DaBuster

Here’s the passage I believe you are referring to:

In this passage, Paul claims that his knowledge of the last supper came directly by revelation from Jesus. However, I don’t agree with the position that just because he claims this knowledge came via revelation that this is “best read symbolically and scripturally.” Instead, it would seem more likely that Paul had knowledge, second hand to be sure, of the story of last supper. He can’t avoid discussing this aspect of the earthly Jesus – it’s just too deeply ingrained in the rituals of the faithful – so when he does bring it up, he makes a point of declaring that he received it by direct revelation to avoid giving credit to anyone else for his knowledge of the event.

Also, if the last supper does indeed represent one of the earliest stories of Jesus, then it would appear that in this passage, Paul appears to ever so briefly break his “silence” about what he had knew about HJ.

Solo

Perhaps, you should know that this passage is considered a later interpolation by some scholars. The main reason is that the Lord Supper section appears inserted into a different issue regarding manners in communal eating. importnatly also, since the Eucharist is a more or less faithful replica of a Mithraic cultic meal, it is highly unlikely to have been present in an early Church still dominated by Jewish sensibilities and centered in Jerusalem. For this reason some Jewish commentators refuse to credit that Paul instituted or practiced the Eucharist, as opposed to the traditional Jewish table fellowship, since to an educated Phariseic Jew it would have appeared an idolatrous act. For a sample of the objections see, e.g. http://www.geocities.com/aleph135/paul21.html .

There are some other issues with the text that you might want to explore.

Jiri

GakuseiDon

What information about a Mithraic cultic meal do we have, that shows that the Eucharist is a replica?

Solo

I don't believe that Franz Cumont was seriously challenged in that, even though I am aware of the criticism regards the Iranian vs. Roman versions of the rite, and the lack of evidence for the latter kind in the critical period of the presumed adoption. I find it interesting that the there is such a consternation among biblical scholars about, what appears a rather convincing example of syncretism, while embracing diffusionist scenarios with respect to the dualistic eschatology in Judaism. What real evidence is there, other than that the prophets were presumably exposed to it in Babylon ?

To my mind, there is a big difference between the claim that Christianity originated as a syncretic gulash of pagan mystery cults, and a claim that after the fall of Jerusalem, and even more so after AD 135, the Hellenic version of the creed being entirely on its own, the church begged, stole and borrowed liturgy and symbols where it could. By Constantine's time Christianity was practically a bazaar of relics, and I venture that the emperor would not have bought into the Cross to win the bridge, without the warranty that Christ was also Sol Invictus.

Jiri

Didymus

We may never know for sure. If Jesus was an obscure figure, we can't expect to find a detailed and contemporanous accounting of the circumstances of his crucifixion.

But historians, even biblical historians, agree that the soil was fertile for such a transformative figure; i.e., that many in the Eastern Mediterranean region, Jew and Gentile alike, were ready, even yearning, for a narrative of salvation.

And the gospels themselves provide direct clues such a scenario.

The trashing of the Temple grounds could have led to the crucifixion, either solely or in concert with other incidents of disorderly conduct. The disruption of the merchants and people carrying jars was a pure act of protest that involved no miracles, no imagined blasphemy, no disputation over Jesus' divine nature. As Robert Funk wrote in The Acts of Jesus, "He was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified as a 'public nuisance,' specifically for overturning tables at Herod's Temple, not for claiming to be the Son of God, during the period of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas."

Of course, it's not a slam dunk. The historicity of the Temple disruption is highly suspect. It certainly hasn't gotten the Jesus Seminar stamp of approval, nor the endorsement of such luminaries as Paula Frederickson and John Dominic Crossan. Michael Turton quotes Brodie: "Mark's long passion narrative...coincides significantly both in form and content with the long Temple-centered sequence at the end of the Elijah-Elisha narrative."
http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMar....html#11.15.19

But "obvious literary derivation" can be deceiving. Sometimes life does imitate art. An actual co-incidence, deliberate or inadvertant, of perceived reality with "prophetic" literature will cause a stir. (Thus we have evangelicals thinking that prophesy is being fulfilled by current events in the Middle East.) It is entirely possible that a real disruption of the Temple by a real individual - or a small gang led by such a man - led not only to Jesus' crucifixion, but quickly came to be regarded as an enactment of Hosiah 9:15, Nehemiah 13:9, Malachi 3:1, Hosea 9:15, and Zechariah 14:21. It's quite conceivable, in fact, that these actions were "performance pieces" intended to be viewed in the light of scripture and to be taken as signs that Armageddon was near.

In any event, the events at the Temple are certainly consistent with the scenario of an obscure, possibly wacked out, man named Jesus getting himself crucified for a series of civil and criminal transgressions. In addition to the Temple trashing, only one other such act was reported in the gospels, the cutting off of a servant's ear by one of Jesus' companions. But there may have been many more - and much worse. We just don't know.

(The tradition that emerged from Jesus' crucifixion - see below - would have had no interest in transmitting anything marginal to messianic expectations. So it's not surprising that the tradition - what there was of it - would have ignored anything - especially anything unseemly - that didn't fit that bill.)

Especially since...

He came back! Or so they thought. There is abundant - and apparently independent - attestation to the post-resurrection appearances. In rare agreement, both Paul and the synoptic authors report such sightings, the latter with more refinement and detail, of course, and with specifics regarding the "Twelve." If indeed the exceptionally brutal crucifixion of Jesus was extraordinary - all indications are that it was - his treatment may have been viewed with shock and horror. In turn, that may have led to great unease in the city. That unease, viewed in the light of a tradition of rejected and murdered prophets, resulted in dreams and visions which were retrojected into the crucifixion and the events that proceeded it.

OT messianism was hopeful either of a great king who will lead Israel into a glorious future, or, in the Wisdom tradition, of a humble savior who would quietly redeem reprobate mankind. It is from the perspective of the second tradition that the horrified residents of Jerusalem - and a converted Paul - would have regarded a obscure, crucified Jesus.

I've cited only one example of an actual incident that could have been viewed "messianically" at the time. Other events that appear in the gospels, such as Jesus' entry into the city on a donkey, could have also been historical and interpreted in light of scripture at the time, thus confirming the suspicion that the crucified man was the messiah. On the other hand, we may only "know" about such events because they were invented/derived from scripture by the gospel authors.

Christians tend to see everything as fulfillment; skeptics tend to see everything as derivative. But there's a "third way," actual incidents that coincidentally or deliberately resembled those in scripture, and which therefore were connected with the OT in the public imagination. It's hard - perhaps impossible - to determine which events survived the rigors of the "oral tradition" and were included in the gospels, vs. events which may have seemed significant at the time, but which for unknown reasons were lost in the intervening years.

The strength of this minimal or Pauline Jesus idea is not that it can be uncovered in Paul's epistles or in gospel narratives, but that it explains troublesome gaps with great efficiency. Without resorting to unevidenced, global assumptions about Paul's belief system and those of his followers, it explains the silences by adducing that Paul said about the earthly Jesus only what he and others knew. It explains why so much of the synoptic story - and especially the Passion narrative - is out of kilter with history and geography, i.e., the gospel authors weren't reporting history or trying to. Working in the Diaspora, they were kludging together bits and pieces from LXX sources in order to tell us how Jesus life would have looked, if only more had been known.

Didymus

Amaleq13

What are the indications that the crucifixion of Jesus was "exceptionally brutal" and "extraordinary"?

Solo

Sister Emmerich's ghost overtaking a born-again alcoholic on a San Bernardino valley freeway and a Jew-cop intercepting the race. :angel:

Jiri

DramaQ

But by the picture you paint, Paul would be at no meaningful disadvantage against the supposed ones who "knew" or were part of the "actual" history.

If it was all coming from lore and exaggeration of a few key events, he could repeat this lore as easily as anyone else. (Even just a nod toward the Temple Ruckus)

If fact, the more obscure the actual origins were, the more likely one would think Paul would be to claim his “revealed” information as superior, and downplay the rumor-based “pillars”.

Didymus

The notion of Paul's reacting to apostolic competition by omitting anything about Jesus' life seems to have been invented to explain the silences. There is no evidence of it.

He repeated what little they knew: Jesus was a Jewish man, born of a woman, crucified, buried.

And he repeated what they believed, but didn't know: He had table fellowship with others, he hinted at his own death, he was resurrected, and he appeared to various folks after his death.

That's it for "facts." Everything else about Paul's Jesus is theology and kerygma.

Paul's omissions of the Temple ruckus and the severed ear were silences, yes, but not glaring omissions. Even if he knew about those things, an aggressive, violent Jesus would be hard to reconcile with his high christology.

Seems to me that Paul was completely unaware of the evolution of the elaborated, historicized, OT-derived gospels.

Well, his "revealed" Jesus seems to have held sway for a few decades. Paul tells us that he met in Jerusalem with men later said to have been Jesus' earthly companions. And he refers to one, James, as the "brother of the Lord." But there's no evidence of such supposedly apostolic competition in Paul's territory, the Diaspora.

I think Paul's silences were due to a universal lack of knowledge about Jesus, not to turf battles between Paul and witnesses to Jesus' alleged earthly ministry.

Didymus

S.C.Carlson

No evidence of what? The apostolic competition Paul had or his postulated reaction to it?

Stephen Carlson