gnosis92

i.e

Paul was obviously asked a question, a question of how to conduct the Eucharist, and he in this context gave specific gospel detail. I think those who attempt to explain this away have an a priori investment in MJ theory.

It is not clear whether this question was asked as a letter, or orally, but Paul was evidentally responding to this point "Some Christians in Corinth were celebrating the Eucharist like a pagan feast. What do you think? It is unclear exactly what the question was phrased, but it was phrased in a way that prompted Paul to give Gospel detail. We no longer have this document, the documents that Paul was responding to, nor records of what his interlocutors knew and believed about HJ.

And Paul replies with Gospel detail that the historical Jesus intended the Eucharist be commensurates with solemn dignity.

It seems historically improbable that Paul's immediate audience, those immediately reading this letter, those whose question was being responded to, would have thought of this event that Paul describes as a heavenly or purely spiritual event.

1 Corinthians 11:23-32 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
[NIV at IBS] [International Bible Society] [NIV at Zondervan] [Zondervan]

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

Roland

Why is it that, before Justin Martyr, almost no person writing about Jesus manages to make a single declarative statement about his life and ministry, yet starting with Martyr, no one can shut up about it? Clearly something happens around 150 A.D. to change things. I have yet to find an HJ-er come up with a plausible explanation for this rather sudden familiarity with the minute details of the Jesus story.

Pre-150 A.D. - very few details of Jesus' life appear in Christian writings.

Post-150 A.D. - non-stop blabbing about what Jesus supposedly said and did in his time on earth.

For me, the JM theory simply explains this turn of events more convincingly.

andrewcriddle

Hi Roland

Just to clarify.

Are you claiming that the canonical gospels date from 150 CE or later or are you disregarding them on other grounds ?

Andrew Criddle

Malachi151

Paul never says anything historical, even this is not. Still, I am suspicious that this is a later interpolation into the text, but read 1 Corinthians more closely.

Throughout 1 Corinthians Paul says that believers are the body of Christ, or the body of Christ is the church, etc.

1 Corinthians 23-26 is still not a historical statement, it doesn't tie Jesus into any history or to any people. If, on the other hand it said that Jesus had spoken these words to his disciples or to the Twelve, or anything like that, or it said that when the Sanhedrin had him arrested, or anything that tied into other people or places or events, then that would make the statement historical, but as it is, it is not.

I still vote for interpolation, but even if not, it's still not historical.

GakuseiDon

An interpolation by an MJer or a HJer?

gnosis92

"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed" is a statement of time and place, which is by definition historical.

The description matches up with Gospel details of the Last Supper.

Nice try

Roland

I feel it is impossible to date the gospels since we have no idea who the authors were and, therefore, have no tangible data on which to make that judgment. It is all just rank speculation. The best we can say is that they became widely known after 150 CE. I think the generally agreed-upon early dates ascribed to the gospels are based more on trying to appease believers than on any concrete evidence.

Doug Shaver

Not me. My investment in the MJ theory is a posteriori.

Iasion

Greetings,

But he does not give an actual time and place.
How can it be historical?


The Gospels gives actual earthly time and place, and many details.
Paul does not.
What makes you think Paul's comments are historical?


Iasion

spin

When people read the Pauline passage about the lord's supper, it's not the Pauline logic at all that gets noticed, but the witnessing factor fo the Lucan last supper. Paul was attempting to deal with a particular problem as he saw it in his Corinthian community, which deals with the Jewish ritual meal ("lord's [ie god's] feast") that he has introduced there. Here is a form of his dealing with that problem:

When you come together, it is not the Lord's Feast you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?

What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.

But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. 1 Cor 11:20-34 minus 23-28

Hopefully you can see the logic of Paul's thought at work. He notes a problem; he identifies the source of the problem; and he delineates the correct approach for resolving the issue. By concentrating on your own venal bodily desires, you miss the point of the meal and bring negative effects on your own body. But if you discern the body, you won't bring judgment on yourself.

The development of his argument is totally missed with the large insertion of the essentially Lucan last supper passage in the middle of Paul's dealing over misuse of the communal feast. The logic of inserting the Lucan passage is clear. It strengthens the notion of the last supper and gives clarification by some later redactor to what he understands Paul to have been talking about, for obviously the meal Paul was talking about was the ritual inaugurated by Jesus on the night before he died.

The passage was briefly worked on again, when Paul's reference to "discerning the body" was altered to "discerning the body of the lord" which shows the lack of understanding of Paul's thought by the interpolater. This is considered as a later addition in the NRSV, which relegates it to a footnote, "Other ancient authorities read...". The statement is now no longer discerning the fact that one may have bodily reasons for entering into the meal. It shows how the Lucan insertion has helped lose the logic of the original thought.

Here is the feast passage now:

20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body of the lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. 1 Cor 11:20-34

The green section marks the fundamentally Lucan insertion which turns the ritual meal into a re-enactment of the last supper. The red section is what is necessary to link the green section into the Pauline context. And the purple is an addition that shows that a later interpolator no longer could understand the Pauline discourse.

Obviously, I don't think that the Lucan passage is original to Paul's thought, but is a distraction from it.


spin