Paul can be seen as a poster child for “the least of these” in Mt 25
———–
Who was hungry and thirsty and naked?
πεινῶμεν καὶ διψῶμεν καὶ γυμνιτεύομεν 1 Cor 4:11
Ἐπείνασα… ἐδίψησα… γυμνὸς M25
———-
Who was a stranger?
Γάϊος ὁ ξένος μου Rom 6:13
ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ συναχθέντων ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος 1 Cor 5:4
ξένος ἤμην καὶ συνηγάγετέ με M25
———-
Who was “weak”?
τίς ἀσθενεῖ, καὶ οὐκ ἀσθενῶ 2 Cor 11:29
ἠσθένησα καὶ ἐπεσκέψασθέ με M25
————
Who was in prison?
ἐν φυλακαῖς 2 Cor 6:5, 11:23
ἐν φυλακῇ ἤμην M25
————
Who was called least?
Ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι ὁ ἐλάχιστος τῶν ἀποστόλων, 1 Cor 15:9
ἐμοὶ τῷ ἐλαχιστοτέρῳ πάντων ἁγίων Eph 3:8
τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν ἐλαχίστων M25
————–
Who spoke of inheriting the Kingdom of God?
βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν. Gal 5:21
κληρονομήσατε τὴν ἡτοιμασμένην ὑμῖν βασιλείαν M25
Robert said
Very interesting, Gregory. Do you think this is something the author of the gospel of Matthew intended?
My hypothesis is that The Sheep and Goats parable was produced by readers of Paul’s letters who, like the NRSV, (mis)read ἀσθένημα (“weakness”) in the following passages as an unspecified “physical infirmity” experienced intermittently by Paul.
Galatians 4
“ 13 You know that it was because of a physical infirmity (δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς) that I first announced the gospel to you; 14 though my condition put you to the test, you did not scorn or despise me, but welcomed me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.” (NRSV)
2 Corinthians 10
“…they say, “His letters are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak (τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενὴς), and his speech contemptible.” (NRSV)
2 Corinthians 12
…I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness (ἀσθενείᾳ).” (NRSV)
Matthew 25
“I was sick (ἠσθένησα) and you took care of me… 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord… when was it that we saw you… sick (ἀσθενῆ)…?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’ (NRSV)
————
I also think the community that produced the interpretation of “the weak” in Acts 20:35 was influenced by a (mis)construal of the context of Paul’s words on bearing “the weaknesses of the powerless”–supposedly, this is accomplished by his working with his own hands.
Romans 15:1.
We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak (οἱ δυνατοὶ τὰ ἀσθενήματα τῶν ἀδυνάτων βαστάζειν), and not to please ourselves.
1 Corinthians 14:12
We work hard with our own hands (κοπιῶμεν ἐργαζόμενοι ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσίν).
Acts
You yourselves know that these hands of mine (αἱ χεῖρες αὗται) have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I [Paul] showed you that by this kind of hard work (ὅτι οὕτως κοπιῶντας) we must help the weak (δεῖ ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι τῶν ἀσθενούντων), remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’
———–
I think the communities that produced Gospels were interested in promoting practical acts of 1) caring for the physically ill and injured (G. Matthew), and 2) providing for ones own needs by physical work, and sharing with those less able (Luke-Acts). I think this was connected with a misreading of Paul’s words on weakness, which actually, according my rereadings, had to do with moral weakness–not illness, injury or the inability to do the kind of “hard work” that is done with one’s own hands.
Interesting. But wouldn’t a simpler explanation be that both Matthew and Paul are independently filtering authentic Jesus tradition through their own later viewpoints? It’s hard to imagine the author of Matthew being much of a fan of Paul given their quite contrasting views of what it meant to be a Christian. And it seems unlikely that the author of Luke/Acts had access to Paul’s writings since he frequently and consistently ascribes views to Paul that are contradicted in Paul’s own authentic correspondence.
Stephen said
It’s hard to imagine the author of Matthew being much of a fan of Paul given their quite contrasting views of what it meant to be a Christian.
Even Paul’s “enemies” in the church read what he wrote. The author of Matthew (like the author of James) was in a community where it was necessary to love even one’s enemies. It was also a community that included skilled γραμματεύς (writer/scribes, 1 Cor 1:20), who would have not only read, but also counter-read Paul’s writings in order to influence his admirers in the church. So I can see them implicitly making Paul as a poster child for self-sacrifice to the point of physical need while implicitly also silencing some of his views. The M community would have given him shelter and care in his time of need, even if they were not fans of all his views on what it meant to be Christian.
Perhaps Paul was describing such readers as them when he wrote:
ὅτι Αἱ ἐπιστολαὶ μέν, φησίν, βαρεῖαι καὶ ἰσχυραί, ἡ δὲ παρουσία τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενὴς καὶ ὁ λόγος ἐξουθενημένος.
For they say, “His [Paul’s] letters are oppressive and overbearing, but his bodily presence is weak (τοῦ σώματος ἀσθενὴς), and his speech of no account” (2 Cor 10:10).
Even Paul’s “enemies” in the church read what he wrote.
But how likely is it that his surviving letters were widely distributed until after they were collected late in the first century? These were letters intended to address issues in specific communities and the fact that so few were preserved is telling. Most were probably read by the immediate recipients and discarded. But what is most telling is the situation in Luke/Acts, an author who ostensibly would have agreed with and supported Paul, who has ample stories to tell about Paul and his career, but nevertheless seems not to know Paul’s actual writings. If your friends don’t know your work why would you assume your enemies do?
Stephen said
But how likely is it that his surviving letters were widely distributed until after they were collected late in the first century? These were letters intended to address issues in specific communities and the fact that so few were preserved is telling. Most were probably read by the immediate recipients and discarded. But what is most telling is the situation in Luke/Acts, an author who ostensibly would have agreed with and supported Paul, who has ample stories to tell about Paul and his career, but nevertheless seems not to know Paul’s actual writings. If your friends don’t know your work why would you assume your enemies do?
With “least of these” in Matthew 25, commentators traditionally assume no interaction with Paul’s letters, and so my suggestion of interaction with Paul’s letters comes “out of left field” so to speak. But with scenes from Acts which depict Paul, commentators have traditionally done extensive comparisons with the letters of Paul.
So, why wouldn’t the author of Luke-Acts want to agree with Paul’s letters? He may have thought the letters would end up in the dust bin. And so he may have had no idea that his narrative masterpiece published together in one book with those situational epistles. If he had known we would be reading the letters and scouring his narrative for comparison, he may have told the story differently.
As concerns “weakness” I think the reason for the divergence between Paul’s letters and the Paul of Acts has to do with embarrassment. Yes, I think the author of Luke-Acts had read Paul’s letters and found his “weak with the weak” mode of operation embarrassing! Thus, Paul’s “weakness” talk gets played down or misread. By contrast, the image of Paul as hard working and enduring is not embarrassing, and so it gets played up.
I’m not even convinced that Paul’s description of his various experiences of hardship, using language about hunger, nakedness, weakness, etc, really requires that he must be dependent upon a tradition relating this parable of Jesus/Matthew. Other than a few words in common, is there really that much similarity here?
Sure. My only point is that it would be expected that different inheritors of a tradition would be likely to have some overlap with each other without necessarily assuming some kind of direct contact. (Something to consider when we argue about gJohn’s knowledge of the synoptics.)
So, why wouldn’t the author of Luke-Acts want to agree with Paul’s letters?
We can construct scenarios where the author of Luke/Acts disguises his knowledge of Paul’s letters but the simplest explanation is that he didn’t know them.
Gregory you’re right I wasn’t aware of any prior attempt to link Matthew and Paul. However there is a literature attempting to establish a link between Paul and Mark.
Stephen said
Gregory you’re right I wasn’t aware of any prior attempt to link Matthew and Paul.
By a generous synchronicity, yesterday I stumbled across this ** you do not have permission to see this link ** where, at 32:30, Duke Professor Mark Goodacre answers this question:
“Would you care to comment on how Paul’s letters may have possibly influenced the writing of the Gospels, especially the Gospel of Matthew?”
I’m pondering his answer.
Robert said
By the way, did you have a chance to read his posts on this parable.
I read his interpretation of the parable years ago from one of his books. I also read it again when you posted the link. I think he answers questions very rapidly, and does so based on what he already knows. Fair enough. But, I’m curious if he will look at my outline and think: “I hadn’t thought about that.” (My guess is that he has not. Who has?) Also, of course, I wonder what he will say, however brief.
Robert said
He neither has the time, nor ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
True!
And since my question is, shall we say, “contrary”, I asked it with some anxiety. I do not seek to annoy. Nevertheless, given that Ehrman talked at length about the parable of the sheep and the goats (and did so in the context of a critical discussion about what historical Jesus did or did not say) both in the lecture and in the Q & A of the ** you do not have permission to see this link ** and given that I have gone public so recently with my alternative contextualization of the parable here on this very forum, I had a sense that the timing was appropriate, come what may.
Paul wrote:
“you received me, as Christ Jesus”. Gal 4:14
To which an uncomprehending audience might reply to his interpreter:
“When did we receive him as Christ Jesus”
To which an interpreter might explain:
When his body was “weak” (Gal 4:13, interpreted as illness) and you cared for him. M25
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)