Continuing from Getting History for Atheists Wrong (Again) — #4
An examination of the claim that “Paul refers to his teachings that Jesus made during in his earthly ministry, on divorce . . .”
Source-Data | Interpretation | External facts / context related to interpretation |
1 Corinthians 7:10-11
To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 1 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. |
Paul is recollecting the teaching of Jesus found in Mark 10:9-12 and Luke 16:18 that others had passed on to him. (“Paul cites Apostolic, Jewish-Christian tradition as his source of authority.” (Tomson, 117))
Mark 10:9-12 … Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate. … Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery. Luke 16:18 Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
|
Paul insisted he learned nothing from others about the gospel of Jesus
Galatians 1:11-12; 2:6 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. . . . As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message.
The context of I Cor 7:10 (vv 1-9) suggest Paul is addressing couples who are challenged by one party wishing to become an ascetic (an issue found frequently in second-century sources) so the situation is different from the divorce sayings in the gospels:
Doubts against the historicity of the teaching of Jesus in Mark 10:9-12 —
and in Luke 16:18 —
–o– The above are not intended to suggest they are the only factors to be considered. Some of the sources quoted above attempt to answer the negative considerations I have cited. Example, in response to Baur’s point about the past tense, Godet writes,
Opposed to the arguments against authenticity, Funk et al first lists those “for”:
|
It’s an interesting question, the source of Paul’s appeal to “the command of the Lord” here. As one commentator remarks with some puzzlement, Paul only cites the command to offer a contradiction to it — accepting the possibility of divorce anyway. (The word “separation” is said to be used often enough for “divorce”.) The rationale of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark for forbidding divorce is an appeal to Genesis and creation — the same rationale we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some commentators say that Paul is appealing to Jesus’ command this time because he knows he is contradicting the Hebrew Scriptures, but it is also pointed out that the Scriptures themselves are contradictory: God hates divorce, he says through his prophets, but through Moses he permits it. Should we see here in this section of 1 Corinthians another allusion to the author presenting himself as a prophet of God, as another Moses, even — declaring the law of God but at the same time acknowledging some flexibility, as per the Old Covenant?
Re: “teachings that Jesus made during his earthly ministry, . . . on preachers and on the coming apocalypse”
Continuing in the next post.
Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 2nd ed.. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: Black, 1971.
Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, Minn: Michael Glazier, 1999.
Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Edited by George W. MacRae. Translated by James W. Leitch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.
Dungan, David L. The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul; Use of the Synoptic Tradition in the Regulation of Early Church Life. Fortress Press, 1971. http://archive.org/details/sayingsofjesusin00dung.
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1987.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians. New Haven ; London: Yale University Press, 2008.
Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and The Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus: New Translation and Commentary. New York: Polebridge Press, 1993.
Godet, Frédéric. Commentary on St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated by A. Cusin. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1889. http://archive.org/details/commentaryonstpa01godeuoft.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. “The Divorced Woman in 1 Cor 7:10-11.” Journal of Biblical Literature 100, no. 4 (1981): 601–6. https://doi.org/10.2307/3266121.
Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000.
Tomson, Peter. Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Netherlands: Brill, 1991.
Neil Godfrey
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- “They are Messianic Jewish supremacists, racists, of the worst kind” - 2024-10-07 20:24:10 GMT+0000
- Can We Reliably Study Unique Events? - 2024-10-01 02:11:56 GMT+0000
- Are Historical Sources “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”? - 2024-09-28 22:47:59 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
What’s more likely: the author of gMark borrowed from Paul or Paul borrowed from gMark? (The essence of comedy and NT studies is . . . timing.)
Does Paul quote “Jesus’s teachings” anywhere? Does Paul consider Jesus to be God, i.e. was Paul a trinitarian?
If we want to understand Paul’s appeal to divine authority for his teaching on divorce in 1 Cor 7, it makes most sense to look at similar wording in other passages of the Pauline writings. Most relevant is 1 Thessalonians 4:15, where he relates the “word of the Lord” (Τοῦτο γὰρ ὑμῖν λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου…) that the recently deceased will be resurrected first when the Lord Jesus comes in glory. Here it is obvious that Paul is not appealing to some historical Jesus of Nazareth, but to the heavenly Christ Jesus with whom he claims again and again to be in direct spiritual communication. I don’t see why 1 Cor 7 should be treated any differently. And there is an obvious similarity to the Hebrew prophets who are constantly saying “thus says the Lord…” when they make some definitive proclamation or exhort or shame the people of Judah/Israel on some point or other.
Appealing to the 4-Gospel book of the NT is neither necessary nor warranted for explaining Paul’s exercise of his apostolic authority.
When I first read 1 Cor 7:10-11 I, too, assumed that “Lord” referred to Jesus. But “Lord” in Paul’s letters is an ambiguous term. Sometimes it clearly means “God,” sometimes it clearly means “Jesus,” and sometime the reader can’t readily tell which he means. I have come to believe that every time Paul attributes a moralistic command to “the Lord” he means “God.” I don’t think Paul’s Christ Jesus ever gives any command to humans on earth. He does tell those with him at the Last Supper (whoever they are) to eat, drink, and remember.
BTW “I command, not I, but the Lord” in v. 7:10 is clearly original to Paul and not an interpolation as I show in my forth coming book “Reexamining the Pauline Letters: Interpolation and Forgery Exposed” because it forms an inclusio with 1 Cor 7:17 “Lord … I prescribe in all the churches,” with “Lord” in v. 17 meaning “God.” The literary unit of 1 Cor 7:10-17 is in the format A, B, B’, C, C’, D, D’, D”, E, E’, F, F’, A’.
I hope that your work will consider logion 12 of the Gospel of Thomas.
My work is a literary analysis of Paul. Other texts are not relevant to my thesis.
A pity. Logion 12 of GThomas could suggest an early Christian tradition elevating James relative to YHWH, in which context “James the brother of the Lord” could mean YHWH. But best of luck with your work.
It’d be interesting to know when such a tradition (ie. elevating James after Jesus was said to be leaving) might have been elevated (or even might have begun); and in relation to Paul being elevated.