gurugeorge

Yes, and this actually speaks to the point oft-raised by apologists - they quite rightly say that the usual dying/rising idea is an idea of the continuity of nature through its changes, whereas the Jesus version is a one-shot affair.

But of course the dying/rising idea, while it might have served as a hint or a clue from the memetic environment, wasn't necessarily used because of the very same philosophical reason it's used in other religions, and in fact it serves a totally different function in the Messiah context - in that context it has to be a one-shot thing for the reasons you've outlined. (Although in some ways it's not that different - as Doherty points out in his essay, the main function of the dying/rising mytheme in terms of the individual in both a Christian and a Mysteries context, is the hope and comfort it gives, for life and post-death.)

Gamera

I think the fundamental flaw in your analysis is twofold:

1. You assume because Paul assets revelatory knowledge that it is different from the Jerusalem church. That doesn't follow. He never says his knowledge is different, just the means of transmission. Hence in Galatians it appears he's saying he and the Jerusalem church were on the same wavelength as to the preaching of the gospel (and significantly that he wanted to be on the same wavelength and specifically asked James to "review" his gospel):

Gal 2: Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. 3. . . 6 And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) --those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me; 7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised; 10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do

2. Second, you assume Paul in his epistles is making doctrinal statements meant to express his revelatory truth. I think you're confusing (a) Paul's gospel with (b) Paul's epistles. Paul's gospel (as he says in Galatians) is from the risen Jesus. But his epistles are not his gospel, and though he claims sometimes he got direct revelations about the topics the topics of the epistles are rather banal and quotidian -- basically Paul is giving advice on how to live a Christian life under the circumstances of being a first century person under Roman rule. The epistles simply are not systematic theological tracts and were never intended to be so. Indeed, query if theology had been "invented" when Paul was writing. As a genre, I don't think it was.

dog-on

I honestly believe that the writer/s of the original versions of the epistles were not Jews. I believe that this person/group read the Hebrew scriptures via Greek translations and discovered there Soter god hidden in the pages, as it were. Only later was the Jewish god retrojected back into the religion, along with an historical earthly biography for his sacrifice.

Seems to take care of most of the problems, in my mind at least.

gurugeorge

Yeah I've definitely toyed with that, but I'm too impressed by the standard scholarly finding of real Jewish roots in the Christian texts to finally plump for it.

I get the impression that the emphasis on Jewishness in modern scholarship has been partly driven by an apologist attempt to get away from any hint of connection to the Mysteries, etc., but OTOH, so many clever people can't be totally wrong, and the explanation I've outlined above (which I mainly get from Price's noting of the Greek popular novels) for the overwhelming Mysteries element in the final canonical Jesus makes more sense.

i.e., initially the dying/rising idea was only about 10% of what was originally a thoroughly Jewish meme, and even that dying/rising element probably came more from the Palestinian milieu itself (e.g. Baal) but later more and more elements of the Mysteries proper crept in to the historical-gap-filling stories about "Jesus", as the religion spread to the broader Graeco-Roman world - hence Jesus became thoroughly "Raglanised" so to speak.

dog-on

There are, indisputably, "Jewish roots" in the Christian texts. I just don't find it necessary to believe that the Jews actually planted them...

Gawen

Thanks for your replies, everyone.

DCHindley

This is an interestintg point.

My degree was in psychology. Although it did not make me an expert, it does help me recognize those cases where psychological explanations appear forced. In my opinion, if the Pauline letters are largely genuine and unredacted, the person(s) who wrote them would have had to have suffered from some sort of dissociative mental handicap that would have rendered him incapable of traveling widely (assuming he was not of a wealthy family) and founding complex faith communities. To make the Paul of the epistles "rational" requires much more mental effort than most people realize.

Right from the beginning of modern critical scholarship (mid 19th century CE) the critics fell in love with the social message of the teachings of Jesus and Christian dogma in general. However, in their imaginations, they have decided that the social message (the Christ theology) MUST be the core to the churche's message, including Paul's. The "Judaiazing" portions must obviously be added to accomodate the Jewish faction of Christianity as the Jewish and Gentile factions merged in the mid 2nd century CE. This was the position of Allard Pierson and S. A. Nabor, who Schweitzer considered the spiritual founders of the Dutch Radical movement.

However, as I have posted elsewhere, I started on a project many years ago to trace out the arguments in the Pauline epistles. It wasn't readily apparent to me where arguments started and where they ended. There were so many digressions, often seeming to contradict the points that had been just previously presented, it was hard to see the forest for the trees. The hardest part of the endeavor was determining what absolutely needed to be there to make his points, and what did not.

When the process started, I was convinced that the Christ theology was central to the arguments. However, it soon became painfully apparent that it was not. As I ever so slooooowly worked things out, I was forced to shed a good many of the assumptions I started with about Paul and his theology.

The Abrahamic-faith arguments are almost entirely complete and self contained and Christ theology is never ever key to making those points. The Christ theology is presented almost exclusively as digressions in Abrahamic-faith arguments, and these often make points opposed to the thrust of the Abrahamic-faith arguments. Once I realized that, the hypothesis of interpolation seemed to best explain the evidence.

Anyhow, consider the passage in question:

(RSV) 1 Cor 11:20 When you meet together, it is not the LORD’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses 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 commend you in this? No, I will not. 23 - 29 [...]. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 [...]. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another -- 34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home--lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

The interruptions are as follows:

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when 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 also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." (Compare 11:24b-25 with Mt 26:26-29; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:14-20) 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself

32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world

Worked out in its entirety, the Paulines corpus was a set of letters that had nothing to do with Christ theology, but was redacted by an editor belonging to a congregation holding to Christ theology. Their bliefs were derived from Judaism, mainly its scriptures, but totally transformed into a mystery religion. Thus Paul probably did not influence the Gospels, although some of what the Pauline redactor added were drawn from either the Gospels or from common sources. Incidentally, my hypothesis is almost the exact opposite of that proposed by Pierson and Nabor.

DCH

Julian

It would make more sense to go from 22 to 26 (inclusive) rather than to 30. Paul says that he will not commend them but that leaves us hanging as what he is going to do then, and Paul always has an opinion. By going to 26 he is making them (and the Lord) commend themselves. Moderately clever and more inline with Paul's mode of operation.

Julian

DCHindley

But why would he suddenly introduce "the Lord" into the discussion at this point? While he is talking about a "pertaining-to-lord supper" do we know for certain he means "Lord Jesus" and not "Lord" (the anarthrous circumlocution for YHVH)? Are you aware of "love feasts" (AGAPAIS, 2 Peter 2.13, Jude 12, commonly referred to in early Christian literature, and not necessarily a synonym for the eucharist? They were common suppers meant as acts of charity for the poor. They are often represented as sharing of the bounty that the God of the Jews bestows on mankind.

Paul does not commend those who are eager to eat out of other people's (some patron's) generosity when they have resources of their own, and then let the less fortunate (slaves or low level retainers) fend for themselves. The reason he says so? Because Paul believes this behavior is responsible for the illness and death of some of thos whom the supper was supposed to benefit. Vesrs 23-29 form an integral unit. However, to the author of this secion, the "pertaining-to-lord supper" is the eucharist.

DCH