Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 02-18-2006, 01:04 PM

Correction to several of my posts. I have looked up the reference to Perfect Storm in Crossan, and it was the son of one of the men who went down with the ship, not the daughter. Everything else appears to be as I was recalling it.

Ben.

TedM · 02-18-2006, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

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.

The most literal reading without looking through gospel glasses is that the saying was pertaining to the eucharist ritual specifically. "But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs." The conclusion that this is a general admonition that applies to the eucharist appears to be affected by the fact that the same saying exists in another context in Matthew.

Quote:

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).

I agree. The similarities we can observe are prone to inappropriate assumptions. If all we had was the Didache, we would conclude that Jesus spoke about the need to be baptized in order to eat or drink of the Eucharist, and that it was related to the Church and Jesus himself in some way as well as his influence on the knowledge, faith and eternal life of the church, but not that it represented the sacrifice of his own body and blood.

ted

Amaleq13 · 02-19-2006, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The most literal reading without looking through gospel glasses is that the saying was pertaining to the eucharist ritual specifically.

The problem of "gospel glasses" is only relevant when trying to understand a text that is generally understood to have been written earlier (ie Paul's letters). That is not true of the Didache and especially if, as is suspected by some, it is a text that has developed over time from its original form. Since we have no idea how this particular passage dates relative to Matthew, that it is contained in both cannot be ignored. Does it make more sense for a general command to become specific or a specific command to become general? IMO, the former is the more reasonable likelihood.

Likewise, it seems to make more sense for a thanksgiving tradition about teachings to be transformed into a tradition about the sacrifice than the reverse.

Julian · 02-19-2006, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The context (unruly eating behavior among believers) gives a better reason for a possible interpolation of the Lord's Supper, than for those other things.

versus

Quote:

All the more reason to not deliberately leave out mention of the disciples as the twelve companions of Jesus! Such a mention--straight out of Mark would have added much more legitimacy to the Lord's Supper as an event in which Jesus and his twelve disciples participated, and in which Jesus identified his betrayor than what we have. Interpolators sure could have done a better job of making Paul a 'bonafide church hero of antiquity', who knew all about the disciples in Mark's account.

The problem with those statements is that if the the last supper is mentioned as an example against unruly dinner manners then is no need to mention the disciples, whereas if it is for legitimacy then they might be mentioned.

More below.

Quote:

I'm not so sure any dichotomy between 1 Cor and the rest of Paul's works is a strong as you think. And, if it is interpolation, again it doesn't appear to be to add legitamacy to a very detailed gospel tradition, because the references don't try to explain things in terms of the gospel tradition at all.

IF it was between Paul and Mark, I'm not sure we can say how easily that could have been accomplished, and if it had been, I would perhap expect further interpolations then and, if not, then later on--entering in gospel details (names of his brothers in 1 Cor 9, mention of disciples in 11, mention who the "twelve" were in 15). IF interpolations were so easily made on these documents I would not expect what we see now. That's my main point. I still need to read the link you provide me though.

If there was an interpolation, I would think the interpolator would have rejected the importance of the disciples, yet seen a need to appeal both to traditions created by Paul (in 11) and received by Paul from others before him about those same disciples (in 15). Weird combination of interpolations..

It may be that Paul was generally known and that the gospels were new. Retrojecting too much material into Paul may have smacked of anachronism. Paul never talks about twelve except here. He talks about the three pillars, not twelve. A lot of details, gospel details, emerge here and nowhere else. These sections may lack the amount of details that the gospels have but that is to be expected if one wants to make a believable interpolation. We also do not know the exact context of these snippets since the letters of Paul as we have them are pasted together from several smaller letters.

11.23 is exactly the kind of gospel reference that one would expect from a christian letter writter, yet we never see Paul make those gospel references, except here. There are so many times in his parenesis where he could appeal to a gospel snippet or a Jesus quote, yet he never does, except here.

BTW, I don't believe that 1 Cor. 9:5 is a reference to brothers of Jesus, but more of a title, possibly referring to the pillars.

Julian

Julian · 02-19-2006, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Might it not also be a matter of geography? He might have been a hero in (most or at least some of) the churches that he founded, but not necessarily in Syria, Palestine, or Egypt. Acts may have had the effect of making a relatively local hero more global (one might even say more catholic).

Ben.

Koester places Paul in Antioch, i.e. Syria and suggests that Paul spent more than a decade there from the time of his conversion until we start hearing from him in his letters. (Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. II)

It is possible, I guess, that he struck west and north because the pillars probably controlled most of the Palestinian christianity. It may be because of this control that they (the pillars) eventually strike out in the footsteps of Paul (where he got a head start), showing up in Paul's churches prompting Paul to write his anti-Jewish remarks.

Julian

TedM · 02-19-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The problem of "gospel glasses" is only relevant when trying to understand a text that is generally understood to have been written earlier (ie Paul's letters). That is not true of the Didache and especially if, as is suspected by some, it is a text that has developed over time from its original form. Since we have no idea how this particular passage dates relative to Matthew, that it is contained in both cannot be ignored.

I would argue that since we have no idea how this particular passage dates relative to Matthew, we should not rely on Matthew to override what the Didache actually says.

Quote:

Likewise, it seems to make more sense for a thanksgiving tradition about teachings to be transformed into a tradition about the sacrifice than the reverse.

I would tend to agree, if there was belief that a significant sacrifice had occurred, and that belief was also shared by those who wrote the Didache.

ted

Ben C Smith · 02-19-2006, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Koester places Paul in Antioch, i.e. Syria and suggests that Paul spent more than a decade there from the time of his conversion until we start hearing from him in his letters.[/I])

Syria was a very big area. And a western urban setting like Antioch would not necessarily reflect the values of more rural areas or the eastern parts. But my brief list was just by way of example; it could easily be modified.

Quote:

It is possible, I guess, that he struck west and north because the pillars probably controlled most of the Palestinian christianity.

He tells us explicitly that his purpose was to go where none before him had gone. He might have chosen the Mediterranean area (as opposed to, say, the Levant and points east) because he was more familiar with it. According to Acts he hailed from Tarsus, after all.

Quote:

It may be because of this control that they (the pillars) eventually strike out in the footsteps of Paul (where he got a head start), showing up in Paul's churches prompting Paul to write his anti-Jewish remarks.

The evidence for the pillars themselves going about in the Pauline churches is thin, I think. Even Paul, when he wrote of the Antioch confrontation, writes of men from James, not James himself; this leaves us to wonder exactly what the relationship between these men from James and James himself was, and how much the Antioch incident affected the apparently peaceful accord reached earlier.

Ben.

TedM · 02-19-2006, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

versus
The problem with those statements is that if the the last supper is mentioned as an example against unruly dinner manners then is no need to mention the disciples, whereas if it is for legitimacy then they might be mentioned.

You argued that the interpolations were for legitmacy and then questioned why the interpolator didn't go further and mention the Garden of Gethsemane (sp?), etc... My answer is that the context wasn't talking about the Garden but it was talking about dinners.

Quote:

It may be that Paul was generally known and that the gospels were new. Retrojecting too much material into Paul may have smacked of anachronism.

All the more reason not to mention the Garden of Gethsemane, etc.. Yet, I don't buy that if the desire was to interject some gospel references, an interpolator wouldn't have mentioned the disciples as such in order to be careful. Which is it? Build Paul up for those that didn't know his true position, or be sly and put in vague references because Paul was generally known? Seems like you're walking a fine line here.

Quote:

11.23 is exactly the kind of gospel reference that one would expect from a christian letter writter, yet we never see Paul make those gospel references, except here. There are so many times in his parenesis where he could appeal to a gospel snippet or a Jesus quote, yet he never does, except here.

It's curious, and this is an argument for interpolation, for sure.

Quote:

BTW, I don't believe that 1 Cor. 9:5 is a reference to brothers of Jesus, but more of a title, possibly referring to the pillars.

Could be, but again the interpolators missed another obvious opportunity to make it more in accordance the gospel account that you say he was trying to bolster.

ted

Amaleq13 · 02-19-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I would argue that since we have no idea how this particular passage dates relative to Matthew, we should not rely on Matthew to override what the Didache actually says.

I am relying on logic not Matthew and, given that we have no other basis to determine which use of the saying is original, it is IMO irrational to do otherwise. Does it make more sense for a general command to become specific or a specific command to become general? You seem to be assuming the latter but I wonder if you have anything resembling a rational explanation for why Matthew's author would make such a choice?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Likewise, it seems to make more sense for a thanksgiving tradition about teachings to be transformed into a tradition about the sacrifice than the reverse.

Quote:

I would tend to agree, if there was belief that a significant sacrifice had occurred, and that belief was also shared by those who wrote the Didache.

I do not understand what you are saying here.

andrewcriddle · 02-19-2006, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Theophilus' beliefs are rather puzzling but he does seem closer to orthodox Christianity than you suggest.

In book 2 ch 15 we have a doctrine of the Trinity.
In book 2 ch 22 John's gospel is quoted by name
In book 3 ch 14 Matthew's gospel is quoted and (probably) Paul.

To Autolycus is clearly written to a non-Christian and Theophilus may well have thought discussion of the life of Christ inappropriate when addressing someone not even a catechumen.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-18-2006, 01:04 PM	#141
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	Correction to several of my posts. I have looked up the reference to Perfect Storm in Crossan, and it was the son of one of the men who went down with the ship, not the daughter. Everything else appears to be as I was recalling it. Ben.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.