Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
12-03-2006, 10:32 AM | #11 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
I could more easily beleive that the passage in Mark was later added than the one in Paul. If anyone has evidence along these lines to present then by all means present it, but I don't think that immediately jumping to "it was probably edited in later" is a good explanation for everything that doesn't seem to fit our view. Is there is evidence that this was edited in later? If so present it. If not then forget that and get back to addressing the issues. |
|
12-03-2006, 10:48 AM | #12 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Have you read Interpolations in the Pauline Epistles? The question is not something you can just answer and get on with.
|
12-03-2006, 11:57 AM | #13 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
1 Corinthians 11:24-25, .....Take eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.And after the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying,This cup is the new testament in my blood this do ye, as oft as ye drink it , in remembrance of me'. Luke 22:19-20, '...This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you'. Was the revelation of the last supper from Jesus or from Luke? It is known that Jesus, even he lived, could not have revealed anything to Paul. |
|
12-03-2006, 02:41 PM | #14 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
Of everything I have read from the Pauline letters, this passage gives me the most problems. This is, as far as I has seen so far, the passage with the closest resemblance to later gospel passages, and the straight forward reading of it implies an earthly Jesus. So, are you saying that this is a later forgery? If so, what is the basis? If its not, then how do we address it. I don't want to just shut this down by casting ad hoc speculative doubt on the integrity of the letters. If there is a specific legitimate concern, then that needs to be addressed, but if not, then let's move on. Here is all of 1 Cor. 11 from the NRSV: Quote:
Could this entire section be forged? I guess so, but I really see no reason to think so, as this sounds very much like typical Paul with his sexism and complaints about women's hair tempting the angels, etc. It sounds like Paul, and it doesn't look like anything as been inserted. The mentioning of the ritual is totally in context. If someone was going to forge something to have Paul mention this piece of doctrine, this seems to be an odd way to do it. Why do that in a negative writing where he is calling the early members of the church bad? Seems like if you wanted to forge this you would do it in a positive writing, not by putting the early church in a bad light. It could be that the specifics of what he said has been altered though, and I'm not sure how easy that would be to detect. aa5874 points out the similarity with Luke, but it seems reasonable to me that Luke copied from Paul, especially since "Luke" we know was looking at a variety of sources and trying to write something that he felt to be more authentic. I can see how Luke would take Paul as more authentic than Mark, and thus use Paul's wording. I don't know the evidence one way or the other that speaks to Luke's borrowing from Paul. So, still, what is the explanation for this? Again, Paul seems to indicate an earthly Jesus here, if not a historical one, and here we have something that's pretty specific and that is common between Paul and the gospels. How is this accounted for? |
||
12-03-2006, 02:55 PM | #15 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
I do not have all of my references with me now, but I can tell you that many experts think that the sexism in Paul was added by a later redactor (Paul was known through his letters to have associated with female prophetesses.) And those scholars who do consider the Pauline letters to be interpolated see many problems in 1 Cor 11.
You say: Quote:
|
|
12-03-2006, 04:30 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Posts: 748
|
I'm not sure why this is such a problem. Aren't mythological figures often portrayed as eating and drinking just as humans do?
|
12-03-2006, 04:39 PM | #17 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
|
Quote:
|
|
12-03-2006, 06:48 PM | #18 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Doherty, of course, represents A; Wells represents B. I honestly feel that, if mythicism is ever going to get off the ground as a more mainstream scholarly discipline, it will have to be of the Wells variety. If you are interested in sticking to a mythicist approach, I recommend you read him (and Ellegard, for that matter), since his views (while incorrect, IMHO) carry less baggage than those of Doherty. But then, I am an historicist, so what do I know? Ben. |
|
12-03-2006, 07:42 PM | #19 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
|
Quote:
To Malachi: Doherty would rightly state that he's interacted with this passage on more than one occasion. Why not interact with Doherty then? regards, Peter Kirby |
|
12-03-2006, 07:54 PM | #20 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
I didn't realise there was such a thing as an historicist up to now, and even worse a 'manistream' historicist. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|