Paul and the "Words of the Lord"
I’ll start with the latter, because although the issue of whether or not Paul refers to what he believed to be teachings of an earthly Jesus (and why he did not do so more often) is more complex than the issue of James relation to Jesus, the way Doherty treats the issue is, I believe, instructive. Doherty mentions several explanations typically offered by various authors who have written on Paul’s discussion (or lack thereof) of Jesus’ teachings and actions, and so I need not repeat them here. Rather, I will focus on pieces of Doherty’s argument I think are problematic.
Paul's visit(s) to Jerusalem and what likely took place
The first is his assertion in The Jesus Puzzle that there was not “much opportunity in evidence for him [Paul] to have acquired details about Jesus’ life”. Doherty then references Paul’s visit to Jerusalem. However, there are problems with Doherty’s description here. First, he states that “Paul went to Jerusalem exactly once”. However, it is unclear what his basis is for this claim. In the very letter Doherty references (Galatians), Paul mentions (Gal. 2.1) a second trip. Nor is it clear that the references to a trip to Jerusalem in (for example) Romans corresponds with either of the two trips mentioned in Galatians. Then there is Doherty’s description of Paul’s 15 day stay with Peter. He states that “[a]ll he did at that time, so he says (1:18) was ‘get to know Peter’ and see James.” This is at the very least somewhat misleading. First, there is the length of the stay: 15 days. As C. H. Dodd put it so long ago, we can safely assume that “they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.” The only clue (other than the length of the visit) for what took place is the infinitive Paul uses to describe his action during the visit: historesai. This word, whence comes our English “history”, was forever changed by the work of Herodotus, who began his work with a nominalized version historia ,meaning (at that time) “inquiry” or “investigation.” However, Herodotus’ work began a new genre, that of historiography, and in Greek the verb historiagraphein means “to write history”. There are several Greek words Paul could have used here, which are less formal and far more common (e.g., gignoskein), but he used one found nowhere else in the N.T. and rarely in Greek literature at all. It is commonly found within the works of historians, from Herodotus to Diogenes Laertius (Plutarch uses it frequently), but is almost completely absent from drama or non-technical texts. In other words, for Paul to use this word, there is probably something special about his visit, at least more than a simple “get to know” Peter. A better translation would probably be “inquire”, and indeed most analyses of the word as used in Galatians (for references, see the BDAG) argue that the word means something like “get information from” rather than “get to know.” And that would better explain the length of the stay.
Doherty's failure to adequately represent research on oral tradition
Also problematic is Doherty’s explanation for the “Words of the Lord” (the title of the relevant section in his book) which Paul references. He writes (p. 29) “[m]any scholars identify these passages as reflecting a phenomenon common to the early Christian preaching movement…Paul is passing on to his readers directives and promises which he has received through inspiration.” Doherty includes an endnote here, in which he references Mack, Kelber, and Bultmann. He quotes Kelber here. However, what he does not do is inform the reader as to what Kelber actually meant or the context of Doherty’s quotation of him. But he does not even indicate that he has not quoted Kelber’s entire sentence, but started midway into one. Kelber (who relies a great deal on the Homeric model of oral transmission pioneered by Parry and Lord) in fact states on the same page Doherty quotes from, “Whether a saying is from the earthly Jesus, prophetically transmitted as a word of the risen Lord, or Paul’s own word spoken or written in apostolic-prophetic self-consciousness, it is always legitimized by the authority of the Lord.” Kelber’s argument does not really support Doherty’s point, in that while Kelber argues that we cannot know whether or when Paul is actually reporting a teaching of Jesus or something received through “inspiration”, he certainly does not argue that this IS what Paul is doing-period. Also interesting, given that Doherty spends more time on Bultmann than on Mack or Kelber (and does so again in his “The Pauline Epistles- Part Two” response to Ehrman), is that having read Kelber, he nonetheless refers to Bultmann’s “classic statement” concerning the process he describes. What he does not do is note that even Kelber explicitly rejects Bultmann’s arguments, stating (p. 8), “Today it is no exaggeration to claim that a whole spectrum of major assumptions underlying Bultmann’s Synoptic Tradition must be considered suspect: Easter faith as watershed and point of departure for the tradition, the notion of the original form and its compulsory development into progressively more complex and hybrid formations, collective consciousness as the shaping force both of oral materials and gospel textuality, the concept of “setting in life” as the sociological determinant of oral forms, the heuristic value of the categories of Palestinian versus Hellenistic, and the thesis of an intrinsic gravitational or teleological pull toward gospel composition.” In fact, both within and outside of NT/Biblical studies, research on orality and oral transmission has flourished. The model Bultmann used, which was the then-current theory of orality within German folklore studies, is no longer even applicable to that field, let alone NT studies. And the work of numerous anthropologists, sociologists, and other specialists (Ruth Finnegan, Walter Ong, E. A. Mackay, Craig Cooper, Jan Vansina, William Schneider, etc.) has vastly increased our knowledge of the range, scope, and “genres” of oral traditions/transmissions. In fact, it was not long after Bultmann’s work that an entirely different model of oral tradition, one far more likely a priori to be applicable, was constructed: Birger Gerhadsson’s model based on orality within rabbinic circles. Although Gerhadsson’s work, initially subject to much criticism, has become far more widely accepted (or at least much of it), his model is hardly without critics (including Kelber). However, Doherty barely touches on any scholarship concerning oral transmission, content to cite the three he does, despite the fact that they disagree both with him and with each other.
The questionable claim of a "heavenly source"
Even more curious is his own analysis of Paul’s language. He claims that it “points to a heavenly source” and to support this claim cites 1 Cor. 7:25. He tells us Paul’s words indicate “a general category of things [he] is accustomed to possessing for himself, not as part of a wider community knowledge or inheritance from tradition.” How, I wonder, does Paul’s statement that a particular direction comes from him, not the Lord, indicate some “heavenly source” unless one assumes already that there was no earthly Jesus? There is nothing within Paul’s language to indicate a heavenly source, and in fact if one looks at 1 Cor. 7 in full such an interpretation is problematic. Earlier, in 1 Cor 7:10, Paul explicitly seperates his instruction from that of the Lord: tois de gegamekkosin paragello, ouk ego alla ho kurios…/”to the unmarried I command, or rather not I, but the Lord…” Paul’s assertion that this prohibition of divorce is from Jesus is also echoed in Q and Mark. Almost immediately following this, however, Paul states (1 Cor. 7:12), tois de loipois lego ego ouch ho kurios…/”to the rest I say, not the Lord,…” He goes out of his way to indicate that the first part is a teaching from Jesus Christ, as he does in the line quoted by Doherty (where he states he has no command from the Lord). On the assumption that there was no earthly Jesus, these lines by necessity are from some “divine revelation”. Of course, if Paul received “divine revelations” one wonders why he would ever need to indicate that an instruction or command was his own, not the Lord’s. After all, if he receives divine instructions, and it is understood by his audience that he does, why would they give credence to his own thoughts on some matter when he makes it clear he didn’t receive any divine instruction? Why didn’t he? It’s rather odd that Paul has a divine decree concerning divorce, one that is rather general, but when it comes to how followers of Christ should deal with unbelieving spouses, divine inspiration dries up. This makes perfect sense if Paul is actually passing on the same teaching recorded in the gospels and coming from an earthly Jesus, who did not have to deal with issues which occurred in the early church, but is harder to explain if all teachings of Jesus are divine inspirations.
I’ll start with the latter, because although the issue of whether or not Paul refers to what he believed to be teachings of an earthly Jesus (and why he did not do so more often) is more complex than the issue of James relation to Jesus, the way Doherty treats the issue is, I believe, instructive. Doherty mentions several explanations typically offered by various authors who have written on Paul’s discussion (or lack thereof) of Jesus’ teachings and actions, and so I need not repeat them here. Rather, I will focus on pieces of Doherty’s argument I think are problematic.
Paul's visit(s) to Jerusalem and what likely took place
The first is his assertion in The Jesus Puzzle that there was not “much opportunity in evidence for him [Paul] to have acquired details about Jesus’ life”. Doherty then references Paul’s visit to Jerusalem. However, there are problems with Doherty’s description here. First, he states that “Paul went to Jerusalem exactly once”. However, it is unclear what his basis is for this claim. In the very letter Doherty references (Galatians), Paul mentions (Gal. 2.1) a second trip. Nor is it clear that the references to a trip to Jerusalem in (for example) Romans corresponds with either of the two trips mentioned in Galatians. Then there is Doherty’s description of Paul’s 15 day stay with Peter. He states that “[a]ll he did at that time, so he says (1:18) was ‘get to know Peter’ and see James.” This is at the very least somewhat misleading. First, there is the length of the stay: 15 days. As C. H. Dodd put it so long ago, we can safely assume that “they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.” The only clue (other than the length of the visit) for what took place is the infinitive Paul uses to describe his action during the visit: historesai. This word, whence comes our English “history”, was forever changed by the work of Herodotus, who began his work with a nominalized version historia ,meaning (at that time) “inquiry” or “investigation.” However, Herodotus’ work began a new genre, that of historiography, and in Greek the verb historiagraphein means “to write history”. There are several Greek words Paul could have used here, which are less formal and far more common (e.g., gignoskein), but he used one found nowhere else in the N.T. and rarely in Greek literature at all. It is commonly found within the works of historians, from Herodotus to Diogenes Laertius (Plutarch uses it frequently), but is almost completely absent from drama or non-technical texts. In other words, for Paul to use this word, there is probably something special about his visit, at least more than a simple “get to know” Peter. A better translation would probably be “inquire”, and indeed most analyses of the word as used in Galatians (for references, see the BDAG) argue that the word means something like “get information from” rather than “get to know.” And that would better explain the length of the stay.
Doherty's failure to adequately represent research on oral tradition
Also problematic is Doherty’s explanation for the “Words of the Lord” (the title of the relevant section in his book) which Paul references. He writes (p. 29) “[m]any scholars identify these passages as reflecting a phenomenon common to the early Christian preaching movement…Paul is passing on to his readers directives and promises which he has received through inspiration.” Doherty includes an endnote here, in which he references Mack, Kelber, and Bultmann. He quotes Kelber here. However, what he does not do is inform the reader as to what Kelber actually meant or the context of Doherty’s quotation of him. But he does not even indicate that he has not quoted Kelber’s entire sentence, but started midway into one. Kelber (who relies a great deal on the Homeric model of oral transmission pioneered by Parry and Lord) in fact states on the same page Doherty quotes from, “Whether a saying is from the earthly Jesus, prophetically transmitted as a word of the risen Lord, or Paul’s own word spoken or written in apostolic-prophetic self-consciousness, it is always legitimized by the authority of the Lord.” Kelber’s argument does not really support Doherty’s point, in that while Kelber argues that we cannot know whether or when Paul is actually reporting a teaching of Jesus or something received through “inspiration”, he certainly does not argue that this IS what Paul is doing-period. Also interesting, given that Doherty spends more time on Bultmann than on Mack or Kelber (and does so again in his “The Pauline Epistles- Part Two” response to Ehrman), is that having read Kelber, he nonetheless refers to Bultmann’s “classic statement” concerning the process he describes. What he does not do is note that even Kelber explicitly rejects Bultmann’s arguments, stating (p. 8), “Today it is no exaggeration to claim that a whole spectrum of major assumptions underlying Bultmann’s Synoptic Tradition must be considered suspect: Easter faith as watershed and point of departure for the tradition, the notion of the original form and its compulsory development into progressively more complex and hybrid formations, collective consciousness as the shaping force both of oral materials and gospel textuality, the concept of “setting in life” as the sociological determinant of oral forms, the heuristic value of the categories of Palestinian versus Hellenistic, and the thesis of an intrinsic gravitational or teleological pull toward gospel composition.” In fact, both within and outside of NT/Biblical studies, research on orality and oral transmission has flourished. The model Bultmann used, which was the then-current theory of orality within German folklore studies, is no longer even applicable to that field, let alone NT studies. And the work of numerous anthropologists, sociologists, and other specialists (Ruth Finnegan, Walter Ong, E. A. Mackay, Craig Cooper, Jan Vansina, William Schneider, etc.) has vastly increased our knowledge of the range, scope, and “genres” of oral traditions/transmissions. In fact, it was not long after Bultmann’s work that an entirely different model of oral tradition, one far more likely a priori to be applicable, was constructed: Birger Gerhadsson’s model based on orality within rabbinic circles. Although Gerhadsson’s work, initially subject to much criticism, has become far more widely accepted (or at least much of it), his model is hardly without critics (including Kelber). However, Doherty barely touches on any scholarship concerning oral transmission, content to cite the three he does, despite the fact that they disagree both with him and with each other.
The questionable claim of a "heavenly source"
Even more curious is his own analysis of Paul’s language. He claims that it “points to a heavenly source” and to support this claim cites 1 Cor. 7:25. He tells us Paul’s words indicate “a general category of things [he] is accustomed to possessing for himself, not as part of a wider community knowledge or inheritance from tradition.” How, I wonder, does Paul’s statement that a particular direction comes from him, not the Lord, indicate some “heavenly source” unless one assumes already that there was no earthly Jesus? There is nothing within Paul’s language to indicate a heavenly source, and in fact if one looks at 1 Cor. 7 in full such an interpretation is problematic. Earlier, in 1 Cor 7:10, Paul explicitly seperates his instruction from that of the Lord: tois de gegamekkosin paragello, ouk ego alla ho kurios…/”to the unmarried I command, or rather not I, but the Lord…” Paul’s assertion that this prohibition of divorce is from Jesus is also echoed in Q and Mark. Almost immediately following this, however, Paul states (1 Cor. 7:12), tois de loipois lego ego ouch ho kurios…/”to the rest I say, not the Lord,…” He goes out of his way to indicate that the first part is a teaching from Jesus Christ, as he does in the line quoted by Doherty (where he states he has no command from the Lord). On the assumption that there was no earthly Jesus, these lines by necessity are from some “divine revelation”. Of course, if Paul received “divine revelations” one wonders why he would ever need to indicate that an instruction or command was his own, not the Lord’s. After all, if he receives divine instructions, and it is understood by his audience that he does, why would they give credence to his own thoughts on some matter when he makes it clear he didn’t receive any divine instruction? Why didn’t he? It’s rather odd that Paul has a divine decree concerning divorce, one that is rather general, but when it comes to how followers of Christ should deal with unbelieving spouses, divine inspiration dries up. This makes perfect sense if Paul is actually passing on the same teaching recorded in the gospels and coming from an earthly Jesus, who did not have to deal with issues which occurred in the early church, but is harder to explain if all teachings of Jesus are divine inspirations.
Last edited:
