S.C.Carlson

That's interesting. I've been coming to the conclusion for a while that Paul was less of a super apostle than most people assume and that it was Acts which was responsible for Paul's rehabilitation. There are a lot of things that have to worked out to make that idea viable, though.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

Might it not also be a matter of geography? He might have been a hero in (most or at least some of) the churches that he founded, but not necessarily in Syria, Palestine, or Egypt. Acts may have had the effect of making a relatively local hero more global (one might even say more catholic).

Ben.

Amaleq13

Jesus was to become the sacrifice just as the meal was to become a remembrance ritual for Jesus. Perhaps Paul had in mind that the meal Jesus was eating was Passover or Yom Kippur. That would certainly make sense given the analogy(ies). The Origin Myth for the new ritual obviously couldn't be set after the execution because Jesus was too busy being buried, resurrected, and raised up into Heaven. If Jesus' sacrifice was understood as analogous to the Passover Lamb and/or Yom Kippur Goat, the connection with a meal seems pretty obvious to me.

1) Son descends to be sacrificed for humanity

2) Sacrifice considered analogous to Passover/Yom Kippur

3) Existing Christian thanksgiving meal of remembrance with no connection to the sacrifice

4) Paul's vision transforms the thanksgiving meal into a remembrance of the sacrifice by incorporating the analogy in 2) and setting it prior to the sacrifice so that Jesus can participate.

Avoiding an identification of the companions doesn't really help since we are still left wondering why the hell those guys (whoever they were) didn't share what Jesus taught so that the Risen Christ had to send a vision to Paul to get the job done.

If there were no companions and Jesus is magically addressing future Christians, this problem disappears.

No companions = no assumption of communication of purpose.

Yes and, apparently, this would be yet another failure on their part because they apparently did not teach anyone what Jesus told them and the Risen Christ had to send a vision to Paul to get the job done correctly.

Yes, I've been saying that for some time: A vision with companions creates a serious problem. A tradition that existed prior to Paul does not. Is eliminating the problem a legitimate motivation to interpret it as a tradition instead of a vision?

If we continue to think of it as a vision and information unique to Paul, we are left with Mark explicitly portraying the Disciples as present for the original instructions yet Failing to teach them to anyone.

Ben C Smith

The connection of meal and sacrifice seems clear enough; to make the sacrificial victim participate in the sacrificial meal, however, still looks quite strained. I can imagine someone doing it, but it is harder to imagine that this someone could get away with assuming it with a readership.

Let us suppose for a moment that Paul did indeed go through this mental process; he deduced that Jesus ate a sacrificial meal before becoming the actual sacrifice. In other words, both the meal and the night on the one hand and the words spoken and actions taken at the meal on the other hand are in the same boat; they are deductions from mythical correspondences and typologies as you have outlined. Why is it, then, that Paul treats the meal and night as the assumed information but the words and actions as the explained information?

I thought I already dealt with this; Paul could have been one-upping his rivals.

I think you are misunderstanding what I said. What I was saying is that, if the Marcan version of the last supper is independent of Paul, then obviously it was not Paul who introduced that version of the last supper through his own personal vision, and our entire conversation is moot; those details have to have come from tradition, not from a personal vision to Paul. If, on the other hand, Mark depended on Paul (directly or indirectly; it matters not) for the last supper tradition, then he read the Pauline pericope in the way that I am reading it, as implying companions. Is that clearer?

If the catch for you is what Mark was thinking, then I do not see a problem at all. He could have assumed that Paul was describing a tradition that he received through those present at that meal. That is what most modern commentators assume, after all.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Isn't that precisely what the vision depicts? The "victim" is making the meal about him.

I think you are reading too much into the article and they are not "assumed information" that predates Paul's vision. They are simply less important background details for the institution of the symbology.

By subtly implying that they failed to teach what Jesus told them to teach? That's a bit more than "one-upping", isn't it?

Agreed.

I understood that but I'm going beyond that to point out that taking both together (Pauline vision + Marcan dependence) we appear to have another very strong implied criticism in Mark against the Disciples. If Paul was the first to share this information, anybody who was present in the scene obviously had not shared it even though Jesus is clearly depicted as instructing them to do so.

Then that means it was not a vision.

Ben C Smith

Mark thinking that it was tradition means that it was not a vision?

Ben.

(The rest of your post, like my most recent one, only reemphasizes that the course has been run. Let the reader decide. I have enjoyed it. )

TedM

I know you aren't communicating with me, but perhaps Ben will find something of value in this:

Paul was the first on the scene to the Corinthians (3:6 "I planted", and Acts), so it appears the disciples didn't have a chance to share it. Paul could have had a dream or vision of the tradition he had heard about, also,--one which clarified how important it was to him--and left out mention of the disciples. Also the disciples may have interpreted Jesus' command as applying to them only. IF that is the case, we have an explanation for why they may not have shared it, also. Finally, over time perhaps they saw increasing significance in the words "do this in rememberance of me", but Paul--being a bright fellow--saw it much sooner. However, it seems odd to consider that if this were some Jesus in the distant past, Paul would not have seen a need to explain why this "tradition of rememberance" started with Paul, and not earlier if that were the case, if others believed in the sacrifice prior to Paul! Wouldn't Paul have considered that Jesus wanted his believers to "remember" the sacrifice prior to the vision to Paul?

As for your comment regarding the meal/Passover sacrifice connection, what's missing is the link to the Passover. Paul doesn't provide it in this passage. However, if we conclude that Paul did indeed see Jesus as a Passover sacrifice (as he does allude to this elsewhere), it is reasonable to me to suppose that Paul could have assumed/had a revelation that the first Passover meal (preceding it) would have been of significance, yet odd that he doesn't mention the Passover itself if it was a vision of his own creation that depended so heavily on this link.

ted

TedM

The context (unruly eating behavior among believers) gives a better reason for a possible interpolation of the Lord's Supper, than for those other things.


All the more reason to not deliberately leave out mention of the disciples as the twelve companions of Jesus! Such a mention--straight out of Mark would have added much more legitimacy to the Lord's Supper as an event in which Jesus and his twelve disciples participated, and in which Jesus identified his betrayor than what we have. Interpolators sure could have done a better job of making Paul a 'bonafide church hero of antiquity', who knew all about the disciples in Mark's account.

I'm not so sure any dichotomy between 1 Cor and the rest of Paul's works is a strong as you think. And, if it is interpolation, again it doesn't appear to be to add legitamacy to a very detailed gospel tradition, because the references don't try to explain things in terms of the gospel tradition at all.


IF it was between Paul and Mark, I'm not sure we can say how easily that could have been accomplished, and if it had been, I would perhap expect further interpolations then and, if not, then later on--entering in gospel details (names of his brothers in 1 Cor 9, mention of disciples in 11, mention who the "twelve" were in 15). IF interpolations were so easily made on these documents I would not expect what we see now. That's my main point. I still need to read the link you provide me though.

If there was an interpolation, I would think the interpolator would have rejected the importance of the disciples, yet seen a need to appeal both to traditions created by Paul (in 11) and received by Paul from others before him about those same disciples (in 15). Weird combination of interpolations..

ted

Amaleq13

I think it means he didn't understand it as such.

I have as well and it might interest you to learn that, as a result, I'm beginning to doubt that this should be understood as a vision. I'll have to reread the Didache thread to see how it might be possible to reconcile what would be two very different traditions.

I am, however, still interested in your answers to my three questions in the last post.

ETA: I'm also still interested in any recommendations you might have for commentaries that clear up the mess of the Gospel trials.

andrewcriddle

It may possibly be that Paul was the only prominent Apostle before the fall of Jerusalem whose teachings were found compatible with the situation after the destruction of the Temple.

Andrew Criddle