andrewcriddle

No, not necessarily at all.

The thought appears very similar to Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, that the eucharist is a remembrance of Christ's death instituted by Christ himself.

But it seems almost certain that Paul regarded the institution of the eucharist as pre-resurrection (in fact as pre-crucifixion.).

Andrew Criddle

Yuri Kuchinsky

And yet, it is certainly possible that one of the birth narratives was influenced by the other.

A theologically important story could have been added to all 4 gospels at a later time.

Yuri.

Amaleq13

I think that depends on whether one considers the institution of the eucharist to be the events described in Paul's revelation or Paul's sharing of the revelation, itself.

If the events described in Paul's revelation only occurred in Paul's mind, the institution of the eucharist dates no earlier than the moment Paul shared his revelation with others.

Given that he describes this as revealed knowledge from the risen Christ rather than something he was told by people who were present, why should we assume he is referring to an actual event? If it actually took place, wouldn't the people who were present have taught this before Paul and, therefore, wouldn't it be entirely unnecessary (not to be mention decidely odd) for Paul to preach this as revealed knowledge he obtained from the risen Christ?

Clivedurdle

Occam!

Xian view - do this in remembrance of me - prophetic.

Real life view - and what is written! (which he endured)

Jesus in heaven "institutes" this via one of his priests having a vision about it. I'm sorry, the Risen Christ starting this from Heaven is the far more powerful story!

andrewcriddle

Paul claims in 1 Corinthians 11:23 It seems clear that Paul is claiming that the Eucharist was instituted by an event performed by Jesus shortly before his death.

Whether Paul's claim is historically valid or even based on any sort of objective evidence is another matter.

(IMHO Paul's use of the technical terms received and delivered (compare 1 Corinthians 15) indicate that Paul is talking of apostolic tradition, ie that 'from the Lord' means from the Lord via his original apostles. However, I quite recognise this is a controversial point among NT scholars, but for our present purposes I don't think it matters. Whether or not there was a pre-Pauline tradition that the Eucharist was instituted by Jesus before his death is separate from the question as to whether Paul so regarded it)

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

I think that is both contrary to the most apparent meaning (ie "from the Lord" means "from the Lord") and to what Paul has clearly said elsewhere with regard to not having obtaining his gospel from any man but directly from the risen Christ (Gal 1:12) as well as his claim to have been preaching that gospel for years before ever speaking with any of the original apostles (Gal 1:16-18). As far as I can see, there is absolutely no basis for the assumption that Paul actually obtained this information from other people rather than from the Lord as his claims.

OTOH, I agree with you that the claim Paul makes by sharing his revelation is that this practice was instituted by Christ prior to his crucifixion.

neilgodfrey

Greatly appreciate the feedback -

Firstly, my source for Justin telling us that Jesus taught the eucharist after his resurrection is from First Apology 67 (last sentence):

".... and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration."

-- this being his concluding comment to his section 65-67 discussion of the sacraments, inc the eucharist.

I have revised my original post and added a link to a table outlining Justin's gospel narrative outline compared with the canonicals, protevang James and GPeter. I've put it temporarily at http://members.dodo.com.au/~neilgodfrey/marktraject.htm

No doubt when I digest everyone's posts here I'm sure to revise it again for better or for worse.

Clivedurdle

But Justin says Malachi is one of the apostles!I assume the word prophet is a later addition....

andrewcriddle

Justin here means that Malachi is one of the twelve minor prophets. Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi. who were customarily treated as one large scroll or codex and called the book of the twelve

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

Why are there twelve apostles and prophets? Sounds like a post rationalisation to explain this away!