its relationship to the synoptic Jesus tradition.

My interest in examining whether the Pauline Jesus tradition resembles the Jesus tradition(s) of a particular synoptic gospel or of Q has been stirred further by the knowledge that some of the later New Testament letters draw on Jesus traditions, but these seem to know only the gospels of Matthew and Luke. This is particularly the case for James9 and 1 Peter.10 The authors of these letters do not quote from Mark, the oldest gospel, even when Mark provides parallels to a Matthean or Lukan passage. The same applies to the Apostolic Fathers. “Matthew quickly gained the strongest influence on the church in the second century”.11 It would be interesting to find out if the tendency to use only Jesus traditions contained in Matthew and Luke (or maybe Q) could also be found in Paul’s letters, and what conclusions, if any, could be drawn from this observation.

Up to now, many scholars have searched for parallels between Pauline and synoptic Jesus traditions and listed the texts they assume to be parallels, but the results of the research have not been interpreted. The debate has, for the most part, revolved around the number of parallels: scholars have searched for parallels and given reasons for assuming a relationship between the similar verses. However, there has been no comprehensive attempt to use and interpret the findings to find out if the older Jesus traditions in Paul’s letters resemble those of one or more of the synoptics or Q and what conclusions could be drawn from such a comparison.

The Pauline letters are usually not consulted in the research on the development of the synoptic gospels and in the attempts to reconstruct the oldest version of a particular pericope. Discussions on the original wording of the text normally revolve around the comparison of the texts of the synoptic gospels themselves and Q. Consulting the Jesus traditions in the letters of Paul might add to our understanding of the development of these passages, as they were transcribed well before the synoptic gospels and likely before Q. Including the Pauline Jesus traditions in discussions of the development of similar synoptic texts enables one to look at the issue from a different angle.

Interpreting the results of the relationship between Paul’s Jesus traditions and those of the synoptics is important, as it has consequences for our understanding of the text, as the following example shows. Wong opines that Paul has de-radicalized Jesus’ ethical teachings. He compares the teaching on divorce in 1 Cor 7:10–11 to its synoptic parallels in Mark 10 and Matt 19, and argues that while “Mark prohibits divorce and remarriage unconditionally”,12 Paul and Matthew relax the radical prohibition of divorce by allowing exceptions. He concludes that since Jesus strictly prohibits divorce in Mark, Paul and Matthew de-radicalized Jesus’ teachings on divorce. The same can be said of Jesus’ teaching on the right to maintenance (1 Cor 9:14; Matt 10:10).

However, Wong’s argument only adds up if Mark indeed presents the oldest version of the text. If Paul and Matthew agree on divorce, it is at least possible that they, and not Mark, deliver the oldest version, because Paul’s letters were written before the gospels. Matthew, then, could have used an older tradition, similar to the one known to Paul. It could therefore be argued that it was Mark who radicalized the teachings of Jesus – for example, on divorce – or that he knew another tradition of Jesus’ sayings. Therefore, the comparison of the Jesus traditions recorded by Paul to their synoptic counterparts could have theological implications that need to be taken into consideration as well.

According to Riesner, a comprehensive treatment of the question of “Paul and the Jesus tradition” remains a desideratum.13 I want to make a new contribution to the debate, based on the following objectives:

1. To determine where the similarities between Paul and the synoptic gospels lie. Because much has been written about the Jesus traditions in 1 Corinthians, Romans and 1 Thessalonians – that is, those letters normally assumed to contain most of the implicit Jesus traditions in the Pauline corpus – it should not be necessary to extensively rework all the parallels in these letters. However, the remaining undisputed letters of Paul still need to be investigated thoroughly for allusions to synoptic material.

2. To interpret the findings of parallels between Pauline and synoptic Jesus traditions. Up to now, scholars have mainly been arguing over the exact number of parallels. Each scholar lists the texts he or she regards as parallels and his or her reasons for doing so. I will attempt to go a step further and use these parallels in order to find out if one or more of the gospels used the same Jesus tradition as Paul did. Additionally, if a connection between a particular synoptic gospel or Q and Pauline material can be established, the conclusions that could be drawn from such observations must be considered.

3. To investigate the problem of how or from where Paul learned his Jesus traditions. The question has not been answered satisfactorily, resulting in disagreement about the number of parallels.14

In order to achieve the above-mentioned aims I will work as follows: After this introduction (Chapter 1), the history of the debate will be presented in Chapter 2. Here, it will be shown which scholars have worked on the search for parallels, what their findings were, and how the start of the search for parallels originated. Besides presenting a much-needed overview of this debate, the history of the debate should also contribute to identifying and explaining the research gap.

In Chapter 3, the methods and assumptions of this study are listed and discussed. Particularly important is the drawing up of a clear set of criteria for the identification of synoptic Jesus traditions in the letters of Paul. The criteria should help to establish some kind of consensus about where the synoptic authors use similar Jesus traditions to those delivered by Paul. The chapter ends with a deliberation on the limitations of this study.

Before starting the search for parallels between the synoptics and Paul itself, it is necessary to ask whether it is safe to assume that Paul came to know the words of the historical Jesus – or, for that matter, any information about Jesus – as he probably never met Jesus. Many exegetes deny that Paul had any knowledge about Jesus, or claim that we cannot establish how much Paul knew about Jesus. Other authors assume that Paul knew many stories about the life and preaching of Jesus, but they fail to satisfactorily explain why such knowledge can be presupposed. Paul’s knowledge of the Jesus tradition has to be made plausible or the search for parallels between Paul’s letters and the synoptics would be highly speculative.

Therefore, Chapter 4 will focus on Paul’s chronology. It will be discussed where Paul was after his conversion, what he did there, and with whom he came into contact. If the Jesus tradition had already spread to the places Paul stayed and if the people he met after his conversion knew the Jesus tradition, it would be hard to deny that Paul possessed knowledge of Jesus. Many scholars have studied Paul’s general chronology, but it is uncommon to use his chronology with the sole aim of determining to what extent he likely was exposed to the Jesus traditions. Without this step, we would not know if the assumption that Paul was well informed on Jesus could be made, and, consequently, if Paul could be expected to implicitly refer to the Jesus tradition in his letters.

Also discussed in this chapter is the question of what Paul ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Preface
• Table of Contents
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Paul and the Jesus tradition. The history of the debate
• Chapter 3: Methods and assumptions
• Chapter 4: Paul’s knowledge and use of Jesus traditions
• Chapter 5: Explicit references to the Jesus tradition in Paul’s letters
• Chapter 6: Synoptic parallels in Paul’s letter to the Romans
• Chapter 7: Synoptic parallels in Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians
• Chapter 8: Synoptic parallels in Paul’s letter to the Galatians
• Chapter 9: Conclusion
• Bibliography
• More
• Footnotes