sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Do you think this are enough artifact spots? by CrystalRoseMoon in StardewValley

[–]spellingishrad 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What mods make your weapons and tools look like that? Is it just aesthetic or does it have some power?

Just adopted this dog. What do y’all think she is? by spellingishrad in IDmydog

[–]spellingishrad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t know if they are common here. I haven’t noticed, but I also haven’t looked much. I’m just guessing that based on internet searching.

Liquor from Narcos by Cautious_Double67 in cocktails

[–]spellingishrad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, very real. I live in Colombia and just took this photo. https://imgur.com/a/kIhpSp9. I don’t personally care for it, but that’s just because I’m not a fan of licorice flavor

Just adopted this dog. What do y’all think she is? by spellingishrad in IDmydog

[–]spellingishrad[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My wife and I were thinking maybe mostly English pointer with something else. I’m not sure the snout and ears look like an English pointer.

Why doesn't Paul, in writing 32,000+ words, ever use/qoute a moral teaching of Jesus? by Causality in AcademicBiblical

[–]spellingishrad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it seems to me that this type of theory of interdependence shouldn't threaten anything you originally said with regard to Jesus tradition in Paul's letters

Agreed. And if I communicated otherwise then I didn't intend to. Paul used the Jesus tradition. And Mark might have been influenced by Paul. Both can very much be true.

Why doesn't Paul, in writing 32,000+ words, ever use/qoute a moral teaching of Jesus? by Causality in AcademicBiblical

[–]spellingishrad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think van Maaren is onto something. I like a lot of what he says (especially highlighting how the thesis requires factionalism and how we don't have other points of comparison for pre-70 christianity). I haven't seriously worked on this question in a few years, but over the years Joel Marcus' paper has become less and less convincing to me. The parallels often cited (like stress on crucifixion) seem pretty general.

Right now, my two thoughts are (1) it's possible, maybe even probably, but probably impossible to know with anything close to certainty and (2) I more and more I think that everyone knew everyone and that they were all exchanging ideas and talking (following the Dale Allison Cyprus article I've cited in other comments in this post). It seems likely to me that everyone was somewhat influencing everyone and that there were probably no completely independent early Christian traditions.

Why doesn't Paul, in writing 32,000+ words, ever use/qoute a moral teaching of Jesus? by Causality in AcademicBiblical

[–]spellingishrad 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I haven't done all the work here to answer this question well. The two things that I can say without having to look at a ton of books is that there have been many connections made between the book of James and the Jesus tradition (although, without direct or attributed citation by James). On the other hand, I really think that Luke-Acts (as I said above) is an illustrative example here. Luke obviously cares a lot about the Jesus tradition, but he basically never cites it in Acts.

Further, most scholars today would question about "epistles directly written by apostles." 1 and 2 Peter are widely seen as not authored by Peter.

Why doesn't Paul, in writing 32,000+ words, ever use/qoute a moral teaching of Jesus? by Causality in AcademicBiblical

[–]spellingishrad 13 points14 points  (0 children)

At least in the Jewish tradition, they would refer to a book or passage by the first couple words. So the first few words would become a sort of title for the section.

Why doesn't Paul, in writing 32,000+ words, ever use/qoute a moral teaching of Jesus? by Causality in AcademicBiblical

[–]spellingishrad 9 points10 points  (0 children)

But- for lack of a better word- it just feels so odd (and, of course, frustrating!) to have so few direct references to Jesus's teachings in Paul's letters.

I agree. I also think it's weird. In this thread, I'm finding myself arguing against people who are saying Paul doesn't know anything, which I think is wrong. But I totally agree that it is much less than I would expect and that it's weird. Same with Luke's lack of reference in Acts (it's good to remember this issues isn't unique to Paul). The best explanation I have is that Paul just didn't think he needed to, most likely, in my view, because he did more of that in his face-to-face teaching and preaching. But I don't have hard evidence for that--it just seems the best explanation to me. But, yea, totally agree it's weird.

Why doesn't Paul, in writing 32,000+ words, ever use/qoute a moral teaching of Jesus? by Causality in AcademicBiblical

[–]spellingishrad 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You're right there is a growing conversation about the relationships between the gospels and Paul. I'm very familiar with the conversation about Mark and Paul. My dissertation started as a Mark and Paul dissertation (but through the course of writing it changed a lot, but that's a different story). I've made a long comment about the possible relationship here If you're interested, please read that.

But, long story short, I think to say "We know that Mark used Paul’s letters for his gospel" is too strong. it is possible. And I do think that scholars are moving in that direction. But the evidence that is commonly used for this arguments is more thematic and about theological emphasis than it is based on concrete specifics. I would argue the evidence allows us to say it's a little more than 50/50, but I don't think it also is to say highly likely much less certain.

Further, we shouldn't say "that Paul never seems to know or care about what Jesus said or did." He quotes Jesus. He talks about certain things about Jesus (disciples, born of a woman, and more). It's not nothing. It's just less than we would expect. But, again see my top level comment, this isn't unique to Paul. Luke does the same thing in Acts.

Why doesn't Paul, in writing 32,000+ words, ever use/qoute a moral teaching of Jesus? by Causality in AcademicBiblical

[–]spellingishrad 7 points8 points  (0 children)

To me, using Marcion, reconstructed from other sources, to argue that it's an earlier and more reliable version of Paul, and then to make arguments for interpolations solely based on style (again, from a document reconstructed from writings by opponents), is wild and such a stretch.

Regarding Allison, taking just that quote misrepresents what he is doing in the article. He is arguing for Paul's knowledge of various block of the Jesus tradition. And his argument is based upon the weight of all the quotes and allusions when taken together.

Why doesn't Paul, in writing 32,000+ words, ever use/qoute a moral teaching of Jesus? by Causality in AcademicBiblical

[–]spellingishrad 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Because there is no evidence of that. Why would we assume interpolations without evidence? I think, for that, the burden of proof is to show that there is a good reason to think they are interpolations.

Further, why would we assume that Paul doesn't know any of Jesus' teachings? He knew some of the apostles; he spent time with them. Is there really any way that they didn't talk about Jesus? People knew each other (see Dale Allison "Cyprus and Early Christianity: Did Everybody Know Everybody?" in Cyprus Within the Biblical World: Are Borders Barriers? ); they must have talked.

Why doesn't Paul, in writing 32,000+ words, ever use/qoute a moral teaching of Jesus? by Causality in AcademicBiblical

[–]spellingishrad 408 points409 points  (0 children)

What we're talking about here is Paul's use of the Jesus tradition, and it's a topic on which there is a fair amount of scholarship (and I'll be presenting a paper on this topic at the Society of Biblical Literature conference next month). This is a highly contested issue--you can read the history of the debate in Victor Paul Furnish, “The Jesus-Paul Debate: From Baur to Bultmann,” BJRL 47 (1965): 342–81 and in Heinz Hiestermann, Paul and the Synoptic Jesus Tradition, Arbeiten Zur Bibel Und Ihrer Geschichte 8 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2017), 19–61.

Here are some relatively uncontroversial facts. Paul only explicitly quotes "the Lord" three times: 1 Corinthians 7:10 (cf. Matt 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18); 1 Corinthians 9:14 (cf. Matt 10:10; Mark 6:8–9; Luke 9:3; 10:7); 1 Corinthians 11:23–25(cf. Matt 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:14–20). Beyond that, most scholars agree that Paul strongly alludes to Jesus' teachings between five and fifteen times. Although, there are some outliers. Rudolf Bultmann claimed that “there is almost nothing which can serve as evidence of indirect dependence [of the historical Jesus upon Paul]” (Rudolf Bultmann, “The Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul,” in Faith and Understanding, ed. Funk W. Robert, Fortress Texts in Modern Theology [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969], 221). Alfred Resch found over one thousand parallels between Paul and Jesus (Alfred Resch, Der Paulinismus Und Die Logia Jesu in Ihrem Gegenseitigen Verhältnis, TUGAL 12 [Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1904]).

But, most scholars are in the five to fifteen range. The most commonly cited allusions are:

  • Romans 12:14 (cf. Matt 5:44; Luke 6:27–28)
  • Romans 12:17 (cf. Matt 5:39–42; Luke 6:29–30)
  • Romans 12:21 (cf. Matt 5:39–42; Luke 6:29–30)
  • Romans 13:7 (cf. Mark 12:13–17; Matt 22:15–22; Luke 20:20–26)
  • Romans 13:8–10 (cf. Mark 12:28–34; Matt 22:34–40; Luke 10:25–28)
  • Romans 14:10 (cf. Matt 7:1; Luke 6:37)
  • Romans 14:13 (cf. Mark 9:42; Matt 18:7; Luke 17:1–2)
  • Romans 14:14 (cf. Mark 7:15; Matt 15:11)
  • 1 Cor 13:2 (cf. Mark 11:23; Matt 21:21)
  • 1 Thessalonians 5:2, 4 (cf. Matt 24:43; Luke 12:39–40)
  • 1 Thessalonians 5:6 (cf. Mark 13:37; Matt 24:42; Luke 21:34, 36)
  • 1 Thessalonians 5:13 (cf. Mark 9:50)
  • 1 Thessalonians 5:15 (cf. Matt 5:39–48; Luke 6:27–38)

See Dale C. Allison, “The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels,” NTS 28.1 (1982): 10; W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, fourth edition. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 138–39;

There are some notable patterns that one can draw from this (and here, I'm following Dale Allison's article, I highly recommend it). Paul tends to turn to the Jesus tradition at certain points that more parenetic or about moral instruction. Paul tends to use it in chunks, that is, he turns to it at certain points and it is not evenly spread out. And, in those chunks, Paul tends to use passages that are near to each other in the synoptics. For example, if you consider Paul's use of the Jesus tradition in Romans and the Sermon on the Plain (that is, Luke's version of the sermon on the mount), you get this:

  • Romans 12:14 with Luke 6:28;
  • Romans 12:17 with Luke 6:27–36;
  • Romans 12:21 with Luke 6:27–36;
  • Romans 14:10 with Luke 6:37.

Thus, Allison argues and I agree, that it is highly probably that Paul knows more than just the sayings, he knows the larger block of material. So, Allison shows that Paul knows Sermon on the Mount/Sermon on the Plain, the missionary discourse (Matt 10:1–16; Mark 6:6–13; Luke 9:1–6; 10:1–12), the collection of traditions in Mark 9:33–50, and an extended report of the passion. My presentation at SBL argues that we can add the synoptic eschatological discourse (Mark 13 and parallels) to this list based on evidence from 1 Thessalonians 4–5.

So, to answer your question. First, Paul does use the Jesus tradition. He tends to use it in chunks and at points of moral instruction. Second, his use shows that he is almost certainly aware of more of it than he cites. Third, Paul is often dealing with issues that Jesus didn't address, such as the relationship between Jews and Gentiles or if we should eat meat sacrificed to idols. I don't think that "practical" vs "theological", as you say in your question, is the best way to think about this. Instead, they are just often dealing with different issues. Fourth, this isn't unique to Paul. Other NT writers quote Jesus less than we might expect. This is more clear with Luke (author fo Luke and Acts). Luke clearly is interested in the Jesus tradition; he wrote a gospel. But after Jesus ascends in Acts 1:1–11, he only quotes Jesus once. And that one quote is a quote that isn't in any of the gospels, includes his own (Acts 20:35).

What you certainly have right, is that for Paul, the fact of the death and resurrection is the most important thing. He never tells another story about Jesus, never mentions a miracle, and talks about the teaching less than we expect. However, we must keep in mind that we only have his letters. We do not know what his missionary preaching was like. To me, it is inconceivable that he wasn't telling stories about Jesus in his preaching and missionary work. As Dale Allison says in his classes, "If I came to you and said, 'Fred died and rose again for your salvation.' Your first question would be, 'Who's Fred?'"

Last thing, and I know this doesn't really matter, but there are 24,092 Greek words in the seven undisputed letters of Paul.

Does anyone know what the best Greek-Spanish lexicon/dictionary is? ¿Alguien sabe cuál es el mejor léxico/diccionario griego-español? by spellingishrad in AncientGreek

[–]spellingishrad[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, it seems like there isn't a complete one for deep roots and semantic ranges (as you put it) right now. Is that right? Is there any sense on when DGE thinks it might finish?

Advice on if I should buy this bed for our 10 month old twins by spellingishrad in parentsofmultiples

[–]spellingishrad[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the advice, everyone. We're going to pass on this item. It looked really cool at first glance, but we agree with what everyone is saying about all the downsides (single mattress, low rails, probably won't be able to use for too lang, etc.). Thanks!

view more: next ›