Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 12-03-2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is a question you need to answer before you can even get to #1.

Do the letters we have from Paul represent what Paul wrote? How much is interpolation by later orthodox Christians?

As for #2, there are a number of possibilites. Mark probably read Paul, but the passage in Paul might have been added by a later editor, perhaps the same one who wrote the passage in Mark. Certainly later Christian scribes who copied the documents had many opportunities to standardize the passages.

I certainly have considered this, I made the Eusebius comment, which was meant to cover this base, but it doesn't at all seem likely to me that this was added to the letter of Paul just based on an initial reading, because it is so integral to the entire letter. All of 1 Cor. 11 would had to have been forged IMO, and then why would you forge a letter like that, it just doesn't seem like something that a later person would make up.

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.

Toto · 12-03-2006, 10:48 AM

Have you read Interpolations in the Pauline Epistles? The question is not something you can just answer and get on with.

aa5874 · 12-03-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Do the letters we have from Paul represent what Paul wrote? How much is interpolation by later orthodox Christians?

As for #2, there are a number of possibilites. Mark probably read Paul, but the passage in Paul might have been added by a later editor, perhaps the same one who wrote the passage in Mark. Certainly later Christian scribes who copied the documents had many opportunities to standardize the passages.

And if we look at the book called Luke 22:19-20, there appears to be striking similarities to the passages of 1 Chronicles 11:24-25.

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.

Malachi151 · 12-03-2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Have you read Interpolations in the Pauline Epistles? The question is not something you can just answer and get on with.

Okay, I read your review. Thanks for that. This is still an open question though.

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:

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head—it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, to begin with, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it. Indeed, there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear who among you are genuine. When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper. For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I commend you? In this matter I do not commend you!
The Institution of the Lord’s Supper

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
Partaking of the Supper Unworthily

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

So then, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If you are hungry, eat at home, so that when you come together, it will not be for your condemnation. About the other things I will give instructions when I come.

Now, this entire work flows perfectly well together. I see no breaks or changes in subject, or anything that looks inserted. The mention of the supper rituals not only fits perfectly well, but it it is essential for the meaning of the second part of the work. Perhaps there is some case to be made about this, but I don't see anything that jumps out as looking problematic.

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?

Toto · 12-03-2006, 02:55 PM

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:

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.

I'm trying to tell you that the doubt is well considered, not just "ad hoc" or speculative, and there is no way to move on without realizing that you are building a structure on shifting sand.

Roland · 12-03-2006, 04:30 PM

I'm not sure why this is such a problem. Aren't mythological figures often portrayed as eating and drinking just as humans do?

Doug Shaver · 12-03-2006, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Have you read Interpolations in the Pauline Epistles?

I had not seen that thread before now. Thank you for the link to an excellent commentary.

Ben C Smith · 12-03-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Doherty claims that Paul did not believe that Jesus had ever been on earth, i.e. that Jesus existed in the regions between earth and the farthest heavens, or some other business. I understand what he is saying, but I don't see that Paul believes that.

The two most common mythicist approaches are (A) the notion that Paul and other early Christians were actually referring to a purely heavenly being and (B) the notion that Paul and other Christians were referring to an earthly human, but one who lived in the indefinite past.

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.

Peter Kirby · 12-03-2006, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

The two most common mythicist approaches are (A) the notion that Paul and other early Christians were actually referring to a purely heavenly being and (B) the notion that Paul and other Christians were referring to an earthly human, but one who lived in the indefinite past.

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.

I represent the opposite tack, that mythicism to get off the ground will have to go route A, that of Doherty. That does indeed seem to be where it's headed anyway, if I can read the writing on the wall.

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

aa5874 · 12-03-2006, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

The two most common mythicist approaches are (A) the notion that Paul and other early Christians were actually referring to a purely heavenly being and (B) the notion that Paul and other Christians were referring to an earthly human, but one who lived in the indefinite past.

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.

This forum is not about 'mainstream' or 'most scholars', my understanding is that it was step up for the opposite.

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
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-03-2006, 10:48 AM	#12
Toto 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, 04:30 PM	#16
Roland 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?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.