Clivedurdle

Arguably we are looking at Paul discussing something very different to a Eucharist.

A social gospel of helping the poor by ensuring they were fed? An illegal group of people coming together to improve their lot?

That alone is a direct attack on the Emperor - one of them stopped citizens banding together to create a fire service. Was there a get out clause about eating together for religious reasons?

Religious language and ritual would naturally be used to justify these treacherous acts - our god is more powerful than your emperor god.

Is this not an area there is evidence about? Spartacus? The whole Roman Economy based on a welfare benefit - the corn dole?

Are we looking at the growth of a new social institution that really did help the poor and that is why it was successful?

The later monasteries? The English new village system?


Would there not be archaelogical evidence of people eating communally?

spin

You'll find good indications about the communal meal in the DSS. I don't think they support your reading.


spin

spin

Taa.

That's naughty. I was asking your opinion of my analysis! Does the text as I present it read coherently without the eucharist or do you find something missing in reading my reduced version?

I have no trouble with the first part of what you posted, up to "In light of this problem, 11.23-25 makes perfect sense". The introduction of the eucharist turns what Paul was speaking about, a ritual meal involving bread and wine (that could be abused so that people could go with out while others become drunk) into a ritual about body and blood. Body and blood have nothing to do with the meal of bread and wine that Paul is trying to keep under control.

The Jewish ritual meal was meant to be eaten in all seriousness, so it's no wonder that Paul is attacking those who abuse the meal because they bring down condemnation upon themselves for their gluttonous attitude. The eucharist is only present in 11:23-27, not in the rest of the passage. It's about approach, not recognizing one's own body, gluttonizing, abusing other members of the community. His logic is "if we judged ourselves (by discerning our bodies), we would not be judged." There's no concession to the eucharist here.


spin

Ben C Smith

Yes, it seems to read coherently. If the verses were not present, I doubt I would go looking for anything.

Ben.

spin

Thanks.

Do you think tou kuriou ("of the lord") after diakrinwn to swma ("discerning the body") was original to the text? If not, why do you think the interpolator felt it necessary to qualify "body" that way?


spin

Ben C Smith

I suspect not. P46, א, A, B, and C are a pretty strong and pretty early set.

I suspect the interpolator had verse 27 before him, which mentions the body and blood of the Lord. Verse 29 was vague without it, so he made its expression somewhat match that of verse 27.

(Discern the body is a fairly obscure saying anyway, no matter what body it refers to; I cannot decide whether in this case it is the body of the Lord, to which Paul has alluded in 10.16 and which the interpolator has recognized, the body of the individual participant, or the body of all participants as a church, to which Paul has alluded in 10.17 and to which he will return in chapter 12.)

Ben.

spin

Agreed.

Would the doubting/judging/discerning of the body be obscure in the passage if it were as I originally presented it in the OP sans eucharist?


spin

Ben C Smith

To some extent, I think so. The first option (body of the Lord) would be gone, but the other two would still be there, I believe.

Ben.

spin

Strange. I can't see why you would contemplate "the body of all participants as a church," (to which you add "to which Paul has alluded in 10.17 and to which he will return in chapter 12") in the context of eating and drinking, especially when 10:17 specifically talks metaphorically of "the body of christ", while 12:12 again makes overt the metaphor and talks of "one body"... "so it is with christ". I see no reason from the context of the meal 11 to consider a metaphorical use. Where are the signs of metaphor (as can be seen in the other instances you mention)?


spin

Ben C Smith

It is mainly that I do not very well understand what judging the human body means. I mean, it is certainly possible that is what Paul means, something to do with the very next verse about getting sick, but what does he mean when he says that one should judge the body? What does judging the body look like?

Ben.