Yuri Kuchinsky

Thanks for the summary, Ben. Garrow's arguments seem quite reasonable to me, in particular the argument about 12 vs. 11 apostles/disciples. Since I think the Judas story was a late invention, the 12 apostles, as the Didache has it, appears to be the earlier tradition.

It's quite reasonable to suppose that Mt was based on the Didache or some document similar to it.

All the best,

Yuri.

Ben C Smith

No. The focus is on literary dependence, not historical development of the church and its rituals.

I agree that the synoptics did not take their eucharist from the Didache, at least not as it stands. But that is not an argument against the synoptics not having used the Didache at all. Given a Pauline version of the eucharist with its tight connection to the passion and a Didache version without it, they understandably would have chosen the Pauline version.

I cannot find any place where Garrow bases his direction of dependence on the eucharist itself. However, if he is correct in the rest of his argument that Matthew depended on the Didache, then certain individual lines in the eucharistic section stand out as links between Matthew and the Didache, such as the line about giving what is holy to dogs, the plea to gather the church from the four winds, and the hosanna.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

He makes some good points. I think that, even if the text of the Didache itself turned out to date to the second century, many of its traditions still go back to a very early stage in church history. I also think that any study of the eucharist that does not account for the Didache version somehow is doomed to leave nagging doubts about the reconstruction.

Ben.

Julian

But then you know that I reject 1 Cor. 11:23 as being genuine Pauline. One of the reasons for this is that Paul's belief regarding the legacy of Abraham and the seed of David works very well with the Didache description, whereas the description in 1 Cor. 11:23 is very jarring, the only real reference to an actual event involving Jesus and shows christology of a much later period. I suspect that whoever wrote the eucharist into GLuke also stuck it into 1 Cor. YMMV.
I guess I don't see the direct relationship considering the divergence between Matt and Didache. I could easily be persuaded to consider a common ancestor, however. Sort of like a human and monkey thing.

Julian

Amaleq13

Though I assume Garrow doesn't get into it, IMO the internal evidence supports this range as well and, arguably, an even more specific dating around the turn of the century. What seems to suggest this to me is the expressed concern of the text with regard to how established communities are to handle wandering preachers.

Ben C Smith

Indeed.

It does indeed.

You mean besides his birth. And his crucifixion. And his burial. Or was the adjective real meant to exclude those events on some grounds?

Which part(s) of that eucharist would evince a christology that does not mesh well with the rest of Paul?

Ben.

Julian

Yes, I used that word to exclude the kerygmatic events. Those are the defining events that happen to him, to Paul the necessary events that make him what he is. The eucharist in 11:23 is an event that Jesus undertakes, it is a gospel event, the only one that I can think of.
It is the only mention of Jesus, as a person, doing something and speaking as if in a direct quote. Completely incongruous with everything else Pauline. Am I the only one who thinks that 11:23 sticks out like a sore thumb?

Combine that with the Didache which seems to know nothing of this body/blood business. It only makes sense, to me, if Paul and the Didache didn't know the ritual and that it evolved later as the focus started to settle on Jesus as a person. The only other explanation would be to assign the Didache to a non-gospel christian trajectory, although GLuke could straddle the eucharist if Luke 22:19b-20 are omitted, which I believe that they should be.

Julian

Ben C Smith

Being buried is a defining event, making Jesus what he is? And where does Paul or anybody else ever draw a line between kerygmatic events and gospel events? I have never even heard that distinction. (Gospel and kerygma are usually treated as synonyms, not antonyms.)

In order to make this claim you have to mentally relegate passage like 1 Corinthians 7.10-11; 9.14; 1 Thessalonians 4.15-17 strictly to the category of heavenly revelation, as opposed to earthly communication. It is certainly possible to do this, but by no means necessary. Consciously making a hypothetical move like this in order to indirectly disqualify a direct piece of evidence is precipitous.

Not the only one on this board, I would wager.

This argument does not get you where you want to go. It is not enough to show that there were two different eucharistic rituals, one more primitive than the other. You have to proactively demonstrate why Paul could not have known the later eucharist. Given the evidence that we have, I do not see any way you can independently date the passion-based eucharist to after Paul. We have to reckon with the evidence as we are given it.

As a reminder, my question was this:

You have yet to show one piece of christology that does not mesh well with the rest of Paul. If Paul believed that Jesus was born, had brothers (prima facie), was executed, and was buried, then there is nothing, but nothing, to prevent Paul from believing that Jesus spoke now and again during his lifetime. This is certainly not a failure to mesh.

There are rather many other explanations than you have given here. My own experimental solution, for example, from that thread on the eucharist. The Didache versions were first, then Paul received some kind of revelation, and he himself originated the body and blood version. (I am not at all wedded to this hypothesis, BTW; just a thought experiment so far.) There is also the Crossan scenario.

Ben.

Julian

There are important distinctions between the kerygmatic events and something like the eucharist, last supper style.

First of all, the birth, burial, crucifiction are all things that are done to him, not things that he does. I think the distinction is important because those events are central to christianity.

Secondly, these events are all to fulfill scripture, even if the scripture is badly interpreted.

The eucharist is neither of these. It is a simple event that later became a liturgical development from the communal meal which was a common and early tradition for most religions. This is speculation, of course.

I do not see kerygma and gospel as identical words (they are not antonymns, of course ), but I realize that this is merely my concept of the words. The kerygma is specifically preaching, defining the events that are central to Jesus and the christian beliefs. The gospels contain these elements, to be sure, but also many other details less relevant to salvation.
I can assign those passages to Paul. I believe that when he says 'Lord' he is referring to god, not Jesus for whom he generally uses Christ. spin made a very good argument for this but I cannot find the thread at the moment.

Besides none of the passages you cite deal with events and the quotes are not direct. Paul says that this is what the Lord has said. I believe that Paul is telling us what he has from god of the scriptures, possibly a personal revelation. He is using 'Lord' to add authority to what he conveys.
Yet Paul never quotes Jesus or relates any events from his life, other than the kerygmatics discussed above.

You are right that I need to better prove my case, both regarding 11:23 and, indeed, chapters 10-15. This, however, is beyond my talents and time allowance at this time. I continue to study so look for something in a few years.
But in that scenario you would still have to explain the Didache. Why doesn't it know about it? Or did it know, but disagree?

Julian

Amaleq13

I think Brother of "kyrios" = brother of Jesus? might have it but there is also The lord in Mark