TedM

Thanks Ben. Betrayal is a potential motivation for an arrest, but is not required. I take it you believe the translation should be "in the night in which he was arrested", right?

ted

Lógos Sokratikós

You have a pre-judged reading of the material we're talking about. You say "myth" (interpretation) instead of using discriptive language for discribing.

That way, it looks like you're simply implying that a myth is treated as a myth (sounding inocuous) when that is precisely what remains to be demonstrated!

Cool!

Amaleq13

From your earlier post:

What evidence from Paul leads you to conclude that this vision reveals "something concrete about an historical event in the past"?

How does the "historical context" inform you that an apparent vision reveals "something concrete about an historical event in the past"?

Do you assume that every vision in every ancient text reveals something concrete about an historical event in the past?

Why was this responsibility given to Paul?

I'm not disputing that the vision depicts Jesus speaking on the night before his execution.

Amaleq13

It isn't about what I "want", Ben. It is about what the text of Paul will reasonably support. Please try to avoid speculating about my motivations because you don't appear to understand them sufficiently to do so with any accuracy.

Wrong. Somebody had to be alive to hear it since it was not something conveyed in a mystical vision.

S.C.Carlson

It's a passive all right, but I don't think it is necessary to take it as a divine passive (a convention to avoid making God the explicit subject) because Paul has no problem making God the subject elsewhere (e.g. Rom 8:31-32 á½? θεὸς ... ὃς ... ὑπὲÏ? ἡμῶν πάντων παÏ?έδωκεν αá½?τόν, "God ... who ... surrendered him [scil. his son] for us all").

I think it is best to understand the passive as a way to deemphasize who did the action. It could well be God, as you and Rom 8:32 suggest, but who actually did it is not really part of Paul's point in 1 Cor 11:23.

(The curious part of 1 Cor 11:32 is that παÏ?εδίδετο is that it 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. Obviously, the relevance of Mark's interpretation depends one's view of whether Mark knew Paul or a similar tradition with an imperfect παÏ?εδίδετο.)

Stephen

Lógos Sokratikós

To believe or not to believe, that is the question.

Actually context is everything.

I personally find it hard to believe a story that has miracles in it. Actually, if there is a God (taking a party's asertion as a hypothetical point of departure is an essential part of investigating), he can make monkeys fly out of Vladimir Putin's behind if it tickled his fancy. But if I read a text that says Darius flew upon a winged beast, I would be hesitant to take the text as a 100% trustworthy account, only because miracles are shy to scientific observers (and this is contrary to the needs of scientific inquiry, just for that).

But what if Plato's account on Socrates contained a miracle in it, should we pronounce Socrates a mythical character, no matter how well the account fits with historical context?

How should we treat the version that Cæsar crossed the Rubicon if we consider there is motive for a fib, in the sense that such an account would favor the political needs of the murderous Senate?

TedM

The evidence for Mark knowing Paul is weak, which would seem to increase the odds that in the absense of other information your interpretation of Paul is correct. So, we have a vision of Jesus talking to his followers on the night of his arrest in which he was handed over to different authorities, which happens to correspond closely to the story in Mark--even to the point of what words were said. Are we to conclude that Mark actually relied on a current tradition as opposed to his own creative imagination?

...and for those that consider the 1 Cor 11 account to be a later interpolation, how likely is it that the interpolator would have excluded any mention of the disciples after knowing Mark's version?

ted

Ben C Smith

I am sorry, Amaleq. Even with your quotes of my position I do not see where I concluded that Paul left the supper out. It is my position, in fact, that he mentioned the supper explicitly (after supper), not that he left it out.

First, just to make certain we are on the same wavelength, I of course mean that Paul regards it as an historical event. And the evidence for that is the passage itself. Paul assigns certain actions (taking, breaking) and certain words to a particular meal on a particular night. Those are concrete details about what Paul regards as an event in the past. You of course go on to agree with this assessment later in your post:

Hmmm. The night before his execution? What (from Paul) gave you the idea that Jesus was executed on the next day after the night depicted in our Pauline passage?

Of course not. For example, the vision in 2 Corinthians 12.2-5 did not (necessarily) tell Paul about any past historical event; he does not tell us what the unutterable words he heard were, so I do not automatically assume that it has anything to do with a past event. I would make that claim only when the author explicitly tells us that he learned the particulars of a past historical event through a vision.

Example 1: Joseph in Matthew 1.20 learns that a past event, the conception of Mary his betrothed, was actually of a different nature than he was thinking. I tend to regard this entire story as fictional, but within the narrative Joseph learns something concrete (if that is the word for it) about a past event.

Example 2: The Andrea Gail vision I told you about.

Example 3: Paul in 1 Corinthians 11.23-25 claims to have learned of certain words and actions that were spoken and performed on the night when Jesus was handed over. Paul might be making the whole vision up, but that is his claim nonetheless.

Am I reading you right? Did I phrase my point poorly (always a possibility)? Every time somebody in the Texas War for Independence cried out remember the Alamo, in your judgment there had to be an Alamo survivor in his audience??? It is my understanding that nobody on the Texan side survived the Alamo, yet the cry remember the Alamo rang out over many a battle in the ensuing years.

I meant want in the soft sense. Like: You will want a doctor to look at that, when of course nobody really yearns for a doctor to look at anything. I am sorry to have caused you any alarm. No speculation as to your motives was implied.

I do not know. Paul does not say. (Next vision I have of him I will ask him.)

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Okay, I can agree with that. A professor of mine once told me to avoid the passive precisely because it avoids placing responsibility anywhere.

That is a very interesting point. Thanks. The only other imperfect passive of that verb in Paul appears to be 2 Corinthians 4.11, in which the ongoing process is obvious.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Then what do you think is missing? You indicated it was not a full account and I thought you were implying that it was the supper that was missing from the account.

In other words, we should assume that Paul thinks the events in his vision actually happened. Though it is possible Paul fabricated the entire thing, I tend to assume he is genuine in his references to his mystical experiences. I think it is a serious mistake, however, to go from that assumption to an assumption that Paul considered it an "historical event" in the sense we would define it. Dreams and visions contain concrete details yet describe events that never actually happened so their presence in Paul's tell us nothing. People of faith can believe that dreams and visions are "true" without ever considering whether they are "historically accurate" or even logically possible and that can only be more true of people in the 1st century.

I think the real difference in our understandings is how we imagine the vision to have appeared to Paul. You seem to think of it as similar to the experiences Scrooge had in A Christmas Carol. Paul is magically transported back in time to witness the event as though he was there. I tend to think of it as a more personal message. The pre-crucified Jesus is magically speaking to Paul in the future so as to instruct him and other Christians how to reinterpret the thanksgiving meal as a remembrance of his sacrifice.

I don't know of any evidence in Paul that can tell us which, if either, is the more accurate portrayal of his experience. If I am correct about your understanding, I can see the basis for your inferences though I'm still hopeful you will understand the problem of assuming companions. I hope you can see, given my own, why I do not find those inferences to be sound.

Why would there be a delay between being handed over and being executed?

Either that or I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting that the phrase originated from people in the battle. That would require someone to have survived. Now that I understand you, I don't understand how it is applicable. Frankly, I've done a little online research and I'm not sure how anyone knows what was said there.

Understood. I apologize for my hasty assumption.

I'm surprised at how quickly you remove your Speculation Hat to put on your Comedy Hat. You can't make any inferences here?

Think about it, Ben. Why would the Risen Christ feel it necessary to give Paul this vision so as to preserve the meal as a memorial to His death?