Ben C Smith

(I did not assume it is original; I made an argument that it is original.)

I have not decided. I wish I knew.

Ben.

jgibson000

Where have you looked? Have you tried the ATLA data base or JSTOR or NT Abstracts or the bibliographies on this passage that appear in the critical commentaries on 1 Corinthians?

JG

yalla

1Cor. 11.23
"For I have received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus on the night he was delivered up took bread.....etc....[Eucharist]"

Paul is pretty explicit about his source.

Amaleq13

IIRC, he is not as explicit in the original language as it appears in English. The word translated as "received" apparently allows for the possibility of an intermediary source between Paul and the Lord. IOW, it does not require that Paul directly obtained this from the Lord but allows for the possibility that he learned it from someone who had obtained it from the Lord.

Ben C Smith

Paul is pretty explicit about his ultimate source: Jesus. But Paul does not tell us whether this ultimate source was also the immediate source.

The phrase in Greek is απο του κυριου. The preposition απο is consistent with, but not probative of, the notion that Paul received this information from tradition that originated with Jesus, but not necessarily directly from Jesus himself. Had Paul wished to emphasize the immediacy of his receiving this information he would probably have used παρα.

In fact, some might argue that the use of απο means that Jesus was not the immediate source, that he was only the ultimate source. I would not go that far. The distinction between these prepositions was not pressed quite that strenuously in the NT period, AFAICT. So, IMHO, this verse could be telling us either thing. Either Paul got this information from Jesus directly (in a vision, a revelation, a personal appearance) or he got it from Jesus indirectly (through tradition, word of mouth, intermediaries). I do not think we can tell from the verse itself.

Ben.

ETA: My post crossed with that of Amaleq13. He is, I think, correct in principle, though I would add that the argument really rests on the preposition, not on the Greek verb for received, since it is beyond doubt that this verb can be used for the receiving of tradition.

Malachi151

Yes Ben, but can you name ANY other instance in the Pauline letters where Paul claimed to have "ultimately" gotten information from Jesus through others who passed down the information?

To my knowledge this would be the only example, which is one of the very reasons that its authenticity is drawn into question.

gstafleu

I think Crossan's thought as presented by Ben make a lot of sense here. Paul is berating the Corinthians for not doing things properly, and he backs that up with quoting them "chapter and verse" so to speak. In other words 23-25 is exactly what he needs to be authoritative and he puts it in a logical place in his argument.

What prompted you to think of interpolation? I know that in MJ circles this is sometimes seen as a "difficult" passage, because it can be seen to point to a gospel scene and thus to an earthly event. But given the Eucharist's possible derivation from food-plant origin-myths that difficulty may not be as large as first assumed.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

You have misunderstood. Paul is neither claiming nor denying that he got this tradition from intermediaries. All he says is that its source is the Lord. The wording is ambiguous as to whether Jesus is only the ultimate source or also the immediate source.

As an analogy, think of sellers on eBay selling a Nokia camera. By putting that brand name in the auction, the seller is claiming that the ultimate source is the Nokia company. The seller is neither claiming nor denying that the Nokia company was also the immediate source; for all we know, the seller could be a factory-authorized wholesaler who got the camera straight from the floor, or he could be a retailer who got it through a wholesaler, or it could have been an unwanted gift.

It is much the same way here. We are given no information as to either the presence or absence of intermediaries. So, if your rule is that lines in Paul claiming to have received information from Jesus through others cannot be Pauline, 1 Corinthians 11.23 escapes unscathed. It makes no such claim.

Ben.

Malachi151

Agreed, I was just saying that I wouldn't read it as Paul saying that "the Lord" is the ultimate source, from which the tradition has been handed down, because he never says this about anything else. Hence, if this is authentic, I would read it as "th Lord" being the immediate source.

Ben C Smith

Well, I think it is pretty clear that 1 Corinthians 15.3-7 came to Paul from other apostles; in 15.11 he implies that the other apostles are preaching the same thing, and there is not much chance they got it from him.

Ben.