yalla

1 Cor 15.3 "....what I also received......"
But there is no phrase "from the Lord.." , or similar,here to consider that the Lord was the source. It may be missing because Paul wishes to include as not originating from the Lord, the claims by Cephas, the 12, the 500 that JC appeared to them.
So that does not equate to the same situation as in 1Cor 11.23. where the words are attributed, either immediately or ultimately, to the Lord.

And I think that whilst it is possible that this phrase [11.23], in isolation, can be taken to refer to either immediately or ultimately coming from the Lord, when taken in context with Gal. 1.11 ff :
"I must make it clear to you, brethren, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of JC", then I submit that Paul is stating that his source for the Eucharist [surely an integral part of Paul's gospel?] is revelation by JC.
Not from intermediaries.
We know from other verses that Paul claims JC talks to him directly re 'thorn in the flesh".

Macoby notes that 'celebrated scholar' Hans Leitzman indicates that the evidence of Acts points to the conclusion that the Eucharist was not practised by the Jerusalem Church, looking at Acts 2. 42-6 where a communal meal, without wine being mentioned, is described.

Ben C Smith

That is correct. The source was in this case almost certainly from the other apostles.

I think you are reaching for implications that Paul never intended. I think he simply said that this (1 Corinthians 15.3-7) was what he received as tradition, period. He does not dwell on it because the Corinthians did not dispute that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead (if they did, the argument in 15.13 would have no force at all).

Of course not. I have already said that 11.23 is ambiguous, 1 Corinthians 15.3 much less so because of 15.11.

I think that this would be a faulty conclusion. Much has been made by some of the apparent contradiction between receiving tradition or revelation from men in 1 Corinthians and receiving it only from Jesus in Galatians. But surely the explanation is simple.

In 1 Corinthians Paul is dealing with a single wayward church; he knows he can rely on every single other apostle out there to back him up when he affirms the reality of the final resurrection. He can well afford to point out that the tradition he handed on to the Corinthian church is the same good tradition that is preached everywhere else (15.11).

But in Galatians Paul is dealing with a much broader problem, one that has at one time or other ensnared Cephas (2.11), Barnabas (2.13), and possibly James (2.12). Paul cannot afford here to rely on what the other apostles preach; the Galatians could just point out that Cephas (at least at one time) has agreed with their point of view! It is in his best interests, then, in this epistle as in no other to make certain his gospel comes as directly from Jesus himself as possible.

In short, I do not believe for one moment that Paul really received the entirety of his gospel from a revelation only, without any human involvement at all. If he did, it is quite remarkable that it just happened to line up in most respects with the gospel preached by the other apostles before him (1 Corinthians 15.11; Galatians 2.9). It is possible that he received the part about gentile circumcision from a revelation alone (and that, after all, is the theme of Galatians), and that the Jerusalem pillars knew a winner when they saw one. But even that much may not be secure.

Ben.

yalla

Gidday Ben,
I tend to agree with you. It seems to me that we cannot remove other human involvement from Paul's gospel entirely. Maybe I still have a tinge of gospel tinted glasses.
But is that what Paul is claiming?
He is pretty explicit that his gospel elements come from revelation and scripture.
Not from humans.
Does this impinge on his credibility?

Ben C Smith

I think Paul was dead serious when he said his gospel came from Jesus, not from men; he regarded his commission to preach to the gentiles qua gentiles (that is, without requiring their circumcision) as having come straight from on high. I just think he ignored, in this case and for reasons related to his position in Galatia, those parts of his preaching that came from creeds and communications with the apostles before him.

I think we all do that. We are all selective sometimes with how much or which parts of the matter we discuss. Nobody is completely credible. Nobody.

Ben.

Malachi151

I think that it certainly does, no matter which way you look at it. Either he was self deluded and believed his own lies, he was lying, or he was completely delusional.

The only real alternative to these options is that Jesus really was speaking to him.

If you don't believe that Jesus really was communicating with him through visions, etc., then the only other options are that he was either delusional or a liar.

I tend to think we was honest and delusional. I also assume that he obviously did pick up much of his message from people, he was just self-deluded, and he probably also came up with some of it himself through real hallucinations, etc.

spin

I have always had the suspicion that there was an interpolation within this passage on two grounds:

1. the details of the night of Jesus's last supper is uncharacteristically detailed; and
2. while accepting the notion that a sacred meal was a well-attested ritual within Judaism of the time (as seen in the DSS) and Paul can be seen talking about such a meal in 11:17-22 and then again from vv26-32, the intervening passage seems to interrupt that discussion.

If there has been an insertion, then the payload is vv23-26 with v27 as the glue to hold it in place. Verses 20-22 is pointing his reader at the problem and v28 is starting the process of dealing with it.

This approach partially depends on the significance of kurios in v20 and v32 indicating not Jesus, but god.

We can see interest in this passage is ongoing because marginal comments have crept into the passage in various manuscripts. One inserted "unworthy" into v29a, "all those unworthy who..." Though this doesn't effectively change much for us. another change is quite significant, in that it misinterprets the significance of the passage: "all those who eat and drink without discerning the Lord's body..." Paul originally seems to have been talking of the individual's body and their discernment of its state. Paul indicates that these meals are not for hunger: don't eat if it is only because your stomach is empty. The lord's body has nothing to do with Paul's argument about the right approach to the meal. In v28 he says, "examine yourselves", and continues in v32, "if we judge ourselves", ie we have to discern the state of our bodies. This latter marginal insertion has made it into the KJV.

The nitty-gritty of body and blood, referring to Jesus, is confined to 23-27. If this is god's meal rather than christ's, then there is no place for the body and the blood of christ.

If would be interesting to get further into analysing the passage considering the language and manuscript evidence, but I have no desire to get into one of those interminable conflicts about apologetics.


spin

yalla

I read someone, can't remember who, who considered "new" in v25 to be an insertion.

JoeWallack

JW:
As Paul confesses to us that his Important knowledge concerning Jesus has a Source of his Imagination as opposed to Historical witness, he has no credibility by the standards of this Holy forum. Whether he is being honest or at least accurate in this assertion is relatively unimportant to his credibility by comparison.

Regarding what is original Paul, even if nothing extant was changed Orthodox Christianity still determined what to Preserve. So Christian Assertian regarding what was original should always be Discounted. In addition to extant Textual & Patristic evidence of the Perils of Pauline Forgery we also have the following gem from Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") which gives us reason to Paulse: (emphasis mine saith the Lord)

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/...#P7385_1972073

"As to their affirming that Paul said plainly in the Second [Epistle] to the Corinthians, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not,"51 and maintaining that there is indeed one god of this world, but another who is beyond all principality, and beginning, and power, we are not to blame if they, who give out that they do themselves know mysteries beyond God, know not how to read Paul. For if any one read the passage thus-according to Paul's custom, as I show elsewhere, and by many examples, that he uses transposition of words-"In whom God," then pointing it off, and making a slight interval, and at the same time read also the rest [of the sentence] in one [clause], "hath blinded the minds of them of this world that believe not," he shall find out the true [sense]; that it is contained in the expression, "God hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this world." And this is shown by means of the little interval [between the clause]. For Paul does not say, "the God of this world," as if recognising any other beyond Him; but he confessed God as indeed God. And he says, "the unbelievers of this world," because they shall not inherit the future age of incorruption. I shall show from Paul himself, how it is that God has blinded the minds of them that believe not, in the course of this work, that we may not just at present distract our mind from the matter in hand, [by wandering] at large.

2. From many other instances also, we may discover that the apostle frequently uses a transposed order in his sentences, due to the rapidity of his discourses, and the impetus of the Spirit which is in him. An example occurs in the [Epistle] to the Galatians, where he expresses himself as follows: "Wherefore then the law of works?52 It was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator."53 For the order of the words runs thus: "Wherefore then the law of works? Ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator, it was added until the seed should come to whom the promise was made,"-man thus asking the question, and the Spirit making answer. And again, in the Second to the Thessalonians, speaking of Antichrist, he says, "And then shall that wicked be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus Christ54 shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy him55 with the presence of his coming; [even him] whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders."56 Now in these [sentences] the order of the words is this: "And then shall be revealed that wicked, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the presence of His coming." For he does not mean that the coming of the Lord is after the working of Satan; but the coming of the wicked one, whom we also call Antichrist. If, then, one does not attend to the [proper] reading [of the passage], and if he do not exhibit the intervals of breathing as they occur, there shall be not only incongruities, but also, when reading, he will utter blasphemy, as if the advent of the Lord could take place according to the working of Satan. So therefore, in such passages, the hyperbaton must be exhibited by the reading, and the apostle's meaning following on, preserved; and thus we do not read in that passage, "the god of this world," but, "God," whom we do truly call God; and we hear [it declared of] the unbelieving and the blinded of this world, that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come."


JW:
And so Irenaeus, perhaps the Father of Orthodox Christianity and Godfather of Soul, explains that when the Gnostics find support for Doherty Paul doesn't mean what he wrote. We than have to wonder if subsequent Scribes give weight to Irenaeus' assertion and Transmit sometimes based on what they thought Paul Meant as opposed to what he wrote.

By an Act of Providence we don't have to wonder very long because Irenaeus wrote above (assuming it's Original):

"An example occurs in the [Epistle] to the Galatians, where he expresses himself as follows: "Wherefore then the law of works?52 It was added, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made; [and it was] ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator."53 For the order of the words runs thus: "Wherefore then the law of works? Ordained by angels in the hand of a Mediator, it was added until the seed should come to whom the promise was made,"-man thus asking the question, and the Spirit making answer."

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Galatians_3

Galatians 3:19:

"What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; [and it was] ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator."

JW:
Irenaeus read "the law of works" presumably in the second century and now it's absent in all extant Manuscripts (as well as UBS). In addition we can see that the remainder has been worked on more than Michael Jackson's face:

"3.19 νόμος; τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετ�*θη {A}

Inattentive copyists have produced several quite idiosyncratic readings: D* reads, “It was established on account of traditions” F G al read, “Why then the law of actions? It was established until …”; P46 reads, “Why then the law of actions?” and omits the other words altogether. The text is strongly supported by א A B C Ψ al.

{A} {A} The letter {A} signifies that the text is certain.
D

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York"


JW:
"Inattentive copyists" and "the text is certain"? Quick, someone go find Metzger a conscience. Point Doherty!



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

gstafleu

What is so detailed about it? He states only in general terms when he said it ("the night he was betrayed," no actual time), he does not state where he said it, in what circumstances he said it or to whom he said it. He just utters some phrases that describe a remembrance ritual. All we can say is that this passage and the gospels share this particular remembrance ritual and the general time it was instituted by Jesus. Anything else (if it was around passover, if he was in Jerusalem when he said it, if he said it to his disciples, if there was even anybody in the room, if he was in a room...) is speculation.

Gerard Stafleu

spin

Check out Lk 22:19-20.


spin