ph2ter

All that points to a later historicization of Jesus.
First Christians knew Jesus only from the Scripture and from the revelations. Those were the only communication channels with Jesus. From the Scripture they deduced that Christ was already on Earth and that he was crucified. Nothing of Jesus' earthly carrier was known except what was written about him in the Scripture. Firstly, as we can see in Paul, everything what was known about his earthly carrier was a crucifixion. Later authors started exegesis about crucifixion building around the two goats from Leviticus and the paschal lamb. Paul already added a birth from a woman. From the second channel - revelations, the first Christians added also other teachings like the Eucharist. Paul explicitly stated that the knowledge about it he got in a revelation directly from Jesus. The first Christian revelation could be the one in which Jesus appeared to Peter on the 'holy mountain' (Paul acknowledges that Peter was the first who saw Jesus). It was originally understood as an announcement of his Parousia. The passage from the Scripture which says:
„The land of Zeb'ulun and the land of Naph'tali, toward the sea, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles - the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned." was probably originally applied to the revelation event of Peter. In the Gospels this was incorporated in the Transfiguration event which happened before resurrection, but the Gospel of Matthew reveals that it actually originally refers to the event after resurrection because he says:
Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.

It was only a matter of time to appear something like the Gospel according to Mark, which localized Jesus in space and time. The knowledge obtained from the Scripture and from the revelations was projected on a fictional figure living on Earth a generation before the fall of Temple.
That shift was not happened at once, but it was perfectly in line with the previous state of mind. That move of Mark was so brilliant that it did not produce any resistance, because it was exactly what the first Christians were lacking and what they wish the most to have.

Those glitches in Acts are only the remnants of an earlier situation when such a bios of Jesus was yet non-existent and when the apostles could not yet claim that they were speaking with Jesus before his resurrection.

Solo

The eucharist most likely originated as a composition of Mark based on Paul (1 Cr 10:15-16). It was confirmed by Mt and Lk and in its Lukan form interpolated back into Paul (1 Cr 11:23-25).

The table fellowship with Jesus might have been transformed into a post-resurrection meal by groups that were anti-Pauline (i.e. promoted resurrection "in the flesh"). Luke evidently accepted both traditions.

Jiri

andrewcriddle

Is Luke 4:1 relevant ? Andrew Criddle

aa5874

The physical Christ was from the Scripture and revelations long before the NT authors including the Pauline writers started to write about a God/man.

It was the physical Christ, or Messiah first, the Jewish expectations are evidence of that fact.

The book called Daniel predates the NT.

Solo

Huhuh...., note sure of the semantics, it being an example of Jesus led by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil,....but yes, as an example of similar syntax it works.

Jiri

neilgodfrey

I withdraw my suggestion that the pre-crucifixion eucharist originated with Paul. Winsome Munro demonstrates good reasons, I think, to doubt that 1 Cor. 11:23-26 was part of the original letter. It may be seen as part of a later "pastoral stratum". (I discussed Winsome's arguments in some detail over two years ago here.)

If we take Mark's gospel as an attack on the twelve, he may also have been creating a pre-crucifixion eucharist/passover scene in which the twelve eat and drink damnation on themselves. Maybe. Just a thought. (Discussed here, for what it's worth.)

Perhaps the eucharist shifted to a pre-crucifixion event and one expressing the meaning of partaking of Christ's flesh and blood in order to strengthen an anti-docetic position?

Neil

Solo

Yes, it is a good argument, Neil. I think the strongest one though is the uncanny word-for-word agreements between 1 Cr 11:24-25 and Lk 22:19-20.

Luke 22:19-20
καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν
καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.

1 Cor 11:23-25
Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ἧ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον
καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν, Τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

There seems to be a rather obvious dependency of one text on the other. On the face of it, since Luke writes after Paul, some might want to argue that Luke simply copied Paul. The problem is that this would be a single instance of Luke copying Paul, while we have evidence that a letter attributed to Paul was using Luke: 1 Ti 5:8 quotes "scripture" as saying "the labourer deserves his wages". The quote comes from Luke 10:7.

And there is also this not insignificant consideraton: The 1 Cr 11:23-26 (30?) passage contradicts Paul's own taboo on "knowing" Jesus other than the crucified one that he declared at Corinth (1 Cr 2:2). Why would the crucified Lord in heaven want to tempt Paul to break an oath he made before his flock ?

Interesting stuff, Neil. I don't know if you noticed how the presence of Mark's Jesus causes people to lose interest in food. The disciples in contrast like to live it up. When John the Baptist's and Pharisee followers ask Jesus why his disciples do not fast he tells them that the wedding guests [!!!] cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them. Mark is being playful here. Ok, Jesus is the bridegroom and his disciples are the guests at his wedding. But who is Jesus getting married to ? This is one of many subtle allusions to Paul presented as ploys or Jesus' own metaphors and parables. This one refers the knowing reader to 2 Cor 11:2 (.. I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband.) The pure bride (the mystical throngs of followers of Jesus in the story) has no thought of food when the spirit is around (3:20, 6:31, 8:1). But the guests - the disciples, do not perceive Jesus spiritually. He and the promise of the kingdom is a meal ticket to them, so to speak. In that sense, yes the eucharist is idolatrous abuse of Jesus by the disciples. Says Paul:Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
Whether the eucharist connotes damnation I don't know. I believe that even though Mark was a staunch Paulinist he was far from giving up on the Petrines as a lost cause. The fact that Mark borrowed a year in life of the earthly Jesus despite Paul's ban on other Jesuses than the one crucified, I think, was significant step on the path of convergence of the two major strands of the early Christians. Then there are evidently traditions in Mark that do not originate in Paul. The son of man would have come from the Nazarene traditions of Jesus. The baptism scene attests to Mark's adoptionist stance. Mark's Jesus inviting Peter and Co. to meet him in Galilee looks to me like an allegorical invitation to join up with the gentile church of Paul. At any rate, I read the missing body of Jesus in the tomb that way, i.e. as a mystical allusion to Paul 1 Cr 12:27: Now, you (the church) are the body of Christ.

Well, it did not quite happen the way Mark thought it would. Matthew came along and asserted that the dead body actually walked out of the grave and certified the ones Jesus had picked to wander around with.

Jiri

neilgodfrey

You're reminding me to return to the Mark-as-uniter-of-the-two-schools-of-Christianity idea again.

As you infer, this might be an explanation for his ambiguities: he is putting out an open invitation for readers to decide to take up the invite.

Neil