TedM

If we refuse the possibility of the supernatural, what is the point of this question? Obviously if this was a vision and we refuse the supernatural, then the vision was a creation by Paul. But how does one distinguish between a vision based on events Paul may have thought to have been real from tradition--such as the idea that Jesus was delivered up at night, and that he had followers during his "life", and events Paul may have thought to have been real from his own insights?

ted

Ben C Smith

Yes, what Paul tells us implies a storyline to which we are not privy, at least not through Paul himself; no, the supper itself is not absent. When I speak of the day on which I graduated, I am implying a bigger storyline than just the single act of stretching out my hand and grabbing a diploma.

Correct.

It would be a mistake, except that he himself has told us that the vision pertains to exactly that, an event in the past (the supper on the night...). If the daughter from A Perfect Storm simply says that she saw her daddy in a dream, we have no right to assume the dream had anything to do with an historical event in the past. If, however, she says that her daddy told her what happened on the boat, we naturally infer that the daughter knows of something that happened on a boat.

We already know from other passages in Paul that he thinks the historical Jesus was executed. Now he is telling us what he has learned happened on the night he was handed over to be executed.

Yes, but when a person of faith attaches that vision to an event that we already know that person believes really happened, what compels us to think that the vision was fictive in the sense you suggest? I myself have heard a Pentecostal woman assure a grieving widow, based on a personal vision of the deceased man moving his lips in prayer right before his fatal crash, that her husband died a Christian (despite all appearances to the contrary; call it wishful thinking, if you wish). The lip-moving in the vision was certainly symbolic of his praying to God, but I have no reason to think that the woman who had the vision thought that he really did not move his lips before he crashed.

Something like that, but with fewer special effects. But it could have been as simple as Jesus telling him face to face what he had said and done on that night (no need for time travel or teleportation, as it were).

But what in the text signals that kind of time warp? The very fact that we could so easily take the episode as a snippet from oral tradition (even if it is not, and even if it did not match any other tradition of which we were aware) speaks against such a reading. I say the episode is exactly what it looks like, information about what happened that fateful night when Jesus was delivered up, whether that information came from a vision or from a traditional story.

If there was no delay, then he was crucified that night, not the next day. We are not told whether there was a trial, or what kind, but any kind of hearing or trial at all could hypothetically lead to days, even weeks, of deliberation before sentence was actually carried out.

It just looked for a moment like you were drawing the next day from the gospels.

It was applicable to what Ted had written.

Not a problem.

I never had on my speculation hat; I misplaced it sometime in the late nineties. My inference hat, on the other hand, is well worn.

An inference requires a basis of some kind from which to infer.

[Borrowing a speculation hat from a coworker....]

If I were a little more cynical, I would perhaps answer that Paul was one-upping the traditional meal that he inherited from the other apostles. Paul would be trumping the tradition with his own spiritual experience.

Ben.

Amaleq13

I can see where "the day on which I graduated" requires certain assumptions (eg attending school) but what "storyline" is similarly required by Paul's vision?

I have to admit that your choice of phrase ("an historical event") makes it difficult for me to keep in mind that you are only talking about Paul believing his vision to be true.

That said, your examples only involved events that were independently known to have occurred with visions providing "extra details". The little girl knew her daddy left on a boat, if not that he died on it, and the Pentecostal woman knew the man had died in a crash.

What are you assuming Paul knew already and what are you assuming are the "extra details" revealed in the vision?

The fact that the vision is relatively recent compared to the events described in it suggests it to me.

Nope, just an assumption that crucifixions took place during the day.

OK, then nevermind. I’m ignoring him until he either acknowledges that his challenge to me in another thread was met and he was shown to be wrong or he continues to attempt to defend his errors.

Could you be more specific about the difference between the inherited traditional meal and Paul's vision?

TedM

I suppose that's fair Amaleq13. I don't acknowledge that you met my challenge because I frankly don't understand what you wrote very well. It appears to me that you dwell so narrowly on the meaning of certain things that you miss the entire big picture or actual meanings given the contexts, but it may be that I am the one missing the picture. After you posted last there I was going to run your example about the gun owner by a statistician friend I know, but the timing was no good the first time I tried to contact him, and I have since lost motivation. If I decide to bother anymore with trying to figure out that particular issue (and it perhaps is a big one--since it reflects the differences we have regarding determining the likelihood of something), then I'll continue with that thread.

ted

Ben C Smith

Jesus running afoul (or already having run afoul) of the authorities, Jesus having somebody with whom to sup and give his parting thoughts to (the point in debate, of course), Jesus having some plan in mind that he knew would lead to his death.

Yes. If I used examples of visions whose events we could not locate for certain on the map of history you could argue that they were, in fact, not real events.

If, however, I heard a girl whom I did not know at all saying that daddy told her in a dream what had happened on the boat, I would assume that the girl was aware of some real event on a boat somewhere. That element is the incidental of the vision; her real emphasis lies in explaining it, not in proving that it happened. Ditto the vision of a man right before he died. I would assume that the person with the vision knew of a man who had died. That element is incidental; the focus of the vision is giving that death a particular twist, not proving that the death happened. Ditto Paul. First of all, we already know that he thinks someone named Jesus really was executed; so we know we are not totally out in fantasy land. Second, the night and the supper are the incidentals of the vision; the focus of the passage in Paul is, of course, the words of institution (and possibly the division of the two actions before and after supper; see Crossan for his motive to divide the two). Paul is not trying to convince anybody that there really was a supper the night before Jesus died.

Paul already knew of a supper on the night before Jesus died. The extra details, in the experiment I am running, are the words of institution. So let us imagine that Paul was on mushrooms when he had this vision; he still thinks that Jesus broke bread and spoke in the second person plural. (If Jesus were speaking the words of institution to Paul in the vision, we might expect the second person singular; if he were speaking neither to somebody within the event nor to Paul, we might expect Paul to explain himself a little better.)

I will admit it is possible to envision Jesus turning to the camera, so to speak, on the night before he died, and to that extent I understand where you are coming from. I just do not think that scenario is likely. It looks like Paul is trying to describe a real event in which Jesus really spoke in the second person plural over supper. That is where I would start unless something else told me differently.

The date of the vision relative to the event it describes is irrelevant for what the visionary thinks happened during that event and what he thinks happened only in the vision.

My eucharistic experiment may be in trouble somewhat because it looks like Paul already knew about a last supper; to get from what we have in the Didache to what we have in Paul and the gospels requires that step plus the words of instution. So it appears that Paul could not have introduced both of those changes. Crossan has a life tradition and a death tradition taking off in different directions, with Paul having initiated neither; I may find myself going back to that scenario, though it is still possible that he is the one who introduced the words of institution.

The notion that this was a vision is bugging me, too, not because of anything in this thread but rather because of the language of receiving and delivering in 1 Corinthians 11.23. I need to look into that matter further.

Ben.

Julian

Simple answer: he didn't. All you have to do is to accept both 11 and 15 as interpolations and, voila, instant disciples.

Julian

TedM

Sorry, I'm not following you. Where are the disciples that Jesus knew on earth on 1 Corin?

Julian

1 Cor. 15:5 (and possibly 1 Cor. 15:7 but there is probably a distinction made between disciples and apostles.)

Julian

Julian

Could you clarify the second part of that sentence for me? I agree with the god and Jesus part but I am not sure about christians being delivered over to death in Paul. It may just be my bad memory...

Julian

Ben C Smith

The second part was referring to 2 Corinthians 4.11. But I am rethinking that since Stephen offered an alternative to the divine passive. One thing still going for the divine passive in that verse, however, is the purpose clause.

Ben.