andrewcriddle

On the question of the earliest physical evidence for the spelling Christian we have the Christians for Christians inscriptions from Phrygia c 250 CE.

See
http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/MAMA/Vol10/...0dpi/008bm.jpg
http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/MAMA/Vol10/Pages/008.html

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

Agreed.

That is interesting.... What I want to do is look more deeply into the language of receiving and delivering. It appears to indicate a tradition in 1 Corinthians 15.3, but I would like to see how it is used in other sources. I read that it is technical rabbinical language for passing on oral traditions all the time, it seems, but have never really looked into it.

A eucharist without the death... it is odd.

Oh, okay, but I think I am just rehashing old stuff....

Granted. But the question was not how Jesus would be treating the meal; the question was how Paul would have ever deduced from his execution that Jesus had partaken of such a meal. Once the connection between his death and his execution was in place, all manner of details could be (sometimes awkwardly) exploited. But the issue was how such a connection was made in the first place, and (for me) how Paul, once he made that leap, could just blithely assume it without further discussion.

I have only your word for it. It still looks to me like the night parallels the boat and the statue in Rio.

Perhaps. I do not want to throw away that term for it until I know what one would call it.

My main interest in asking the question was actually to get information from you, but I do recall having been favorably impressed with the Word Biblical Commentaries; I especially like Craig Evans on Mark 8.27-16.20. John Nolland has Luke 19.1-24.53, Donald Hagner has Matthew 14-28, and George Beasley-Murray has John.

I seriously doubt every difficulty can be cleared up; but I think some of the usually perceived problems depend on reading the evidence in awkward ways.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

This is an unusual document indeed. The Christians are so called because they are oily, they are always greasing themselves up like an athlete entering the gymnasium, or the patriarchs oiling their stone pillar phallic symbols. They are not named after any Jesus or Christ or any other Messiah in this document; such a being is not mentioned. They are themselves the Anointed.

And about your laughing at me and calling me "Christian," you know not what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this account, because we are anointed with the oil of God.

The author has been challenged to ""Show me thy God" (ch 2 & 14), never once are Jesus and his deeds invoked.

When it comes to the part where the resurrection of men is proved by examples, chapter 13, the author names Hercules, Aesculapius, but no Jesus. The author names the dying of seasons, and days, and nights; he names seeds and fruits, the phases of the moon, but no Christ.

Then, as to your denying that the dead are raised-for you say, "Show me even one who has been raised from the dead, that seeing I may believe,"-first, what great thing is it if you believe when you have seen the thing done? Then, again, you believe that Hercules, who burned himself, lives; and that Aesculapius, who was struck with lightning, was raised; and do you disbelieve the things that are told you by God? But, suppose I should show you a dead man raised and alive, even this you would disbelieve. God indeed exhibits to you many proofs that you may believe Him. For consider, if you please, the dying of seasons, and days, and nights, how these also die and rise again. And what? Is there not a resurrection going on of seeds and fruits, and this, too, for the use of men? A seed of wheat, for example, or of the other grains, when it is cast into the earth, first dies and rots away, then is raised, and becomes a stalk of corn. And the nature of trees and fruit-trees,-is it not that according to the appointment of God they produce their fruits in their seasons out of what has been unseen and invisible? Moreover, sometimes also a sparrow or some of the other birds, when in drinking it has swallowed a seed of apple or fig, or something else, has come to some rocky hillock or tomb, and has left the seed in its droppings, and the seed, which was once swallowed, and has passed though so great a heat, now striking root, a tree has grown up. And all these things does the wisdom of God effect, in order to manifest even by these things, that God is able to effect the general resurrection of all men. And if you would witness a more wonderful sight, which may prove a resurrection not only of earthly but of heavenly bodies, consider the resurrection of the moon, which occurs monthly; how it wanes, dies, and rises again. Hear further, O man, of the work of resurrection going on in yourself, even though you are unaware of it. For perhaps you have sometimes fallen sick, and lost flesh, and strength, and beauty; but when you received again from God mercy and healing, you picked up again in flesh and appearance, and recovered also your strength. And as you do not know where your flesh went away and disappeared to, so neither do you know whence it grew, Or whence it came again. But you will say, "From meats and drinks changed into blood." Quite so; but this, too, is the work of God, who thus operates, and not of any other.

If this author knows anything about Jesus he avoids him like the plague. This author writes some things that sound Pauline (e.g. ch 7), but with no Paul and no Jesus. We have Christians without Christ, and resurrection without The Resurrection.

This author might describe a group of Christians that became confouned with (and perhaps merged with) the Jesus Chrestians, resulting in the contradictions and confusions evident in the early centuries CE.

The Anointed were originally a separate group from the Jesus Chrestians.

Jake Jones IV

Amaleq13

Not just "without the death" but with something else instead (ie "life and knowledge" through Jesus the Child/Son/Servant of God). The wine apparently symbolized the "holy vine of David" (messianic reference?) while the bread symbolized the scattered communities of Believers. Perhaps I am under the influence of Joe's Jedi mind tricks but that sounds like what he would call the Possible Jesus.

It is less a deduction than a necessary requirement for any Origin Myth intended to explain why this new interpretation of the ritual meal should replace the old one. The meal is originally Jewish but has been reinterpreted as a remembrance of the "life and knowledge" obtained through Jesus. Now it is being reinterpreted again as a remembrance of the sacrificial death. The Origin Myth simply moves Jesus back to the original Jewish meal and completely erases the second step. The conclusion follows from the need to replace another interpretation entirely. What better way than to set the establishment of that interpretation earlier than the one to be replaced?

Yes they are parallels but you seem to me to be confusing specificity with prior knowledge of the object specified. That one is describing a specific statue, boat, or night does not require or suggest that it has already been described for the audience. It simply indicates that a particular statue, boat, or night is being described.

"The gun in my night stand is loaded."

According to you, we can assume from the article that I have already discussed the gun prior to writing that sentence. I agree that it is reasonable to assume that some sort of prior knowledge/discussion preceded this sentence but I don't see how you can assume it was information about that specific firearm simply from the article. It could just as easily follow from a prior discussion of the security of my home.

"I'm not terribly concerned about someone breaking into my home while I sleep. The gun in my night stand is loaded."

It seems to me to be a pretty strong implied criticism against anyone teaching another interpretation of the meal. It suggests they either were ignorant of the instructions of Jesus or, even worse, had deliberately ignored them. IMO, that goes beyond just making Paul look better.

Again, I may be under the influence of Darth Wallack but this is starting to look like a little pre-Markan criticism of those who preach the Possible Jesus as opposed to those who preach the Impossible Jesus.

Thanks for the recommendations. Obviously, I don't have any that I would recommend as helpful.

jakejonesiv

Yes, that is a very good observation. We are dealing with documents of the sect, not historical remeberances. The documents will change as the sect evolved.

Jake

TedM

"which you made known to us through Jesus", follows this. In the prayer after communion: "you didst freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant." What is missing is the explanation of how the Servant, Jesus, made things known to them, and how they obtained eternal life via him.


How could the sacrifice of Christ's own body somehow have been replaced by a reference to the Church? Might the early belief found in Paul's writings that the Church WAS symbolically "the body of Christ", have been a factor?


Here are some other thoughts I have had on this in the past:

Re the Didache: The Didache is silent about the words regarding a new covenant. However it is clear in the Didache that the Eucharist is extremely important. The context is one of how the Church is to prepare for prior and how it is to pray during and after the partaking of the Eucharist, not one of it's origins or a retelling of events. While there is no mention of a Last Supper, there also is no mention of how the tradition began and why/how it is connected to belief in knowledge and eternal life through "Thy Servant."

In chapter 9, regarding the Eucharist is the following: 9:5 "And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord that said concerning this, "Give not that which is holy unto dogs." " The Didache says this is a command concerning the Eucharist. That may be an interpretation, but if taken literally, this is evidence for institution of the Eucharist by "the Lord" himself, who the Didache gives credit in just the prior chapter for establishing the Lord's prayer in his gospel.

It is true that the prayer in chapters 9 and 10 doesn't reference the words normally attributed to Jesus regarding his sacrifice to establish a new covenant. Included in the prayer is a thanks for "knowledge, faith and immortality made known through Jesus thy Son".(10:2) Immortality is certainly related to death. How did Jesus make immortality known to them? It also includes "thou hast given spiritual meat and drink, and life everlasting, through thy Son." This is very similar to "this is my blood" and "this is my body", "broken for you". In addition, the Didache teaches approaching the Eucharist with purity, as those who partake are offering up a sacrifice to God: 14:1 "But on the Lord's day, after that ye have assembled together, break bread and give thanks, having in addition confessed your sins, that your sacrifice may be pure." The connection of physical meat and drink with spiritual meat and dring, the remembering Christ with thanks, the close connection with sacrifice, and immortality made known through Jesus all can certainly be interpreted as indications that the Eucharist in the Didache reflects the themes also found in Paul's Eucharist, though the explicit quotations of Jesus are not repeated, and the prayers concerning wine and bread don't directly support such an interpretation.

That being said, it appears that the Christ worshipped by those behind the Didache is more of one whose value was his teachings while on earth, as opposed to one who was seen as having intentionally sacrificed his own life for the salvation of others.

ted

Ben C Smith

Obviously, but I had hoped for the name of one that had tried to clear up some of the problems but, in your judgment, had failed.

The gun in my nightstand.... I think the my warps that example. Try it with just the gun in the nightstand and it leaves us wondering, what nightstand?

Ben.

Amaleq13

You would know it was one in my house from the preceding conversation about home security concerns. The specificity of the article implies some prior context but not necessarily about the object specified.

Amaleq13

In the context of my discussion with Ben, it is the former which replaced the latter. Giving thanks for the example or teaching of Jesus has been replaced by giving thanks for the sacrifice of his death.

No, the Didache applies this general command specifically to the eucharist ritual. Matthew also gives this as a teaching of Jesus but without any specific connection to a eucharist ritual. It is a general admonition not to waste time teaching wisdom to uninterested unbelievers (ie pearls before swine) that can be similarly applied to any specific precept of the belief system.

We aren't told. It might refer to surviving the End Times by righteously following the will of God or joining God in Heaven after one's death for the same reason.

It is a generally similar concept but there is nothing in the former to suggest the specific details of the latter. In the context of what we are told in this text, the knowledge appears to be the "spiritual meat and drink" that leads to "life everlasting".

The sacrifice is clearly identified as one made by the participants in the ritual. We don't know what it is but you really can't leap from that to an assumption that it was connected to an understanding of the death of Jesus as a sacrifice. There simply is not indication of this in the text.

There is a significant difference between observing apparent similarities between the two rituals and assuming there are similarities as a way to interpret them. The former is entirely legitimate while the latter is prone to the typical errors of circular reasoning (ie you will see what you want to see rather than what is actually there).

Amaleq13

Sorry, I only keep track of sources I've found helpful.