spin

Paul is coming from a Pharisaic background and has learnt his Judaism there. Community meals and table fellowship were important to the Pharisees for community purposes, as it was for other religions as well. The talk of food from the table of demons in the previous chapter deals with eating food sacrificed to other gods, which after all was what happened with nearly all animal sacrifices in the wide area. The priests usually got first cut though. So communal food ritual was a strong tenet in most of the religions of the area. Why shouldn't Paul introduce something that seemed so reasonable and familiar?


spin

spin

I may have to dust Maccoby off...

I have no problem with the lord's "supper", as long as we are aware that the lord is god and not Jesus (which is one of the reasons 11:23ff was probably inserted to clarify the meal in favor of the eucharist). This would liken the meal in 1 Cor 11 to the sort of meal found at Qumran in which all community members partook. This to me places Paul's meal in a Jewish context. Showing that the Lucan material was an insertion allows us to reconsider Paul's meal.

If you agree that 11:23-28 is an insertion, then don't we remove the sacrament from Paul's meal? As I tried to point out with neilgodfrey, the rest of the passage is about proper behaviour at the meal table. You don't come together because you are hungry -- if you're hungry eat at home. Everyone partakes. That's the direction of this passage, not the eucharist.

I think the eucharist is suggested by the Lucan material, nothing else. It's easy for us to get confused because the eucharist is now such an integral part of the religion. I can't find it outside 11:23-28. If the passage was, as I think, a communal meal, then what Maccoby quoted may be inconsequential. This meal would then not be sacramental.


spin

Gregg

First, putting words in the mouth of a "founder" or an earlier revered figure to give them more authority was quite common in ancient times. The ancient Hebrews backwrote many later doctrinal developments, such as the rite of circumcision, into their scriptures.

Second, the Greek usually translated as "betrayed" can also be translated as "given up," a much more ambiguous wording.

Third, take a look at this from http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6969/myth.htm:

Zeus was angered by the actions of Man and Prometheus, he forbade the Gods to give fire to Man. Prometheus was upset with Zeus' proclamation and was determined to bring fire to Man, but Zeus had guarded the entrance to Olympus. Athena told Prometheus about an unguarded back entrance to Olympus where he would be able to enter with ease.

Prometheus snuck into Olympus at night through the back entrance that Athena had told him of. He made his way to the Chariot of the Sun and lit a torch from the fires that burned there. Extinguishing the torch, Prometheus carried the still hot coals down the mountain in a pithy fennel stalk to prevent being seen. Upon reaching the lands of Men, Prometheus gave to them the coals, breaking Zeus' order by giving fire to Man.

Wow. We have an actual time and place. This event must be historical! Mythical events cannot possibly take place at certain times of day, can they?

Solo

We may be in violent agreement. :huh:

The eucharist became a sacrament later in the Church based on the imagery Paul conjured up in 1 Cor 10 which Mark put into Jesus' mouth on the night of Jesus' arrest - or so it appears. Luke then built on Mark - or so it appears.

Since Mark processed information some time after CE 66 and Luke CE 90-110, it is safe to hypothesize that the sacramental meal did not exist in Paul's time and 1 Cr 11:23-28 is an insert.

This hypothesis is strenghened by the analysis that you have made - i.e. the Eucharist part of the speech is tangential to the subject Paul is talking about in 1 Cr 11 and looks just a tad too Lucan.

Further, the hypothesis is strengthened by Luke's Acts which seems to know nothing of the Eucharist (and two passages deal with the communal meal) and disclaims (in 6:2) that the Twelve traditioned a meal service as part of their ministry. 'Smoking gun' by my standard. As it appears highly unlikely that Luke would have overlooked the Eucharist as a "service" of the Church (which the Twelve could give away), I feel I am on fairly safe grounds to claim that the Eucharistic meal came into being some time after Luke wrote.

Are we ok, spin ?

Jiri

neilgodfrey

"Judging ourselves" makes as much sense to me in the context of 10:15-22 where the reader is told to "judge" and the message is about how purely one fits in with the larger communal body, without contamination . . . . but I have nothing more to add here than comments made already. We need a circuit breaker to move beyond this.


I'm happy to give "my analysis" on anything "I've" analyzed. My original post did not specifically address your arguments. I only presented my notes to expose a point of view of someone I found an interesting read a little while ago, and it kept popping up in citations of other things I was reading, and appears to be relied on fairly extensively by Robert Price in his Pre-Nicene New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk). Winsome Munro, Authority in Paul and Peter: the Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter (1983), is listed in the book as assistant professor at University of Dubuque Theological Seminary. There's nothing wrong in my arguing my understanding and adaptation of Munro's analysis since I'm hardly a specialist in this area. And if I see alternative arguments that also make sense, like yours, I'm not particularly interested in expending too much energy challenging them.

Yep. 11:33-34 continues the thought of 11:29. It is 11:30-32 that have been removed from their place after 10:22 for reasons previously stated.

I'm also pretty wary about arguments relying exclusively on ideas expressed to claim to know the "authentic Paul". But if we open up pastoral-like material to the "original Paul" then we're back to square one in deciding first what letters do belong to Paul, what his style, etc. In that case would not it make as much sense to look at your argument and see nothing more than another chiasm? (Personally I find the evidence that the entire Pauline corpus is a second century production the most persuasive, so I'm in part playing along with a devil advocate position here when I speak of an "original Paul".)

Correct. This is one of a series of pastoral-like authoritative instructions:

• get along with pagans and don't offend Jews or gentiles (yeh, right, try telling that one to the "original Paul";
• don't forget women are subordinate to men, and learn from nature on how to do your hair/cover your heads (the "original Paul" who spoke of no difference between male and female, and would tell people to look to "natural law" for guidance?);
• eat respectably and responsibly, even ritualistically

The author treats the meal ritualistically. He is addressing his readers as if they do not. He has already addressed the idols issue, so now is putting his final stamp on the whole way of handling the eucharist meal.

But a technical note (Munro's sorry, not mine):

"Stylistic confirmation for the above analysis of 1 Cor 10 and 11 is to be found in the regular occurrences of antithetic parallels throughout the material ascribed to the later stratum." (p.78)

10:1-13 contains 1 antithetic parallel in 23 lines (23 lines per occurrence)

10:14-22; 11:3-32 contains 2 antithetic parallels in 17.6 lines (8.8 lines per occurrence)

10:23-11:1 contains 4 antithetic parallels in 17 lines (4.25 lines per occurrence)

11:2-16 contains 6 antithetic parallels in 25 lines (4.2 lines per occurrence)

11:17-22 contains 3 antithetic parallels in 11 lines (3.7 lines per occurrence)

11:23-25 contains 0 antithetic parallels in 9 lines

11:27-29; 33f contains 2 antithetic parallels in 8 lines (4.0 lines per occurrence)


In all parts of the material assigned to the later stratum there is much the same frequency of antithetic parallels -- except of course for that famous Lucan passage (11:23-25), which even the text says comes from another source.

Similar results are found for the other chapters as well, but time forbids me from listing these here. Perhaps next post. (Suffice to say that I Cor 7 which comes closest to these stats is the most "anti-pastoral" of all passages and the one which the "pastoralist" was aiming to neutralize the most -- this contains a similar number of antithetic parallels -- so it appears our 'pastoralist' has adopted its style as a model for his "Pauline" fabrication.)


Neil Godfrey

judge

Well Paul migt well do this, but what was he trying to teach them or or convert them to? Did he want them to become Pharisees?

spin

Why? Paul had obviously left the Pharisees. The feast was a means of keeping his flock together. Those who commune with each other stay together. He taught them his brand of messianism and attempted to make them a community of messianists.


spin

spin

Probably. About the only thing that we are discordant about is an old problem of dating the gospels, which is of no real consequence here. (And I wasn't trying to be violent over our agreement. :wave: )


spin

Doug Shaver

When was the time, and where was the place?

gnosis92

he Lord's Supper
12On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"

13So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. 14Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' 15He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there."

16The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

17When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me."

19They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, "Surely not I?"

20"It is one of the Twelve," he replied, "one who dips bread into the bowl with me. 21The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

22While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body."

23Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.

24"This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. 25"I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."

26When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
Jesus Predicts Peter's Denial
27"You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written:
" 'I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.'[c] 28But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."

29Peter declared, "Even if all fall away, I will not."

30"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice[d] you yourself will disown me three times."

31But Peter insisted emphatically, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the others said the same.
Gethsemane
32They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, "Sit here while I pray." 33He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. 34"My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death," he said to them. "Stay here and keep watch."

35Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36"Abba,[e] Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

37Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Simon," he said to Peter, "are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour? 38Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."

39Once more he went away and prayed the same thing. 40When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him.

41Returning the third time, he said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!"
Jesus Arrested
43Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

44Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard." 45Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him. 46The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

48"Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." 50Then everyone deserted him and fled.

51A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.
Before the Sanhedrin
53They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together. 54Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.

55The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.

57Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' " 59Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[f] the Son of the Blessed One?"

62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

63The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

They all condemned him as worthy of death. 65Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, "Prophesy!" And the guards took him and beat him.
Peter Disowns Jesus
66While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. 67When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him.
"You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus," she said.

68But he denied it. "I don't know or understand what you're talking about," he said, and went out into the entryway.[g]

69When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, "This fellow is one of them." 70Again he denied it.
After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean."

71He began to call down curses on himself, and he swore to them, "I don't know this man you're talking about."

72Immediately the rooster crowed the second time.[h] Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: "Before the rooster crows twice[i] you will disown me three times." And he broke down and wept.