Ben C Smith

Cheater. I was relishing the opportunity to watch you defend your balloons while I sit back and throw darts.

I agree. Any theory that does not account for the Didache version is not going to be very impressive to me.

Yes, that would be at least a little bit strange. The Didache (in 9.5) does seem to indicate in its own way that Jesus gave explicit eucharistic instructions:

But let no one eat or drink of your eucharist unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said: Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

So that again is a common factor in the accounts; everybody seems to have thought that Jesus actually issued commands about it.

Ben.

Malachi151

Precisely, which is why Didache is much more likely representative of steps in the evolution of a Christ myth that surrounds a Jesus who never existed.

DramaQ

How do you know how many years it was? Based on Paul, I mean, without using gospel tradition.

DQ

Malachi151

Exactly, if Jesus didn't exist then we have all the time in the world for development.

Amaleq13

You'll have to concoct a better trap than that, Mr. Smith.

Then I'm sticking with a general comment to think of him when they continued the tradition after his death and only the "how" is what changed.

I would think such a comment would be even more powerful in retrospect if, again in line with the Gospels (specifically Mark), his followers didn't understand his plan or (contrary to the Gospels) he never actually informed them of his intent to be killed.

Ben C Smith

My comment was based on the presumption of an historical Jesus in the late twenties or early thirties followed by Paul receiving the tradition sometime before the fifties.

I am not using the eucharist in and of itself as a proof of an historical Jesus; that was an assumption for the sake of the discussion, since I know Amaleq13 tends to accept an historical, albeit minimal, Jesus.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Since this thread is about the significance of the Didache, it seems proper to link to an earlier thread in which I laid out the respectable case that Garrow makes for (most of) the Didache preceding the gospel of Matthew.

Ben.

DramaQ

I know. What I am asking is how you can presume this? What limits it to the late twenties or early thirties?

Neither am I. The question is the same whether it stems from an historical person or not. Amaleq proposed a possible development of the ritual and your response suggested that you felt it unlikely that so much could develop "in only a few years".

How do you know how much time passed before Paul got hold of the tradition?

DQ

Ben C Smith

The gospels place the execution of Jesus under Pilate, whose prefecture lasted from 26 to 36. Already we are in the late twenties or early to mid thirties. I also have made arguments that Paul regarded Jesus as an older contemporary.

These chronological issues, however, are quite complex. I recommend the Marginal Jew series, first volume, by J. P. Meier for starters.

I never said it was unlikely. What I wanted was an account of how it happened and why it would have happened so quickly. I myself am not a fan of limiting the development of tradition a priori with chronological considerations; but sometimes tradition develops slowly, sometimes quickly, and in this case it would be nice to know, if this particular tradition went from general Jewish meal to all-out eucharist attributed to Jesus himself in two decades or less, why it developed so quickly. Why did the general Jewish thanksgiving meal, if that is what Jesus himself inaugurated, die out so soon?

Ben.

DramaQ

Which tells us nothing about what Paul believed or for that matter when his letters were actually written. It only tells us what the gospel writers believed. (Or what they wrote, anyway.) If you didn't have the later gospels to refer to, how would you know?

I'm not sure what you mean by an "older contemporary", but I'd be interested in going back and reading those arguments.

Thank you, I may. However, I'm not really asking for a chronology. I only want to know why you start with the presumption that Paul wrote only a few years after the event when there is nothing in what he wrote to indicate it.

True. And I never said you did. Only that the nature of your response suggested that you found it - shall we say - less likely.

Hate to be a broken record here: it's the words "so quickly" and "so soon" that I'm stuck on here. You seem to be taking the presumption of the time period based on the later gospels as perfectly acceptable. I still see no reason to make the presumption. Paul could have been writing about events from 100 years prior. It's the GOSPELS that pinned down the date you want to use for Paul. Is it a good idea to accept that automatically?

I’m not disagreeing. I’m just tough to convince.

dq