gstafleu

Whether Paul's Jesus quote is an interpolation or not, even if it appeared first in the gospels the question still remains: where did that bread/wine bit come from? Any ideas (except mine, that is )?

Gerard Stafleu

spin

I just wonder what was eaten at the feast of unleavened bread (or all those other meal offerings) and what the drink offering was.


spin

yalla

Not in the context of the whole of the quote.
The ritual element [hymn and oath] of the meeting is said to be finished ['when this was over'].

Then, after the ritual element, they share a meal which, unlike the well known [?] mystery religions for example, does not incorporate ritual significance ['ordinary and innocent'].
Pliny, IMO, is specifically dividing the meeting into 2 stages, the former incorporating ritual and the latter [the meal] not so, it's just a social gathering.
The thrust of his description is that it is the first meeting which is ritual.
Then they depart and reassemble at an ordinary meal [ie no ritualistic significance].
You would need to have evidence that Pliny had expected to find cannibalism whatever there to justify that speculation which I think comes from a time decades later and then only from within Christian circles as a claim that others said such.[I could be wrong about that]. Specifically that and specifically related to Pliny.
Remember the whole rationalisation for this letter is that it claims he is ignorant of these Christians and is seeking advice as to what to do about them.
cheers
yalla

jgibson000

The celebration of Passover.

JG

Amaleq13

Jesus is breaking bread in the described scene and Paul refers to the traditional repetition of it as the "Lord's supper". The scene is described as taking place on the night before being handed over. In every sense except using the actual phrase, Paul is describing Jesus' last supper.

Who else would Jesus be eating his last supper with except his closest associates?

Who else would Jesus entrust the sacrificial symbology of the meal except his closest associates?

I think it is important to keep in mind that Paul is reminding them of something he has already told them. Do reminders generally include all of the details originally told or are they more typically summaries that only cover what is important or relevant?

Narratives should have more details than summaries and Paul's letter does appear to offer a pretty good summary of that narrative. What was most relevant to his reminder (ie sacrificial symbology and Jesus as the source) is included.

You might be interested in this post from the Significance of Didache? thread.

gstafleu

Gee, might it have been bread and wine? That is of course not the issue. The issue is the con/transubstantiation: all of a sudden the bread represents (or is) the body of Jesus. Where did that idea come from?

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

So the celebration of passover has bread and wine and con/transubstantiation?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover the wikipedia page on passover it has the bread. I'll even throw in the wine in case the bread was a bit dry. But the significance of the bread was "The primary symbol of Passover is the matzo, a flat, unleavened "bread" which recalls the hurriedly-baked bread that the Israelites ate after their hasty departure from Egypt." I see some other explanations about travel bread, but nothing about con/transubstantiation. The con/transubstantiation would seem to be the heart of the rite: that the body is represented/recreated is what is important, the means is secondary.

Gerard Stafleu

jgibson000

No. But it does have bread and wine standing/being used symbolically and mimetically for something else, including liberation and deliverance and the sealing of a covenant.

Moreover, you are begging the question and thinking anachronistically (both theologically and doctrinally) when you assume, as you do, that "con/transubstantiation" is a part of, or a theme within, early Christian eucharists.

JG

gstafleu

I read the first article you mention (Some Theological and Hermeneutical...). It is heavy on communal meals but light on con/transubstantiation. I think it suggests that Theissen suggests that early Christians came up with the idea themselves: they were sitting around in a commual meal while remembering Christ, and in that context the idea that the bread represented or was the body of Christ was only natural.

If so that would mean, assuming standard timing, that the Gospels got the idea from Paul. Theissen does not seem to suggest the idea actually came from Jesus. In addition, if that is what happened it isn't that strange to assume the early Christians were influence by extant thought. Coming up with something completely new is unusual, and not much else in Christianity (virgin birth, sacrifice of god, resurrection of god) seems to be original--so why would this bit all of a sudden be?

The article also mentions Zebah-Todah. From what I found about Zebah Todah, that was a meal that was a sacrifice to the Jewish god, but without any mention of that meal representing the body of the god--that would have been rather un-Jewish, I would think.

Again, the important bit here is that the meal, or part thereof, turns into (a representation of) the god's body. From a Jewish perspective, with their super trandescendent god whose name you can't even utter, that would seem to be an unusual idea. From a Christian point of view it also seems unusual: where else than in the Eucharist do we find the idea that God is edible?

Gerard Stafleu

spin

I failed mindreading 101.

The miracle of Bolsena? Maybe that's not what you were thinking of either...

Maybe you're thinking about the death of fertility gods, maybe Osiris or later Serapis, whose body was represented by bread. Perhaps Dionysus. Maybe you're grinding away at John Barleycorn... or perhaps just the hair of the dog that bit you.


spin