In my study of the New Testament, I’ve collected a few questions that have stayed with me. One of them fascinates me endlessly, and I have never read an answer that seemed sufficient. Perhaps the readers of Internet Monk would like to take a swing at this pitch, or direct me to a source that addresses the question.
Here you go: Why does the Apostle Paul not refer to the stories, miracles and teaching from the ministry of Jesus in his letters to churches?
Edumacate me. This one has me stumped.
The Internet Monk Archives 
I must preface this by stating that I am not a scholar (which will become evident).
Could it be that Paul was bringing them to Faith in Christ and how we need to act in regards to Christ’s work for us? Also, although we do not know this, Paul could have expanded further and included what Christ did when he was with the different churches in person. Much of what Paul preaches is that Christ died for us and how we are not to live in His church.
Does that make any sense?
LikeLike
St. Paul spent many years learning about Christ’s earthly life before he became a missionary. He spent much time with the Apostles/disciples and this is referenced often in Acts (9:28, 11:28, etc)
When he is instructing St. Timothy he tells him (II Tim 4:14, “But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them (i.e. St Paul and the disciples), (15) and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures (OT – there was no NT until the 300’s) which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”
St. Paul knew the miracles of Christ but his mission was to admonish the Church in staying the course and keeping the faith.
Sts. James, Peter, John and Jude did not write about the miracles in their epistles either and they lived with him for 3 years and were eye-witnesses. Their epistles were for personal growth and development (theosis) of the individual believer.
The miracles and life of Christ were given in oral history and were a regular part of their worship tradition.
As the epistles and Gospels were written they were copied and passed on and read during worship services.
LikeLike
e.g.
“If Christ is not risen from the dead, our faith is in vain” (pretty big miracle there, no?)
1 Cor 10:16 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?” cf. John 6
About Our Lord not writing anything. Dear me. Who taught you? Who is the author of Scripture?
(God.)
Unless you meant why is no part of Scripture written with God as its author and the human nature of Christ as its human author . . . 🙂
LikeLike
To my shame, I have only just begun reading J I Packer’s “Keep in Step with the Spirit.” It was written in 1984, and there is now a new edition available, which I hope to purchase soon.
I think this book is the equal of Packer’s terrific “Knowing God” and urge everyone to read it. If you want sound, biblical teaching on the Holy Spirit, the trinity, holiness, Christian living, even bible reading, do get into this book.
He says something related to this topic, which may be a little simplistic, but I think there is something in it. He says that the epistles were written for folk who knew the content of the gospels, because they had lived with Jesus, or lived shortly after, whereas the gospels were written for folk who had read the epistles, but had not lived through the period when Jesus was on earth, and so needed this vital information.
This is not ipsissima verba, but I think it is the general idea he is intending to convey.
He also says, that wherever else you read in the bible, make sure that the gospels are read above all else. They will keep you in touch with Jesus and remind you of what it means to be a disciple.
LikeLike
Hmmm….my guess would be that part of the omission has to do with the fact that Paul did not have access to any of the four Gospels…he may have known a number of stories regarding Jesus, including numerous Gnostic stories, and not been sure which of the anecdotes, if any, he should accept as true. So he pretty much ignored them all in his writing.
The HS was addressing that elsewhere, with the evangelists, and Paul just dealt with what was in front of him.
I never really thought about the omission before. When you look at Paul that way, it makes 1.Cor.11:23-26 even more interesting in its being included. (But then, I’m a Jesuit agent, so what do I know?)
Rob
LikeLike
Further to my earlier comment, I’ve now decided to post my thoughts on my own blog: http://confessingevangelical.blogspot.com/2005/05/christ-and-st-paul.html.
LikeLike
The question that has bugged me lately is “Why Didn’t Jesus ever write anything down????”
LikeLike
Michael: I had another couple of thoughts to add to this discussion that are a bit long for the comments here. I could put them on my own blog, or I could ask you to PLEASE CHECK YOUR EMAIL (yes, I’m reduced to *begging* here – as you’ll understand when you PLEASE CHECK YOUR EMAIL). 🙂
LikeLike
Dear Imonk:
I suppose the answer, or at least a partial answer to your question can be found in 2 Corinthians 5:16.
LikeLike
The gospels were written for different purposes than the epistles. The writers used material consistent with their purposes. Don’t read too much into St Paul’s seeming indifference to the gospel material.
LikeLike
After reading through all of the insightful discussion thus far, I have to come back to what one of my Journalism profs told me: “write what you know.” It seems to me that Paul was simply writing what he knew: he knew the Old Testament, he knew his own experience with the resurrected Christ, he knew what God was doing with the Church, but he only knew second-hand what Christ had done while He walked on earth.
Maybe it was as simple as that.
LikeLike
Wow. A lot of material to process here.
Let’s begin with the assumption that few Greeks would be familiar with the history and customs of a ‘bizarre Oriental’ culture. Jews had more or less been stomped down by almost every other empire in memory.
Their culture was ‘superior,’ (like ours, right?) with an emphasis on art and philosophy. Have you ever read Sophocles? Dramas were quite popular, which suggests sophistication, at least. Romans were coarse, unsophisticated brutes who preferred watching people kill each other to seeing a play! That’s for sissies!
Anyways… the message of a Jewish Gospel dealing with a Jewish Messiah would be lost on them. The synoptics are written in plain language, the same sort of language that Paul defends in 1 Corinthians.
Any religion’s ability to survive depends on it’s ability to adapt and change, as well as it’s ability to express the aspects it has which are spiritual and universal. The universal message was the one Paul proclaimed over and over. Christ is Lord! We’ll figure out how to convey the details later. If there’s time.
John, when compared to the synoptics with their simple language and easily understood message, is rich, complex, and poetic. It’s also vaguely Gnostic, which would appeal to people already familiar with Plato, Sophocles, Homer and the like. It was also written many many years after Paul died. Paul was only beginning to understand that The Way had to leave the Jews behind to survive and prosper. John effectively established Christianity as it’s own faith, therefore freeing itself of the ‘burden’ of it’s peculiar Jewishness.
Um… if you’re still reading this, let’s say I think you’re all right. These are letters, written in the prevailing style of the day, that were written for the needs of an earthly ministry with an established message.
LikeLike
I don’t think this has been brought up yet, but what about Paul’s pre-encounter theological training? He had been schooled in the Old Covenant and had trained under Gamileo, a highly respected Rabbi. Could this have affected His stile, thought process, and delivery? Also, note that Paul’s audience was mixed gentile and Jew, perhaps Paul wished to set Jesus (and thus the Christian life) apart so that when the stories and events were encountered there was a foundation to understand that Jesus is not just some other mystical person (as many Greek and Roman temples had) who was blessed by God (or gods). Just a thought. Peace be with you all.
-Aaron
LikeLike
I knwo this has been pointed out, but it deserves to be pointed out again. Jesus taught one thing above all: that he was the ONLY way to God. Paul refers to this. How is that not referring to the ‘teachings of Jesus’? So he doesn’t have quotation marks. I don’t think that means much. When I write papers, I footnote things that I don’t quote directly, because the IDEA is there. If Paul were publishing his epistles in Speculum, I’m sure he would have footnoted the Gospels.
LikeLike
Apologies if this was said already; The Epistles of Paul we have are a small select group. They were chosen for scripture precisely because they clarify matters not elswhere mentioned in the New Testament. So this may be precisely why they do not have many references to Jesus’ words. Of course the last supper is one thing clearly mentioned.
LikeLike
Jay et allus,
Mention was already made of a so called letter of Paul to the Laodecians; opinions differ on Paul’s authorship and it presents nothing not dealt w/ elsewhere.
The First Letter of Clement, some of the letters of Ignatius, and the Didache (aka The Teaching of the Twelve) were regarded highly by many in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Eusibius in his History of the Church (early 4th century) listed these among others that some churches held in esteem.
Some parts of these books read like something that Paul or James might have written but the concensus of the Church and various other things testify against them. Treat them like you would other Christian writers such as Augustine, Luther, Wesley or Bonhoeffer and you’ll do fine.
The early works are very valuable in apolgetics for those who deal with aberrant and heretical beliefs like Mormonism and the Watchtower.
Kind of off-topic, but the subject was raised.
Christ keep you,
Z
LikeLike
I’ve wondered (and it’s pure speculation of course, if there were things Paul preferred (like John) to talk about in person rather than in letter.
I just realized that I was just talking with Bishop Wright last night at the SPU symposium that just finished and I could have tried asking him this question about why Paul didn’t quote Jesus. Crap!
LikeLike
Good question iMonk.
He didn’t have the gsopels but he certainly must have know many of the stories.
What would have been on the scrolls and parchments he mentioned? Would it have been all OT, or perhaps some personal (non-surviving) letters from the disciples or other church leaders?
And what did Paul do, or study, during his 3 years in the desert? The OT I am sure. But what other revelations did he have.
I can only conclude, simplistically perhaps, that he wrote what he wrote because that’s all the HS wanted him to write. Like the end of the gospel of John when he says that all the books of the world could not contain the deeds of Christ. Why didn’t John at least give it a shot?
LikeLike
just curious, imonk – u mentioned that people have called this a stupid question. did they give any particular reason for saying that?
LikeLike
A thought, from someone whose ecclesioliterary knowledge is slim: are there other epistles (not just Pauline) that were known to the early church but might not have been included in the canonical list of Biblical texts? And if so, might part of the reason for their exclusion been that they “rehashed” gospel material? (In a way, this kinda plays into what Jason Kong was saying.)
— Jay
LikeLike
Interesting question. I suspect a really useful answer requires examination of the mindset of the age and the rhetoric used in Paul’s letters. 1. Would any educated person writing in the first century normally think: “Okay, I’m writing about this guy, I need to document what I’m saying with details, and I need to show how the details fit into the overall shape of the life.” I was startled not long ago to read that the modern novel COULD NOT have existed without the philosophy of John Locke: before him, people simply didn’t think in terms of a “developing life story.” I think something analogous is going on with Paul; the theological significance of the details of Jesus’ life would not normally have been evident to him. It took an uneducated ignoramus like Mark to think it up when he created the genre of gospel. (NB: irony in preceding sentence) 2. Rhetoric & genre: Paul wrote letters. Look at other ancient letter writers: did they use biographical details to make their case? If so, how? I suspect they normally didn’t. Therefore Paul didn’t.
LikeLike
My take on your question would be that Paul was not concerned with Christ’s earthly ministry because he was specially chosen to reveal the “heavenly mystery” of Christ and the church. Paul’s teaching has to do with the Church, the body of Christ and how a “heavenly” people are to be here in this world that has rejected Christ. In reality Paul’s epistles are a continuation of Christ’s ministry but now a Christ who is in “heavenly” places. If you can’t see the distinctive, spiritual and heavenly nature of the revelation given to Paul then you have missed the whole point of his letters and lower the gospel to something earthly. That’s my take on it.
Philologus
LikeLike
Thoughts on this…
Our school (Oneida Baptist Institute) has a founder and a founding story. (James Anderson Burns, 106 years ago he started the school to end the feuds in this area of SE Ky after a dramatic conversion to Christ.)
All of us who are part of the staff here know this story. We have books about it. But I rarely refer to these events in the OBI chapel. Our Prez rarely refers to these events in print. If you clome here, you will get it al in context, but the “working dialog” of the ministry includes very little about the past and a lot of how we are writing our own continuation of the story now.
The parallels are faulty, but it does shed some light on the question.
Still….I can’t see what there isn’t more reference to the words/teaching of Jesus. OK, skip the miracles. The words of Jesus have to be authoritative for Paul. Why doesn’t he quote more of them?
LikeLike
Personal opinion:
Paul’s letters are written to specific churches with specific needs. Given that this is a handwritten letter, Paul may have been trying to keep to task — to make the letter as short as possible. Thus, send along the relevant information, don’t put anything in that isn’t germane to the point he’s trying to make. The gospel stories simply weren’t necessary to make the point he was making, so he didn’t refer to them.
Besides which, he seems to be very fond of talking about what Jesus did for him (appearing to him on the road to Damascas) and less fond of passing on secondhand reports of what he’s done for other people (feeding five thousand, etc.) Perhaps he was more excited about what Jesus did for him then he was about what Jesus did for other people.
That could be a point we could take away — would it make sense that we be more concerned about what Jesus is doing through us and to us now then what he did for other people thousands of years ago? Should there be a sense of immediacy in our preaching — that it isn’t something that happened to someone else long ago and far away, but something that is living and active today?
Respectfully,
Brian P.
LikeLike
Ok, what I am hearing here (reading here) is that Paul didn’t write much about the life of Christ or of his miracles (nor did James, Jude, the author of Hebrews, or even John in I, II, and III – right?)
because:
a) He had the Holy Spirit, the church had the Holy Spirit so they didn’t need the miracles.
b) He had never wittnessed any of the miracles, only the ressurected Christ.
c) He was writing to people who already knew all about that, and was telling them how to apply it to their lives, their churches…
I think it is important to remember that Paul didn’t know he was writing scripture…neither did David I suspect, when he sat on the hill sides and penned the psalms. He was writing to specific churches, for specific purposes, and could he ever have imagined that 2000 years later, total strangers would be discussing his words with each other electronically all over the globe? How I would love to sit in his presence and hear him say, wait a minute gentlemen, that is not exactly what I meant…
and as an English teacher, I would have to chide in with something about his “run on sentences”…Paul, just where is the subject and predicate in that sentence!
The truth is, Paul was writing scripture, as was David and Moses and James etc etc. And the LORD has given it to us as a precious gift. Personally I would like to ignor his writings, and the book of Job for that matter. Calvin wanted to get rid of the book of James. (or was that Luther)? by the way, Calvin and Luther, and Wesley, and MacArthur were not/are not writing scripture, right? I once used this illustration in a Sunday School lesson. I had a jigsaw puzzel, gave each kid a few pieces and hid the cover. Then I said, put it together. I won’t bore you with the whole thing…the point I made was, you can’t discern the picture by looking at just a few pieces. And if you take out the pieces you don’t like and throw them away, you’ll never be able to put it together. If two pieces seem to ‘contradict’ each other, you need to find the pieces that link them together. Paul’s letters were never meant to stand alone, neither were the gospels.
LikeLike
1. Careful reading of Paul’s letters provides evidence, scattered, but there, that he knew all the major elements of the Gospel tradition. 2. Not having been an eye-witness, like the 12, he could not speak as one. His witness to Jesus pre-Resurrection is second-hand. 3.And there is plenty of reason to know he knew it well–not just the outline of the gospel findable in his letters, but the fact that his sometime companion Luke was “reviewing all the materials” and writing one up himself from earlier sources. Paul doesn’t NEED to write a Gospel. 4. Paul is so convinced of the Gospel in all its elements, that the question that burns in him is, “now what?” What are the implications from the fact that Jesus is Lord and jailing a church member is persecuting Him? How do we live, communally, organizationally, in a pagan environment, in relationship with Jews, in the ‘now and not yet’? 5. This isn’t a scholarly, lengthy, pre-planned process–these questions are pressing on the growing young Church within a handful of years after the Ascension. Paul’s gifts suit him to deal with them, whereas his late start makes him a poor source for testimony while “Peter, James, and John, those pillars of the Church” are still around. 6. Writing materials are scarce, writing space precious–you only write what you must get in. There are other sources for the Gospel narrative. Suggestions for discussion.
LikeLike
I think the connection is clear to the readers of the Bible. And not to cop-out, but I find this disconnect to be all the more a reason to see how the Scripture is inspired by God.
The fact that Paul’s actions and writings do not so coincide with the actions, parables of Christ – that they are not unnecessarily redundant kind of gives credence to the idea that in the inspiration of all the writings, they were written to complement each other and not merely repeat each other.
After all, pastors and theologians, scholars and the sorts of people now they can easily make the distinction between Paul’s writings and the examples of Chirst. As you mentioned yourself, people like NT Wright make the connections brilliantly. 🙂
It’s almost like saying “I don’t need to write about this because it will be included in the Canonization of the Bible anyway,” without knowing that the Bible would have a Canonization of the New Testament. And that to me is utterly amazing and miraculous. =)
God had a purpose to each epistle, to each Gospel. They wrote in the bounds of those purposes, not extending farther than they needed to and delivering beautifully. As the gospels proclaimed and described the kingdom, Paul preached Christ crucified and the implications behind the very actions of Christ. They are complementary and not redundant.
Is that not beautiful? 🙂
LikeLike
prehaps he was trying to spread gods word by being humble surely god’s word doesnt need miricles to spread it.
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~poubae
LikeLike
great discussion guys…..
i will throw my unscholarly opinion into the ring. it seems to me that Paul is working with a basic level of knowledge. as mentioned before and as Wright has throughly discussed in both NTPG and JVG, 1st century Palestine and the surrounding area was very oral. Paul had visited all of the churches that he is writing to with the exception of Romans, therefore it would seem that these churches has already heard of Jesus and been evangelized to some extent. they already knew the main narratives. furthermore, as Wright correctly states, most of Jesus’ actions such as raising the dead, healing the blind and exorcisms were both phsycial and spiritual realities pointing to or at least acting as symbols to something bigger, the restoration of Israel (i.e. Isaiah) therefore Paul’s mostly gentile listeners would not fully understand the miracle stories and furthermore, they may look to Jesus as one of the many charlatons running around the Mediterannean looking for fame and fortune.
when Paul is writing he assumes a level of knowledge and familiarity with Jesus stories. his concern is to address situations as they arrive.
to throw another question out there and i think one equally important, why does Paul not mention the birth of Jesus? he only references it once, i think in Galatians, but does not mention the “virginal conception.” given the importance that later church fathers and mothers placed on it, it is surprising that Paul never once mentions it and only 2 of the 4 gospel writers say anything……i am not denying it, just wondering if we place too much emphasis on something that Paul did not see as critical in his Christology (of course i am assuming that Paul was writing a complete systematic theology and christology in his letters!!! :-), maybe the problem is that we are reading more into Paul than he ever meant to write…now i am in trouble with the verbal inspirationist!!) or was he once again assuming a level of knowledge and did not want to confuse his gentile audience with details of Jesus’ life that were very similar to some of the “myths” that they had grown up listening to? of course this could be the myth that turned out to be true as C.S. Lewis once said!! IM keep up the good work and it is great to finally to meet a thinking follower of Jesus who has not bowed down to the evangelical community!!!
an open theist…
mason
LikeLike
Paul doesn’t write about the miracles of Christ (and those still happening among the Christians)because there was a greater miracle that was present . . . that is, the miracle of the Church itself. He writes about the Churches and the Church together because this is the greatest miracle, the greatest sign since the Ascension … that these people stay together after the death of Jesus, that they stay together after his Ascension, that they are invested with a power from on high . . . the greatest sign is their unity, the fact that they remain. This is why Paul doesn’t have to speak about “miracles” in the way that Christ performed them, the miracle, even today 2,000 years later is that the Church remains.
LikeLike
I really don’t have a “Jesus/Paul” issue here. No brag, but I have been relating Paul to Jesus for years in my classes. Then reading NT Wright has been very helpful in seeing the enormous connection between the two. Of course, I see the importance of the crucifixion/Rex accounts. (duh) But how could you know the Lord’s Prayer and not reference it? The Prodigal Son? The healings?
There must be a reason. The availability of the material to Paul is simply TOO obvious.
Do we see a possible answer in “Mark’s Secret,” i.e. Jesus’ insistence that he not be announced or proclaimed as Messiah before the right time, and even then, only when the cross has become the focus? Was the signal to not emphasize the ministry of Jesus something that came from Jesus?
My biggest problem is sort of a Jesus/Paul problem, though. How do we talk about all the mechanics of “justification by faith,” imputation, etc. when we see Jesus accepting people in his ministry? How do the words and works interact with Paul?
Paul is proclaiming the “end message” of the ministry of Jesus, i.e. “Jesus is Lord of the world.” But the Gospels were written to disciple Christians to live like Jesus. Why doesn’t Paul make more of an explicit connection?
(BTW- I’ve been told LOUDLY that this is a stupid question, so thanks to all of you who are participating in this stupid discussion 😉
LikeLike
Not that I’m a biblical scholar at all, but Paul does dwell on things like the Resurrection and the crucifixion.
I think an answer to your question will need to appeal to Paul’s purpose in writing the letters he did, and I can venture a (poor) guess at that. He presupposes at least a cursory knowledge of events that transpired in early 1st century Palestine, and instead seeks to place the knowledge of those events within a larger redemptive-historical framework. Just as the Gospels (with the exception of John perhaps) do not seem to “explain” themselves very well (at least not when I read them and hear them), Paul feels no need to rehash the events recorded in the Gospel to his audience.
So, to my guess: Paul is involved in theologizing, not in the academic and arid sense we might think, but rather in the sense of explaining what the implications of the person of Jesus are for world history. Perhaps there is a nascent “Jesus of history/Christ of faith” distinction at work here: Paul wants to explain the latter aspect.
While we might fault Paul for not referencing the oral tradition containing accounts of Jesus’s actions in history, we cannot fault him for a lack of Christological focus. Jesus is in his letters, permeating their very meat. Only this is the Cosmic Christ, the Resurrected Lord of the Universe.
Do I perhaps detect a tension here within your recent thought about the postmodern church? It seems that many emergent thinkers are willing to deal with Jesus, but not so willing to deal with Paul. Maybe it’s because they do not like Paul, and see him as the archetype of all speculative theology. I don’t want to go too far off track here, but postmodern thought emphasizes the immanent, sometimes at the expense of the transcendent. In emergent thinking, it is much more laudable to speak of Jesus the man, Jesus the healer, Jesus the compassionate lover. It is not fashionable at all to start “theologizing” and speak of him as Lord of the Universe, God of very God, and 2nd Person of the Triune God.
LikeLike
Paul undoubtedly was familiar with much of the story and teaching of Jesus. Luke records that Paul frequently spoke in the synagogues, but few details are provided. He certainly spoke from the OT but provided other demonstrations that Jesus was the Messiah.
Consider that Luke had to have been collecting his Gospel material while traveling w/ Paul, if in fact he did not publish it during that period. The rather abrupt ending of Acts implies that it was current at that time. That implies the Gospel of Luke was sent to Theophilus no later than the early 60’s. The oral tradition, Mark’s Gospel and probably Matthew’s first version in Aramaic would have been in circulation before this time.
Paul probably wrote so little about the life of Christ for the same reasons the other “men of letters” did: (I suppose it’s because) they were busy working out the implications of the facts of Christ’s life, vicarious death and resurrection, the greates miracles of all.
pax vobiscum,
Z
LikeLike
Paul did talk about miracles.
The resurrection.
The cross.
The resurrection.
The cross.
The resurrection.
I could give a 10 page list of miracles Bush has pulled off – but why talk about anything but his biggest: convincing America to destroy Iraq?
So it is with Jesus. Why bother pointing out miracles that suggest Jesus’ Glory, when you can talk about the Glory itself – found in the resurrection that saves us all.
God Bless, and peace.
LikeLike
I love visiting your site Michael. It’s like sitting in a College level Bible Class and listening in. I learn a lot and don’t leave feeling confused, accused, or beaten down. Thanks.
I think I’ll ask my hubby what he thinks about this question when I get home. He’s more the Bible scholar than me.
LikeLike
As Eric points out, a related and important question for answering this is ‘Why didn’t Peter, John and James refer to the stories, miracles and teaching from the ministry of Jesus in their letters to churches?’
They knew Jesus firsthand, so there was no issue of authority for them in citing Jesus’ words and actions. Authority may still be a motivation for Paul, but it clearly wasn’t for them.
I don’t have a satisfactory answer, but I have a couple ideas (some similar to what others have been saying here):
I think the stories of Jesus’ life and ministry were known in the churches the letters were addressed to. Wrt the miracle stories: These stories were originally considered material mostly for witness, and since the audience of the letters was made up of believers, miracle stories were not mentioned. The only miracle of real relevance to them was the Resurrection and the issue was not ‘How can I believe that happened?’, but ‘What does it mean?’.
The bulk of Paul’s writing focuses on the later question. To answer it he needs to refer not so much to what Jesus’ said (sayings that are necessarily somewhat cryptic as they were eventually recorded in the Gospels), but to what the Hebrew scriptures said. It should also be noted that here Paul may be quoting Jesus and his readers would have known that, even if it isn’t apparent to us. Afterall, we are told that after His resurrection Jesus spoke with the disciples and opened their eyes to scriptures and how all these things had to come to pass. One may therefore suppose that a lot of the arguments from scripture came to Paul from Jesus, either in the Spirit or through the Apostles.
Most of the rest addresses the related question ‘What does it mean for us, as Christians?’ That is, how does this meaning impact the way we live and what should be the practical day-by-day living out of this Good News? Here we might expect more reference to Jesus as example. I think those references are often there, but not as explicitly as we moderns are accustomed to. Paul does not explicitly say, ‘remember that Jesus told us…’, but to people very familiar with stories of Jesus’ words and deeds this would not be necessary. There need only be slight allusion to connect the reader to the reference.
Afterall, to do what Paul did not and use Jesus as an example here, Jesus frequently said things that every Jew in His audience would have understood as referring to a story or saying of Hillel or Shammai or some other source. But modern Christians are often surprised when someone points out those connections because they are not stated directly. For instance, when Jesus referred to the ‘sign of Jonah’ everyone in His audience would have known the story of Jonah, so He didn’t need to expound on it. Furthermore, everyone in His audience would have known that Jonah was always read on Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement) and known how the ‘sign of Jonah’ was interpreted to be intimately tied to repentance and salvation.
LikeLike
Do any of the Epsitles refer to the stories, miracles and teaching from the ministry of Jesus? Without re-reading them, I can’t think of many such references. So, could it simply be that the recipients were generally aware of those stories and that Paul (and the other writers ofthe letters) felt it necessary to make their points another way?
LikeLike
But there are parallels from the Gospels (especially the Synoptics) and parallels that echo liturgy and tradition. The most notable would be in the institution of the Lord’s Supper in I Cor 11. The phrasing is off in most — as you would suppose from an oral society. In as far as I can recall, there are seven very long pericopes and many smaller ones. And there are many more where Paul and Jesus quote the same Scriptures (the Hebrew Bible, sometimes from the LX and sometimes not.)
Now the internal parallels within the Pauline corpus is around 300 pericopes, so seven may not be statistically significant, but they do exist.
Rom 14.14 is parallel to Matt 15:11ff and Mark 7:1ff and so on.
LikeLike
Brad,
When I said “There is no way of telling just how familiar Paul was with the Gospel material” I didn’t mean that he wasn’t familiar with it at all, but that we couldn’t be sure precisely how much. Clearly he is well immersed in early church and would doubtless be familiar with the stories about Jesus in the oral culture.
You are also right to mention Mark’s travellng with Paul. Peter also travelled with Mark and is thought to be one of Mark’s primary sources, so doubtless there was some crossover of information.
LikeLike
IMonk: it’s a fantastic question. everyone is contributing interesting explanations, so i thought about not responding… but…
i’ve always suspected that the answer has something to do with the nature of paul’s ministry to the gentiles: jesus’ ministry was jewish–i suspect his life and ministry might have been largly incomprehensible to the average gentile, what with the fulfillment of OT prophecy and so on.
if you’re going to pull in the life and times of jesus, you’re going to have to provide your gentile audience with history lessons and cultural lessons drawn from the OT so they’ll get the significance of christ in his specifically jewish role: jesus was (is) a savior in a culturally specific context, but what he accomplishes is universal. perhaps paul was trying to fulfill or further the universal mission…
i mean, is there a way to have jesus (in all his splendor) without having to dedicate your life to the study of hebrew culture and the religious developments of israel? as a gentile believer, do i really have to understand which of jesus’ sayings or behaviors fulfilled which OT prophecies? is it absolutely essential that i have a “life and times of jesus” to understand and embrace what he accomplished? (doh! sorry, you’re the one asking the questions around here… but for the record mine are genuine questions asked in humility.)
: )
i don’t know… anyway, that’s what your question had me thinking about.
always stimulating, IMonk. many, many thanks.
ciao
LikeLike
“If Mark is written in AD70, then Paul has already written most of his work before the first Gospel was available.There is no way of telling just how familiar Paul was with the Gospel material – he meets at least some of the twelve, quotes a non-canonical saying of Jesus once, and also claims (in 1 Cor 7 I think) that some of his instructions he has received directly from the Lord.”
With all respect, this doesn’t hold water with me for two reasons.
1. We are dealing with cultures that are far more oral in nature than written. Just because it wasn’t written in a book, doesn’t mean that the apostles were unable to communicate Jesus’ teachings with others.
Peter, John, James and Luke spent a great deal of time with Paul during his travels, in Jerusalem, etc. It seems very unreasonable that candid, free, deep and descriptive discussions between Paul and these men about Jesus’teachings didn’t take place.
2. Mark, if memory serves me correctly, was alongside Paul for part of the first missionary journey and for several years near his death around 68 A.D. Again, if Paul had such access to Mark, it seems difficult to invision that Mark was silent with Paul on the issue of Jesus.
Just my two cents….
Brad
LikeLike
Oops – forgot to mention – the references to Graham Stanton are at the bottom of p.7 and the top of p.8 of the linked document.
LikeLike
My new squeeze, Tom Wright – thanks for the warning on BHT, but it came too late I fear 😉 – mentions this issue in his lecture on The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Paul_History.pdf.
He refers to the work of Prof Graham Stanton, “who has shown that Paul was much more interested in Jesus of Nazareth than has often been thought”.
I’ve heard Graham Stanton speak, and read a couple of his books, and he’s very good. I suspect footnotes 27 and 29 to Bp Wright’s lecture may be a good place to start looking.
LikeLike
If Mark is written in AD70, then Paul has already written most of his work before the first Gospel was available.There is no way of telling just how familiar Paul was with the Gospel material – he meets at least some of the twelve, quotes a non-canonical saying of Jesus once, and also claims (in 1 Cor 7 I think) that some of his instructions he has received directly from the Lord.
I thinks its important to remember also that in Paul’s time the stories about Jesus were still maintained in an oral form, so Paul was probably familiar with at least some of it.
Though I think that for Paul, his huge knowledge of the Old Testament is simply re-worked in the light of Jesus’ death and resurrection, which is often the main source of thought for his writings.
LikeLike
It’s puzzled me, too, the few times I’ve stopped to consider it. One thought has occurred to me, though.
If Luke was writing his Gospel as he travelled around with Paul (which, having studied Luke’s gospel for a term as a Bible study group leader, seemed to me the most natural suggestion), Paul may well have helped on some aspects of it — translation from Aramaic, for this poor Gentile, springs to mind.
But equally, Paul may well have been aware that Luke was in the process of sorting out what Jesus really did say from what he probably said and what he didn’t say. Perhaps he just didn’t want to rely on something which could later turn out not to have happened?
LikeLike
Well, I’m no scholar, but here’s my take:
1) He *didn’t* know all of the material. What he did know was either in the process of being collected, edited, and confirmed or…
2) Some of what he did know was so well-known that it didn’t need to be said.
3) Some of it *is* referred to, just implicitly (E.g. cf. Rom and Jesus’ teaching on non-violent resistance.)
4) Paul was writing in a vacuum. As with point 2 above, the life and teachings of Jesus would have formed the core of the instruction given to disciples (per the Lord’s command). Paul is not writing to add to that, or challenge it. He is writing to groups that are already aware of it.
(I’ve just notied that Kevin makes my third point above.)
LikeLike
Pardon me for being nitpicky but didn’t Paul echo Luke 7:44/John 13:14–the words of Jesus–in 1 Timothy 5:10? I mean, at least the editors of the Nestle-Aland text felt it a close enough connection to note in the cross-references.
Additionally, isn’t 1 Timothy 5:18 a partial quote from Luke 10:7?
I’m not sure I agree with you that Paul somehow avoids referencing Jesus, his ministry, or his teachings. Maybe it isn’t always obvious, but I do believe that deeper study will reveal things that we didn’t exactly know were there.
LikeLike
Perhaps this will fry your noodle… It is believed Paul wrote other letters to other churches (e.g. Laodicea), could it be that Paul mentioned stories and teachings of Jesus in other letters, but that God Himself then chose for such letters not to survive in favor for non-repetition of His Word? When I think of the survival of the New Testament in general, it blows my mind, but then again, the Bible itself is “God breathed.”
BTW, great question.
LikeLike
I never thought about that before, but I can think of two explanations.
1) Paul had himself seen miracles done in his ministry, and probably felt they were no big deal in comparison with his conversion.
2) I think Paul had the enduring perspective that the greatest miracle God had ever done was to offer grace to those who would kill him and his followers, being the “chief of sinners” himself. Paul never got over the miracle of the gospel itself, and he never stopped talking about that.
LikeLike
My first thought is one of relevance. The issues that Paul needed to address in his letters–circumcision, apostolic authority, gifts of the Spirit–were not easily resolved by appeals to Jesus. If they had been relevant, Paul might have used them. Where the topic at hand regards something Jesus addressed, Paul does quote him (via the apostles), as when discussing divorce and the Lord’s Supper.
Two other commenters mentioned that Paul’s experience of the Spirit made the direct experience of Jesus irrelevant. This strikes me as bizarre. If it were true, then we wouldn’t need the Gospels today, because we’re all filled with the Spirit.
LikeLike
I’m not here to challenge anyone’s notions of inspiration. Those of you familiar with my writing on the Bible won’t be surprised that I’m personally not much on ending discussions of this nature with theories of inspiration. I don’t share an idea of inspiration that provides exits for questions of this type. All that to say, let’s not debate inspiration.
Some facts:
1) Several of the epistles were written before Mark.
2) Material for Mark certainly existed long before it became a finished Gospel. Many scholars posit earlier versions of Mark.
3) Paul’s extensive contacts in the Christian communities certainly acquainted him with this material.
4) Luke’s Gospel is quite probably in the process of being collected/written while Luke is travelling with Paul.
5) Therefore, it is not really a question of the existence of the material, but of Paul’s choice to remain almost TOTALLY silent about it.
6) To read Paul, one would know very little about Jesus’ ministry, and virtually nothing of his teaching.
7) Yet these are crucial for Christian discipleship. It is incomprehensible to me that the material in the Gospels- stories, miracles and teaching- is not used to disciple the people Paul is writing to in the epistles.
8) So why does he not refer to them?
Joel: The authority issue is an interesting point. I want to check that out.
LikeLike
Good question. Perhaps part of the explanation might be that the stories, sayings and miracles were already known. Perhaps they were first heard from Paul (who, according to Acts, would have spent plenty of time with Peter to get the story of Jesus’ ministry), but some or all of them may have been current even before Paul came to a particular ministry.
If that is true, then Paul was trying to help his congregations figure out what it all meant. And, in my personal opinion, so was Paul.
LikeLike
***Why does the Apostle Paul not refer to the stories, miracles and teaching from the ministry of Jesus in his letters to churches?***
Because Paul wrote what the Holy Spirit gave him to write, and the Holy Spirit didn’t give him to reference those things.
That may seem a facetious response, but I always detect an element of belief or approach in such questions that the Bible is a man-made document rather than the Word of God itself.
LikeLike
I believe the answer is fairly simple.
When Jesus was teaching His disciples, they had not yet received the Holy Spirit. Their information came through their eyes and ears.
When Paul was teaching, he was talking to born again Christians, that is, those that were baptized in the Spirit. Those that are Spirit led, are led internally, not externally.
The Bible tells us (1 John2:27) “The annointing [Holy Spirit] you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.”
Jesus’ disciples were mindful of Jesus the man. Paul, on the other hand, only knew Jesus through the working of His Spirit, the Holy Spirit (Spirit of Christ) within Paul.
I believe the miracles and stories were instrumental in helping the disciples to come to believe in Jesus, but once the Spirit of Jesus entered them, they no longer needed outside proof of God, for they had God in them. (2 Cor 1:22) “He annointed us, set His seal of ownership on us, and put His Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.”
It was no longer miracles and stories, but the fruit of the Spirit that attracted people – God’s love in men.
Maybe a simplistic answer, but it worked for me.
wcjc
LikeLike
Off the top of my not-formally-trained-in-theology head, I would have to say this: Unlike the other letter writers in the New Testament, Paul never encountered the pre-resurrection Jesus. He was tutored directly by the Holy Spirit, and did not have a set of memories in his head about Jesus to enlighten his writing.
LikeLike
My guess is that it involves the issue of authority. It is obvious from several of the epistles that Paul had to deal with questions about and challenges to his apostolic authority. His responses and rebukes never appealed to human authority to justify their legitimacy. In Gal 2, he seems quite adamant that he is the equal of the other apostles. 1 Cor 15 also argues for his link to the other apostles on the basis of Christ’s direct call to him (last but not least). If Paul had made any claims about events in the life of Jesus, he would have had to defend them by appealing to human authorities, e.g., “Well, Peter said there was this time when Jesus….” And if Paul had made claims like that, lots of people could have made similarly justified claims. Then the problem would be: whose do you take as authoritative when the details don’t match up? So he just avoided that problem by never speaking of it. Just a guess…
LikeLike