krosero

Was Paul the first Christian to know about the Lord's Supper? On p. 45 of The Jesus Puzzle, Doherty argues that what Paul says about the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11: 23-26 was "received" (paralambano) in a vision. Paul says, "For I received from the Lord", so this must be a vision.

But Paul's description of the meal seems not to conflict with what the other apostles were saying, including Peter, who preached to the Corinthians with success (1:12). Paul and Peter fell out over whom to eat with (Gal 2:11), not over Paul's claim that everyone should eat in a way that honored what the Lord did, which was to take bread, give thanks, break it, and hand it out as representing Christ's own body given for others.

How is it that Paul's Supper matched the cultic meal of the other apostles? They surely had a cultic meal before Paul came along. Did he come along and give them something original which they allowed to replace, or even change, their own cultic meal? Paul does not seem to have that kind of authority with them; or indeed even a lot of contact with them.

As I see it, Paul cannot have said, I SAW MY OWN VISION OF THE LORD'S SUPPER AND YOU NEED TO FOLLOW IT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT PETER SAYS. No, he says that Christ is not divided, and that one cannot belong to Peter while not belonging to Paul (1:13). Certainly a significant difference in the cultic meal would constitute an unacceptable break in brotherhood. Paul is keen that the details be followed and not dishonored. The cultic meal was a thing of great seriousness.

So why does Paul's version, if it was received in a vision, not conflict with anyone else's? Does it not seem overwhelmingly likely that those who called themselves one in Christ shared the same meals (as Paul says was the case until Peter stopped eating with Gentiles), and were united in the central rituals of remembrance, because some disciples established the cultic meal first and Paul accepted it later?

So if Paul had a vision of the Lord's Supper, it matched what he had already learned, and was already honoring himself at table. I've argued elsewhere that Paul must have meditated continually on the Lord's last supper, and on its significance for Christians; he must have had visions or insights about it. He could well say that he received from the Lord a vision of what the last supper constituted.

He uses a word denoting "received," which can mean human or divine transmission. He says that he received it from the Lord, though. Why?

I think it's inevitable that Paul learned of the Lord's Supper long before he received word of it from Peter and any other apostle that might have visited Corinth. He is therefore on strong ground when he tells the Corinthians that they can take his word for what happened at the Last Supper. I think so because the central cultic meal was probably known to Paul when he was persecuting Christians. The eating of Christ's body was probably one of the claims which was found to be most blasphemous. Certainly pagans who knew little about Christianity were likely nevertheless to hear rumours of Christians eating flesh at their cultic meal.

So he heard of it then, when he persecuted Christians. He must have heard of it again in the three years between his conversion and his first meeting with Peter. I'm sure that in those three years he did much meditation -- including meditation on the Lord's Supper -- but it cannot be that he spent 3 years in absolute seclusion without hearing of Christian claims. I think it's likely he even met some Christians (Acts speaks of him being baptized by a Christian). He says he went to "Arabia." I'm sure what he wanted was to meditate on his vision. But that he would not have wanted to meet any other Christians, or to learn anything more about Christianity, for three entire years seems implausible to me. Just to learn where Peter was and how to reach him he would have had to inquire with someone -- even if in Arabia he saw and heard nothing of Christianity (which is unlikely).

So the other apostles were not the first people from whom he heard of Christianity's central cultic meal. He would not appeal to the unnamed persons, or anonymous information, that he received while in Arabia, because that would not constitute any kind of authority with the Corinthians. He would not appeal to major apostles when admonishing his audience, either, because in that way he forfeits his authority with the Corinthians, or seriously compromises it. Then he is saying that they might as well say they belong to Peter (1 Cor 1:12).

What if he simply says "received" without saying who from? Well, the obvious facts of Paul's career still would imply that he received this from others. Unless he says explicitly that his authority is the Lord's own, and cannot be flouted, his admonishment to the Corinthians is not strong; and there's the risk that the Corinthians will assume he is referring to a dependence on Peter. In all his epistles, Paul does not once allow that he has received anything from Peter, even though he surely did receive things from him, such as Peter's opinions and experiences, when the two men met and got to know each other. For whatever reason(s), Paul just won't allow his authority to be compromised by saying or implying that he got something from others, if in fact he got it for himself.

And I think he must have meditated on the Lord's Supper, and had visions of it, long before meeting anyone whose authority was sufficient to invoke in this passage admonishing the Corinthians. He implies strongly that the Lord's Supper is something sacred. So he says he saw its make-up in a vision directly from the Lord. Now he's appealing to the Lord, not to men. (But the Corinthians already know, and do not need to be told, that their other teachers taught the same rituals). And he's probably speaking the truth about his own vision.