“Blessed,” 396.
67. Dunderberg, “John and Thomas in Conflict?”
68. Ibid., 370–78.
69. Dunderberg, “Thomas’ I-Sayings”; and idem, “Thomas and the Beloved Disciple.” Dunderberg extensively critiques the theories of DeConick, Pagels, and Riley in The Beloved Disciple in Conflict?
70. An earlier study argues that the author of Mark also places the author in the narrative in a similar but even more subtle way than the redactor of John (Johnson, “Identity”). Mark may have even provided the model for the redactor’s work in John.
71. For a comprehensive bibliography and overview of the discussion up to 1986, see Neirynck, “Paul.”
72. Stanley, “Pauline Allusions”; John Pairman Brown, “Synoptic Parallels.”
73. E.g., Walter, “Paul.” Walter cites Schürmann, “‘Das Gesetz des Christus’ (Gal 6,2),” esp. 285–86; and Gräßer, “Der Mensch Jesus,” esp. 133–36. Martin Dibelius argues that paraenetic sections of epistolary literature—even full documents like the Epistle of James—use community paraenesis, an oral form of teaching that does not usually cite Jesus directly (Dibelius, James, 28–29; idem, From Tradition to Gospel, 238–44. He also argues that texts like James are themselves examples of the genre “community paraenesis.” However, Dibelius too facilely slips between oral forms and written genres without adequately explaining why paraenesis—be it oral form or written genre—does not tend to cite Jesus’ authority (especially when texts like James do cite scriptural authority). His argument that “all the sayings of Christian exhortation were regarded as inspired by the Spirit or by the Lord” cannot be taken seriously as an explanation.
74. According to Furnish, “Chapters 7 and 11 of 1 Corinthians supply firm evidence that, at the very least, Paul was acquainted with Jesus’ words as mediated in the catechetical and liturgical traditions” (Furnish, “Jesus-Paul Debate,” 375). That liturgy is a source is true at least for 1 Cor 11:23–25. For the other two, Neirynck observes that “there is no ‘quotation’ of the saying” by Paul. “Paul produces in his own formulation ‘a halakah based on such a saying’” (“Paul and the Sayings of Jesus,” 320; in the latter sentence quoting Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 318 n. 93). Considering his largely negative assessment of other potential allusions in the letter based on a close analysis of verbal parallels, Neirynck’s observation here is important. To wit, based on 1 Cor 7:10–11 and 9:14, where Paul actually cites teachings of Jesus but doesn’t “quote” him, one should not expect extensive verbal parallels between Paul and synoptic sayings of Jesus elsewhere when Paul does not even cite “the Lord.”
75. Ferdinand Hahn lists the following as paraenetic sections in the canonical epistles: 1 Thess 4:1–9; 5:(1–11, 12–14,)15–22; Gal 5:14—6:10; Phil 4:4–9; Rom 12:9—13:14; Col 3:5—4:6; Eph 4:17—6:17; Heb 13:1–9, 17; 1 Pet 2:11—4:11; (5:1–11); Jas 1:3—5:11 (Hahn, “Die christologische Begründung,” 89, n. 13).
76. E.g., cf. the following: Rom 12:14/Luke 6:27–28/Matt 5:44; Rom 12:17, 21/Luke 6:29/Matt 5:39–40; Rom 13:7/Mark 12:17 par.; Rom 13:9/Mark 12:28–30 par. (cf. Mark 10:17–22); Rom 14:10, 13/Luke 6:37/Matt 7:1. See Neirynck (“Paul and the Sayings of Jesus,” 270) for a table of allusions and a number of scholars who argue for each of them. Included in this table is Rom 12:21/Luke 6:27ff/Matt 5:39ff; Rom 14:14(20)/Mark 7:15 par.; and Rom 16:19/Matt 10:16b. Romans 14:13 is usually compared to Mark 9:42 par. with their common use of σκανδαλ–. Walter and Patterson include Rom 12:18/Mark 9:50/Matt 5:9 (Walter, “Paul,” 56; Patterson, “Paul,” esp. 29 n. 26).
77. Even in Romans 13–14, where Paul returns to argumentative style, the “allusions” are usually the point of the rhetoric, not supportive material in the body of the argument. Rom 13:7 is a rhetorical recapitulation, giving the elaboration pattern of 13:1–7 a specific, practical focus. Rom 13:8–10 stands on its own, though it is smoothly connected to the preceding thought. Rom 14:10a is the issue subsequently defended in 14:10b–12, and this issue of judging others is the essential departure in theme from Paul’s more elaborate discussion in 1 Cor 6:12–11:1.
78. E.g., Robinson, “Kerygma and History,” esp. 40–46; Kuhn, “Der irdische Jesus,” esp. 308–18; Koester, “Gnostic Writings,” esp. 244–50.
79. Tuckett, “1 Corinthians and Q.” Tuckett is right to question a Q relationship to the three citations in 1 Corinthians, as well as Koester’s 1 Cor 2:9/Matt 13:16–17 (Q 10:23–24) parallel, though he appears to miss the point when he observes the different uses of νηπίοιϚ in 1 Cor 3:1 and Q 10:21–22. If Paul’s opponents understood themselves as enlightened “newborns” due to their recent baptism and spiritual instruction, then Paul’s condescending use of “newborn” makes an effectively snide attack on their self-understanding. In effect, Paul is saying “Yes, they are newborns, but for that very reason they are spiritually immature (or, as he puts it, σαρκίνοιϚ) and ought to be treated as such.”
80. Kuhn goes as far as to suggest a tradition-historical connection between the opponents of 1 Corinthians, the tradents of Q, the opponents in the letter of Polycarp, and the Gospel of Thomas (“Der irdische Jesus,” 518).
81. Koester, “Gnostic Writings,” 248. But see also idem, “One Jesus,” 230. On GTh 17 specifically, see Onuki, “Traditionsgeschichte.” For a critique of Onuki, see Dunderberg, “John and Thomas in Conflict?” 365–70.
82. Patterson, “Paul and the Jesus Tradition”; Davies, Gospel of Thomas, 138–45. See also Kelber, who argues that substantial similarities in the Gospel of Thomas support the existence of a sayings tradition at Corinth (Oral and Written Gospel, 176).
83. Davies, Gospel of Thomas, 141–43. “Paul writes of them, ‘you are completely satisfied . . . , you have grown rich . . . , and you have begun your reign . . . .’ These are three distinct metaphors for present fulfillment, and Paul’s opponents apparently applied them to themselves” (141). Cf. esp. Thomas 109 and 110 on becoming rich, and 2 and 81 on becoming rulers. As discussed above, Paul’s opponents may have called themselves babes in a positive sense, a self-designation that Paul derides. For an example of this kind of self-designation, Davies notes Thomas 4, 21, 22, 37, and 46 (p. 143).
84. Col 3:1–4:6. See, e.g., Pokorny, Colossians, 157.
chapter 2 The Synoptics and Q
Introduction
For most biblical commentators, the primary
