Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 03-14-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

On his weblog today Mark Goodacre posted a link to a revised version of the paper he delivered a couple of years ago at Wellesly College. The following snippet says some of what I was trying to say, but says it better and more compactly:

What is interesting is the way in which Paul introduces the eucharistic words. He says in the night that he [Jesus] was handed over (11.23). Sometimes in history you can find out interesting things by observing what a writer thinks his or her readers can take for granted. Paul here apparently assumes that the time note, the night that he was handed over, would be understood by his hearers. "O, that night"; not any other night, not any ordinary night. It is a note that hints that his hearers knew a good deal more of this story than Paul has time or need to share here. The Corinthians, we must assume, are familiar with some kind of narrative of Jesus' last days.

At any rate, the paper is recommended reading.

I knew the bit about incidental information sounded familiar when I read it in Goodacre, and I have found where I had read something about it before. Some time ago Peter Kirby posted a Wikipedia article on the historical method that discusses it:

Louis Gottschalk adds an additional consideration: "Even when the fact in question may not be well-known, certain kinds of statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or falsehood seems unlikely. If an ancient inscription on a road tells us that a certain proconsul built that road while Augustus was princeps, it may be doubted without further corroboration that that proconsul really built the road, but would be harder to doubt that the road was built during the principate of Augustus. If an advertisement informs readers that 'A and B Coffee may be bought at any reliable grocer's at the unusual price of fifty cents a pound,' all the inferences of the advertisement may well be doubted without corroboration except that there is a brand of coffee on the market called 'A and B Coffee.'" (Understanding History, 163)

Ben.

Amaleq13 · 03-14-2006, 01:28 PM

I enjoyed Goodacre's article but there does not appear to be any support for the assumption that Paul's "hearers knew a good deal more of this story". I was also disappointed that Goodacre apparently missed that the fact none of Jesus' disciples were arrested suggests their abandonment should be considered historical.

jakejonesiv · 03-14-2006, 01:48 PM

Which came first, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 or
Mark 14:22-25?

Quote:

1 Corinthians 11:23-26
23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Mark 14:22-25
22And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
23And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
24And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
25Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.[/B]

Jake

Ben C Smith · 03-14-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Which came first, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 or
Mark 14:22-25?

My best answer is neither. Both came from earlier oral tradition.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 03-16-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I enjoyed Goodacre's article but there does not appear to be any support for the assumption that Paul's "hearers knew a good deal more of this story".

Where Goodacre has apparently let you down, perhaps Carlson can pick you up.

You may recall his comments on 1 Corinthians 11.32 earlier in this very thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

The curious part of 1 Cor 11:32 is that παϿεδίδετο is a passive, but an imperfect passive, which looks at the "handing over" as a process. As Mark's gospel narrates it, Judas will hand Jesus over to the chief priests, the chief priests will hand Jesus over to Pilate, and Pilate will hand him over to the soldiers to be crucified. There are lots of "handing over"s by different people in Mark.

I have been mulling this over, and I really think there is something to this. Elsewhere Paul uses the aorist tense when he says that God delivered Jesus up (Romans 4.25, passive; Romans 8.32, active; confer Ephesians 5.2, 25). This is to be expected; God delivering Jesus up would be a single, punctilinear event (or at least could be easily framed as such).

Mark also uses the aorist when he speaks of Jesus being delivered up. In 3.19 he says that Judas delivered Jesus up (we discover later that it was to the chief priests and elders that he delivered him); in 15.1 he says that the chief priests and elders delivered Jesus up to Pilate; and in 15.15 he says that Pilate delivered Jesus up to be crucified. All three of these use the aorist, each separate act of delivering up being a punctilinear event.

1 Corinthians 11.32 is, according to a search on BibleWorks 5, the only imperfect instance of this verb in Paul. Why did Paul choose to depict a process here? It looks to me like he does indeed know more than he is telling:

On the night in which Jesus was [in the process of] being delivered up....

Paul knows, it would seem, that there was more to that event than a single act of delivering up, which implies that he knew, not only the time of day (at night), not only one of the main activities that night (supper and eucharist), but also of a more complicated narrative than he is telling in our context (one involving more than one step in getting Jesus from his solemn meal to his crucifixion).

Quote:

I was also disappointed that Goodacre apparently missed that the fact none of Jesus' disciples were arrested suggests their abandonment should be considered historical.

That is a good point.

Ben.

jakejonesiv · 03-16-2006, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

My best answer is neither. Both came from earlier oral tradition.

Ben.

it is important to recognise that none of the epistles is
an integral work, but the result of multiple redactions, the decisive one by the Catholic churchfathers not before the times of Justin Martyr.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 occurs only in the catholic redaction.

Jake Jones

Ben C Smith · 03-16-2006, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 occurs only in the catholic redaction.

In which redaction does 1 Corinthians 11.23-26 not occur?

Ben.

Steven Avery · 03-16-2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

In which redaction does 1 Corinthians 11.23-26 not occur? Ben.

Ben, doesn't catholic mean universal ?

Ben C Smith · 03-16-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Ben, doesn't catholic mean universal ?

Sure does: Throughout the whole.

It cannot be shown that Marcion omitted this passage whole, though one might well surmise that Marcion omitted the wine. I know of no Pauline manuscript that lacks it or church father who claims some copies lacked it (though I admit I am not as familiar with the Pauline manuscripts as I am with the gospel manuscripts).

Ben.

schilling.klaus · 01-12-2008, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

As it was important to Paul that Jesus was the Messiah

No, it wasn't.
It was important for the late second century Catholic authors of the Pauline epistles (falsely so-called) to make Paul appear as in basic agreement with Peter, against the claims of Marcion.

Klaus Schilling

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-14-2006, 01:28 PM	#202
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	I enjoyed Goodacre's article but there does not appear to be any support for the assumption that Paul's "hearers knew a good deal more of this story". I was also disappointed that Goodacre apparently missed that the fact none of Jesus' disciples were arrested suggests their abandonment should be considered historical.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.