oral tradition history and first corinthians

8/10/2019 Oral Tradition History and First Corinthians

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oral-tradition-history-and-first-corinthians 1/15

EARLY JESUS TRADITIONS IN 1 CORINTHIANS

__________________

A Paper

Presented to

Dr. Mark Taylor

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for GREEK 5073

__________________

by

Michael Metts

November 25, 2014



1

EARLY JESUS TRADITIONS IN 1 CORINTHIANS

To the extent that this paper focuses on tradition material in 1 Cor 11:23-26

and 15:3-7, exegesis will not be of primary concern, though many exegetical remarks will

be made. The purpose is, rather, to set forward a new assessment of the Jesus tradition

material in 1 Corinthians 11 as in essential agreement with the more creedal Christian

tradition material in 1 Corinthians 15.1 Far from being two fortuitous pieces of extant

tradition upon which Paul draws for the unique purposes occasioned in his dealings with

the Corinthian church, it will instead be argued that Paul ’s purposeful drawing from both

the Last Supper tradition (1 Cor 11) and Jesus’ atoning, sacrificial death (1 Cor 15), is in

fact indicative of a fundamental unity of tradition material in the tradition ’s pre-history

prior to Paul.

The paper will begin with (a) an examination of the pieces of tradition material

before continuing to (b) more recent scholarly discussion of tradition transmission. The

1“Jesus tradition” is the phrase commonly predicated of traditions which can be historicallytraced to the words and works of Jesus’ own life, although the phrase is usually limited in scholarship to the

pre-resurrected Jesus. But evangelical belief rightly committed to the resurrection of Jesus may regard the post- resurrected Jesus as further explaining the meaning of his life and works (see, e.g., Luke 24’s Emmausroad story). Giv en Jesus’ purposeful intent in dying as a sacrifice for sins, not to mention his vindicating

resurrection, the creed from 1 Cor 15 may conceivably be qualified as “Jesus tradition” to the extent that itshows agreement with Jesus’ own declarations concerning the meaning of his death. On Jesus’ self -understanding and intentions concerning his death as an atoning sacrifice, there is, perhaps, no bettertreatment for troubled consciences than that of the skeptic Maurice Casey, The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’

Problem (London: T & T Clark, 2009) 200. Casey writes: “There should be no doubt that Jesus predictedhis forthcoming death in Jerusalem, and interpreted it as an atoning sacrifice which would enable God toredeem Israel.” To avoid confusion, the commonly observed distinction between “Jesus traditions” and“Christian traditions” is observed; s ee M. B. Thompson, “Tradition ,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters ,ed. by Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993) 944.



2

conclusion will bring together, in a coherent fashion, the insights gained from part (a)

and (b), pointing out that Paul intentionally incorporates both traditions in his argument

for theological reasons, and is inclined to see the two traditions as theologically holistic.

Favorable reflections on oral tradition historical analyses are shown, as well as their more

plausible explanatory power over higher-criticism, particularly form-criticism.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 asEarly Jesus Tradition

1 Cor 11:23-26 goes back to, without question, the historical Jesus himself.

Commentator Mark Taylor rightly notes that “The significance of Jesus’ death for others

originated with the Lord himself, who presided over the Last Supper with his disciples

and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you’ (11:23 -24).” 2 Identifying Jesus tradition is

less complicated than Christian tradition material. Typically, material that points to the

life of Jesus of Nazareth in Paul, whether indirectly or by allusion, is “Jesus tradition. ”

New Testament scholar and oral tradition expert James D. G. Dunn writes that this is an a

priori logic for New Testament studies. 3 Citing the subject passage, New Testament

scholar Richard Bauckham writes that Paul “envisages a chain of transmission that begins

from Jesus himself and passes through intermediaries to Paul himself, who has already

passed it on to the Corinthians when he first established their church.” 4

2Mark Taylor, 1 Corinthians , New American Commentary 28 (Nashville, TN: Broadman &Holman, 2014) 373.

3James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered , vol. 1 of Christianity and the Making (Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 2003) 176.

4Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2006) 268. Bauckham notes that the intermediaries are likely theJerusalem apostles and that “this part of the passion traditions will hav e been part of what Paul learned (inthe strong sense of learning a tradition such that he could later recite it) from Peter during that significant



3

1 Corinthians 15:3-7 as EarlyChristian Tradition 5

Criteria for identifying Christian tradition material in epistolary literature is

given in detail by recent Research Professor and scholar E. Earle Ellis. He provides four

primary points: (1) the presence of formulas which indicate that an antecedent tradition is

being cited; (2) the self-contained nature of the passage independent of its context; (3) the

relative frequency of vocabulary, idiom, style or theological expression that differ both

from the rest of the letter and from any other letters from the same writer; and (4) the

presence in another contemporary writing by a different author of a highly similar piece

with which no direct literary dependence is probable. 6

fortnight in Jerusalem.” This view recognizes, then, that what Paul received from the Lord ( Ἐγὼ γὰρπαρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου; 1 Cor 11:23a) does not necessarily eliminate an intermediary who passed on thetradition to Paul on behalf of the Lord and as one who received it from the Lord. It should be noted thatPaul does not invoke his common vocabulary of revelation (i.e., ἀποκάλυψις) as in Eph 3:1f. Cf. PeterStuhlmacher, who carefully reconstructs the tradition’s path, Jesus of Nazareth, Christ of Faith , trans. bySiegried Schatzmann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993) 82 n.17: “Thus the train of tradents runs fro m

Jesus via the original apostles (Peter, John, etc.), to the so-called hellensists and from them to thecommunity in Antioch. In the case of the tradition of the Lord’s Supper the path takes one from Jesus to theJerusalem passion tradition, especially as preserved in Mark, and from there to the proto-Lukan passionnarrative from which the Pauline text in 1 Cor 11:23ff. is derived. (With the Markan perspective in mind,Luke then revised this tradition once more in the composition his Gospel.) ”

5Cf. James D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem , vol. 2 of Christianity in the Making (GrandRapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2009), 105-8; 230-32; Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2009) 299-301; 342-44; esp. 299: “The probable allusions to Is 52 -53 in Jesus’ language here tell us a great deal about how Jesus viewed his own death.” On the question ofIsaiah 53 and its relation to early Christian tradition, including 1 Cor 15:3f., see, as Dunn points to,Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians , The New International Greek TestamentCommentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1190-92. Cf. also Martin Hengel’s influentialessay “Christology and New Testament Chronology: A Problem in the History of Earliest Christianity,” inHengel, Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity (Eugene, OR: Wipf andStock, 2003) 31: “The time between the death of Jesus and the fully developed christology which we findin the earliest Christian documents, the letters of Paul is so short that the development which takes placewithin it can only be called amazing.”

6E Earle Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 59. Ellisfurther identifies tradition material in (1) certain OT expositions; (2) virtue and vice lists; (3) the householdcodes; (4) congregational regulations; and (5) hymns (see p. 60f).



4

Concerning 1 Corinthians 15 Ellis writes, “Like I Cor 11:23, it has an

introductory formula used elsewhere to introduce traditioned material, and it contains

non-Pa uline expressions and a formulaic structure.” 7 The formula betraying the use of

tradition material in this passage is first found in the consecutive ὅτι clauses: (a) ὅτι

Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς (“that Christ died for our

sins according to the Scriptures ”); (b) ὅτι ἐτάφη (“that he was buried”); (c) ὅτι ἐγήγερται

τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς (“that he was raised on the third day according to the

Scriptures”); and (d) ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα (“that he appeared to Cephas and to

the Twelve ”).8 Additionally, the use of the verb ὤφθη (“he appeared”), and the adverb

ἔπειτα (“then”) is further formulaic: (e) ἔπειτα ὤφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς ἐφάπαξ

(“then he appeared to more than five -hundred brothers at once”); 9 and lastly, (f) ἔπειτα

7Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents , 90. In n.184 (pp. 90-91), Ellis identifiesthe string of ὅτι and εἶτα lexemes in vv. 3-7 to demonstrate his case (he also points out the use of the ὅτι and εἶτα sequence in 1 Thess 4:15b-17). On the εἶτα sequence, cf. also Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem ,140 n.22 (within his treatment of the resurrection appearances; 139-42). Building on Ellis’ formulaicidentification one might also observe the occurrence of ὤφθη (“he appeared”), which is further instructiveof eyewitness tradition. For this insight I am indebted to a lecture on 1 Corinthians 15 by Professor MarkTaylor; but see also Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians , 1197-1203. Curiously, Bauckham,

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony , does not pick up on the importance ofthis lexeme in his development (264-71) of the subject passage and its obvious connection with hiseyewitness emphasis.

8Form critic Adela Yarbro Collins, building on Rudolf Bultmann (see 648 n.22), writes that theuse of τῶν δώδεκα (“the Twelve”) in Mark 14:17 is actually indicative of , to an unclear extent, the non-historicity of Mark’s account of the Last Supp er since it moves from identifying the disciples as disciples,to calling them “the Twelve” ; Collins, Mark: A Commentary , Hermeneia – A Critical and HistoricalCommentary on the Bible, ed. by Harold W. Attridge (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007). But such aliterary historical judgment is nigh thread-bare. Mark need not be so inventive when it is properly observedthat the historical Jesus regularly referred to his followers in language that identified them with Israel; see

N. T Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God , vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996) 277 n.133, for the biblical references.

9Paul qualifies the appearance to the five hundred, perhaps even to all the listed people whomJesus has appeared to, with ἐξ ὧν οἱ πλείονες μένουσιν ἕως ἄρτι (“of whom the majority remain until now”). This is living eyewitness tes timony at the time of Paul’s writing.



5

ὤφθη Ἰακώβῳ εἶτα τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσιν (“then he appeared to James then to all the

apostles”). Not only would this formulaic sequencing betray pre-Pauline Christian

tradition material, the creed also clearly meets Ellis’ second and t hird criteria: verses 3-7

do have the marks of a standalone unit of discourse (criterion 2), and it is accented with

many recurring stylistic and rhetorical features (criterion 3) as the discussion above

reveals.

A Teacher/Student Contextof Tradition Transmission 10

It is not clear that form critics have properly appreciated the disciplined

environment in which traditions were transmitted in early Christianity and contemporary

Judaism. The process is not nearly as haphazard as some have claimed. It is best to begin

with the insight of New Testament scholar Craig S. Keener : “Paul’s claim that he

‘received’ and ‘delivered’ to the Corinthian church the Lord’s Supper tradition (1 Cor

11:23) reflects ancient language, including ancient Jewish language, for the passing on of

traditions.” 11 Dunn emphasizes both the tradition material and its handling by teachers

throughout the traditioning process, and understands the apostles as authoritative

“custodians ” of early Jesus tradition. 12 Peter Stuhlmacher, a New Testament scholar of

10See the excellent overview provided by Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels , 147ff.The importance of memory and teaching in the ancient world cannot be exaggerated sufficiently for ourmodern, computer-driven and -stored habits of retaining data.

11Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels , 299. Keener further notes that ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου (“from the Lord”) does not necessarily mean a divine revelation, but could also indicate the Lord’sdisciples. The terminology is discussed below.

12Dunn, Jesus Remembered , 176-81. Dunn also helpfully presents a chart on the allusions toGospel/Jesus traditions in Paul’s epistles (p. 182). (But Dunn does follow Kenneth Bailey’s model of“informal controlled tradition,” likely for need of flexibility in the traditioning processes to make sense ofthe non-verbal but parallel accounts of tradition; see 205-210.) Concerning Jesus tradition allusions in early



6

the University of Tübingen, sensibly writes that it was the “Jesus school” that

transmitted the traditions to the early church, against form critics who suggest that the

reverse 13 had in fact occurred: “The παραδόσεις or traditions of this school were

transmitted to the primitive church in Jerusalem by the μαθηταὶ whom Jesus himself had

called. These traditions then formed an essential part of the ‘teaching of the apostles’

(διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων) mentioned in Acts 2:42.” 14 It is important to note that

Christianity see also F. F. Bruce, who carefully associates Paul with many teachings of the historical Jesus,against form critics who sensationalize the matter by declaring Paul had little to no knowledge of thehistorical Jesus; Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 95-112. This wouldseem contra the more cautious findings of Ellis who also observes an absence of Jesus tradition in Paul. InThe Making of the New Testament Documents , p. 70, Ellis writes: “If the teachings of Jesus weretransmitted in a controlled, apostolic sociotheological context, as is probable, their absence from the lettersmay mean that they were presupposed…” But see Dunn, Jesus Remembered , 184, who provides a sort of

bridge in his judgment of the allusions: “In short, the fact that almost all the references to Jesus tradition inthe writings of earliest Christianity are in the form of allusion and echo should be taken to confirm (1) thatsuch letters were not regarded as the medium of initial instruction on Jesus tradition to new churches [howsensible!], and (2) that churches could be assumed to have a relatively extensive knowledge of Jesustradition, presumably passed on to them when they were first established.”

13See the excellent treatment of Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God , 479, who in summary of

the form critical not ion that the early church largely invented Jesus responds: “We may perhaps be allowedto look forward to a new day, in which Jesus himself is acknowledged, in his own right, as a thinking,reflecting, creative and original theologian. ” Relatedly, see Keene r’s sober handling of so -called earlyChristian creativity, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels , 152-53.

14Peter Stuhlmacher, “Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53in Jewish and Christian Sources , ed. by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher (Grand Rapids: William B.Eerdmans, 2004), 149. ( The “school” rhetorically mentioned by Stuhlmacher is the recognition that Jesuswas a teacher.) Against form critics Stuhlmacher forcibly writes : “Since a carefully maintained continuityof tradition existed between Jesus’ disciples and the Jerusalem church, and since the apostolic guarantors ofthe Jesus tradition remained alive until the outbreak of the first Jewish war, synoptic texts may be spoken ofas subsequent ‘formulations of the Church’ only when it can be shown exactly who created them, when,why, and for what recipients they were created, and under what circumstances they were accorded equal

authority with the Jesus tradition backed by the apostles.” See also the careful discussion by Bauckhamrecounting the critical history between form-criticism and models of oral tradition history, Jesus and the

Eyewitnesses , 246-63. Bauckham writes critically of form-critical failures with regard to the Jesus tradition,citing Dunn’s scholarship among others (248- 49): “It is remarkable that this is not more widelyacknowledged explicitly… what form criticism has bequeathed as a long enduring legacy is the largelyunexamined impression that many scholars – and probably even more students – still entertain: theimpression of a long period of creative development of the traditions before they attained written form inthe Gospels. The retention of such an impression is not defensible unless it is justified afresh, for thearguments of form critics no longer hold water.” Form criticism is becoming less and less favorable amongcareful New Testament historians. (Acts 2:42: “They were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching



7

Stuhlmacher connects the traditioning process back to Jesus himself, since Jesus is

called ῥαββί (“rabbi,” or “teacher”) by his disciples (i.e., μαθηταὶ or “learners” ), a point

which will be revisited below. To the growing list of those disenchanted with form

critical Gospel evaluations and traditioning skepticism can also be added Bauckham.

Bauckham forcibly writes that, “We have unequivocal evidence, in Paul’s letters, that the

early Christian movement did practice formal tran smission of tradition. By ‘formal’ here

I mean that there were specific practices employed to ensure that tradition was faithfully

handed on from a qualified traditioner to others. The evidence is found in Paul’s use of

technical terms…” 15

Bauckham does criticize Kenneth E. Bailey and Dunn since their work does

not carefully correlate the traditioning process with eyewitness testimony. 16 Bauckham

further shows preference for a formal controlled traditioning process, against Bailey and

others, such as Dunn and N. T. Wright who have largely adopted Bailey’s model of

informal controlled traditioning. 17 While Bauckham rightly shows concern over the

informal nature of the traditioning process, he may have overstated the case (perhaps

somewhat trivial), since, as it was shown above, Dunn does proffer the notion of custody

with regard to the earliest traditions. Where Dunn, and others who have followed Bailey

seem to depart from Bauckham appears to have more to do with the way the traditions

and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer .” NET Bible.)

15Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses , 264. The technical terminology is discussed in thefollowing subheading.

16Ibid., 260-63.

17Ibid., 252-63.



8

would have been handled by those in the villages and places where Jesus performed his

miracles, and how those communities would have processed and transmitted the

traditions. 18 Some of these traditions could quite conceivably be the testimonies that Luke

mentions in his prologue. 19

Technical Terminology forTradition Transmission

The technical terminology includes, primarily, the terms “deliver” and

“receive” (παραδίδωμι and παραλαμβάνω), both used by Paul in 1 Corinthians chapters 11

and 15.20

Ellis, Quoting P. J. Tomson, notes that they “are technical terms specific to the

transmission of oral tradition in Rabbinic Judaism; they suggest authority and

accuracy.” 21 Ellis further writes that the “traditioning process. . . has affinities with and

appears to be rooted in practices traditional to Judaism and. . . it has its immediate

antecedent in the practice of Jesus himself.” 22 Bauckham, quoting Birger Gerhardsson,

18See Dunn, Jesus Remembered , 205-210.

19Bauckham actually acknowledges Bailey’s concern to connect his model to Luke’ s prologuein this manner. See Jesus and the Eyewitnesses , p. 260.

20BDAG, s.v., παραδίδωμι, “to pass on to another what one knows, of oral or written tradition,hand down, pass on, transmit, relate, teach .” BDAG, s.v., παραλαμβάνω, to gain control of or receive

jurisdiction over, take over , receive .” Paul also uses παράδοσις in 1 Cor 11:2 of the content of tradition;BDAG, s.v., παράδοσις: “the content of instruction that has been handed down, tradition .” The lexemes,then, deal with the handing on, receiving, and the tradition itself.

21

Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents , 54, quoting P. J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law (Assen: 1990) 146. Birger Gerhardsson, Memory & Manuscript: Oral Tradition and WrittenTransmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity with Tradition and Transmission in EarlyChristianity , Biblical Resource Series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) works primarily from (in Memory& Manuscript ) Rabbinic traditions, but as Bauckham has noted, the book remains instructive andilluminating for studying early Christian and pre-Rabbinic Jewish oral traditioning; see Bauckham, Jesusand the Eyewitnesses , 250-51.

22Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents , 57.



9

underscores the importance of the language for early Christianity , “handing on a

tradition ‘means that one hands over somethin g to somebody so that the latter possesses

it,’ while receiving a tradition ‘means that one receives something so that one possesses

it.’” 23 Bauckham continues, “While this need not entail verbatim memorization, it does

entail some process of teaching and learning so that what is communicated will be

retained.” 24

When the chain of transmission is properly appreciated, very exciting results

present themselves. Far from the skeptical portraits a reader encounters in form-critical

works, in the oral traditioning model we find a rather lively tradition going back to Jesus

himself! 25 This is both stirring and exciting in the most positive sense. Paul’s claim of

receiving and passing on the tradition of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:23 is in effect a

claim that the words and the narrative “truly derive from Jesus,” and it is a tradition

which “ begins from Jesus himself .”26 In an age of literary-stratigraphic and form-critical

skepticism where the Gospels are unhesitatingly deconstructed, then reconstructed, this is

a well that students engaged in the work of historical Jesus studies should drink deeply

from. 27

23Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses , 265; citing Birger Gerhardsson, “Illuminating theKingdom: Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels,” in Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition , Journalfor the Study of New Testament Supplement series 64, ed. by Henry Wansbrough (Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 1991) 306.

24Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses , 265.

25Dunn is inspiringly unequivocal! Writing on the Last Supper within oral traditioning heasserts, “this was living oral tradition .” Jesus Remembered , 230 (original emphasis).

26Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses , 268 (original emphasis).

27Dunn expertly illustrates the point in Jesus Remembered , 223.



10

Additional terms such as “ teacher, ” “teaching ,” and “learn ” (διδαχή,

διδασκαλία and μάνθανειν) are further instructive of authority and accuracy in the

traditioning process – in addition to illustrating the careful learning environment in which

it took place. 28 These terms are used by both the rabbis and Jesus “to refer to a traditioned

religious authority, that is, to the Scripture or to an interpretation of it or, in the case of

Jesus, to refer to his own teaching.” 29 The Greek for “keep” and “deposit” are further

used in the Pastoral Epistles in Paul’s charge to Timothy, and they too are common to

Jewish terminology for the preservation and observance of authoritative traditions. 30

Rightly understood, these technical terms “point to a prior traditioning process in which

apostolic teachings were transmitted to congregations of believers as a holy word that is

regarded as the tradition of Christ and that the recipients are to ‘receive,’ ‘learn,’ ‘hold,’

‘keep,’ ‘abide’ and ‘walk in,’ ‘do, and ‘teach.’” 31 Bauckham, perhaps no better

demonstrated elsewhere by New Testament scholars, firmly speaks of the traditioning

process’ integrity when he describes it as a “chain of transmission.” 32

Christology in 1 Corinthians

The exegete should not lose sight of the magnificent and coherent Christology

28Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents , 54-55. Ellis continues to show howthese terms are used elsewhere by Paul to introduce or discuss tradition material: Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess.2:15; 2 Tim. 3:14.

29Ibid., 55.

30Ibid., 56.

31Ibid., 53-59, but see esp. 57.

32Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses , 265f.



11

of Paul articulated throughout 1 Corinthians. In substantial agreement with the thesis

that the tradition materials in chapters 11 and 15 do in fact stem from an underlying,

singular tradition witnessing Jesus’ Passover meal and his sacrificial death for sins, New

Testament scholar Thomas R. Schreiner , writing on 1 Cor 5:7’s reference to Christ as τὸ

πάσχα ἡμῶν (“our Passover lamb”) , explains that “Paul’s understanding of Jesus as the

Passover lamb may have been transmitted to him in traditions about the Lord’s supper

(see 1 Cor. 11:23-26), so that such an understanding of the Passover is traceable to pre-

Pauline Christianity.” 33 This is a very likely conclusion when 11:23-26 and 15:3-7 are

carefully weighed. Beyond 1 Cor 5:7, the connec tion between Jesus’ Last Supper

Passover meal and his atoning sacrificial death finds further support from 1 Cor 6:20 ’s

and 7:23 ’s ἠγοράσθητε γὰρ τιμῆς (“you were bought at a price” ). BDAG notes the

meaning of the word in context as believers for whom Christ has died by paying the price

“with his blood.” 34 These are those whom Jesus spoke of during the Last Supper, saying

that the new covenant was in his blood. 35 Jesus ’ blood bought their redemption just as the

Passover lamb secured the redemption of Israel in the Exodus.

33Thomas R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1993) 162-63.

34BDAG, s.v., ἀγοράζω.

35Several scholars recognize the Gospel of Luke’s close parallel to Paul’s own traditionaccount of the Last Supper. Luke 22:20 states: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου (literally:“thi s the cup the new covenant in my blood”); Paul’s account reads in almost perfect agreement: τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι (this the cup the new covenant is in my blood). See theexcellent discussion in Dunn, Jesus Remembered , 229-231.



12

Jesus’ Last Supper and Sacrificial Death in 1 Corinthians:Fortuitous References in Paul’s Use of Jesus Tradition?

Clearly, on account of the tradition material, the apostles and earliest

Christians associated Jesus’ Last Supper and death with the forgiveness of sins. In 1 Cor

11:23 Paul prefaces the tradition of Jesus’ words at his final supper wit h ὅτι ὁ κύριος

Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο (“that the Lord Jesus in the night which he was

betrayed”). The tradition in 1 Cor 15:3 likewise explicitly makes mention of Jesus’ death,

ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν (“that Christ died”). These parallels, together with insights drawn

from scholarly discussions of the traditioning process, and the Christology of 1

Corinthians, all point to a unified tradition at the earliest level, which is the historicity of

Jesus ’ death as an intentional sacrifice for sins, startin g with Jesus’ own self -

understanding of his death which he explained to his disciples the night of his betrayal.

In closing, I Corinthians provides the reader a glimpse into the window of

early Christian traditions about Jesus. Specifically, it grants the interested reader insight

as to what the earliest traditions of Jesus were, and, as it has been shown, the two

traditions preserved by Paul in 1 Corinthians are not fortuitously preserved, but stem

from an underlying unified and ultimately singular tradition about Jesus ’s sacrificial

death which Jesus himself taught.



13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony .Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2006.

Bruce, F. F. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.

Casey, Maurice. The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem . Library of New TestamentStudies series. London: T & T Clark, 2009.

Collins, Adela Yarbro. Mark: A Commentary . Hermeneia – A Critical and HistoricalCommentary on the Bible. Edited by Harold W. Attridge. Minneapolis, MN:Fortress Press, 2007.

Dunn, James D. G. Beginning from Jerusalem . Volume 2 of Christianity in the Making .Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2009.

_________. Jesus Remembered . Volume 1 of Christianity in the Making . Grand Rapids:William B. Eerdmans, 2003.

Ellis, E. Earle. The Making of the New Testament Documents . Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Gerhardsson, Birger. Memory & Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity with Tradition and Transmission in EarlyChristianity . Biblical Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

_________. “Illuminating the Kingdom: Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels.” I n Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition . Journal for the Study of New TestamentSupplement series 64. Edited by Henry Wansbrough. Sheffield: Sheffield AcademicPress, 1991.

Hengel, Martin. “Christology and New Testament Chronology: A Problem in the H istoryof Earliest Christianity.” In Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest Historyof Christianity . Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2003.

Keener, Craig S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Schreiner, Thomas R. The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law . GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1993.



14

Stuhlmacher, Peter. “Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts.” I n The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources . Edited by Bernd Janowski and PeterStuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2004.

_________. Jesus of Nazareth, Christ of Faith . Translated by Siegried Schatzmann.

Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993.

Taylor, Mark. 1 Corinthians . New American Commentary 28. Nashville, TN: Broadman& Holman, 2014.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians . The New International GreekTestament Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000.

Thompson, M. B. “Tradition.” I n Dictionary of Paul and His Letters . Edibted by GeraldF. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1993.

Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God . Volume 2 of Christian Origins and theQuestion of God . Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996.

_________. Paul and the Faithfulness of God . Volume 4 of Christian Origins and theQuestion of God . Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013.