Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Niall Armstrong · 03-12-2007, 03:06 AM

Fascinating discussion from spin & godfrey! If this is correct, it makes understanding the author of Mark easier, as we don’t have to envision him having direct knowledge of 1 Cor.

As to the argument whether the interpolation is Lucan or Pastoral, perhaps we should take into consideration Doherty’s view. As he finds this passage to be in concordance with an MJ view (taking into consideration that it is portrayed as a vision, of the night that Jesus was “taken up”), the Lucan ascription becomes unnecessary, even difficult. Wouldn’t a Lucan insertion have naturally created an apostolic tradition here?
A Pastoral insertion also makes sense in comparison with the Lord’s Supper in Didache, which, whatever its date, also has a pastoral motivation.

Gregg · 03-12-2007, 03:39 AM

gnosis92, Paul didn't write that. That was written three or four decades after Paul. All Paul wrote was "Jesus on the night he was betrayed (or "given up," as the Greek word can also be translated) broke bread and ..."

If you think all these gospel events actually happened, and Paul uses this one to answer a question, why doesn't he refer to gospel events more often to answer questions and make points? Why doesn't he quote Jesus more often? Are you going to tell me that out of all those long speeches and wise sayings and illustrative parables and memorable goings-on, Paul and all the other epistle writers never again found any occasion to mention any of them? That all this rich, fascinating history was passed along solely by oral tradition until "Mark" finally thought to write some of it down?

I think even GakuseiDon would agree that had Jesus' life really unfolded in the dramatic fashion portrayed in the gospels, filled with richly symbolic characters suited to a Greek tragedy, powerful, deeply moving, and highly memorable incidents, and quotable quotes galore (all recalled in loving detail through oral transmission), Paul and the other epistle writers would have been sorely pressed not to include more of this material in their letters, writing conventions or no.

Solo · 03-12-2007, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

gnosis92, Paul didn't write that. That was written three or four decades after Paul. All Paul wrote was "Jesus on the night he was betrayed (or "given up," as the Greek word can also be translated) broke bread and ..."

Gregg, if you don't mind, what is your source or reasoning for believing that Paul actually wrote that (as opposed to the rest of the passage) ? Many thanks.

Jiri

Doug Shaver · 03-12-2007, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed" is a statement of time and place

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

When was the time, and where was the place?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

he Lord's Supper
12On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"

13So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him. 14Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' 15He will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there."

16The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.

17When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. 18While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me."

19They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, "Surely not I?"

20"It is one of the Twelve," he replied, "one who dips bread into the bowl with me. 21The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

22While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body."

23Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.

24"This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them. 25"I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."

26When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
Jesus Predicts Peter's Denial
27"You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written:
" 'I will strike the shepherd,
and the sheep will be scattered.'[c] 28But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."

29Peter declared, "Even if all fall away, I will not."

30"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice[d] you yourself will disown me three times."

31But Peter insisted emphatically, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the others said the same.
Gethsemane
32They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, "Sit here while I pray." 33He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. 34"My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death," he said to them. "Stay here and keep watch."

35Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36"Abba,[e] Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

37Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Simon," he said to Peter, "are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour? 38Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."

39Once more he went away and prayed the same thing. 40When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him.

41Returning the third time, he said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!"
Jesus Arrested
43Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law, and the elders.

44Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard." 45Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him. 46The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

48"Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled." 50Then everyone deserted him and fled.

51A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.
Before the Sanhedrin
53They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together. 54Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.

55The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. 56Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree.

57Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 58"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' " 59Yet even then their testimony did not agree.

60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[f] the Son of the Blessed One?"

62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

63The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

They all condemned him as worthy of death. 65Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, "Prophesy!" And the guards took him and beat him.
Peter Disowns Jesus
66While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. 67When she saw Peter warming himself, she looked closely at him.
"You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus," she said.

68But he denied it. "I don't know or understand what you're talking about," he said, and went out into the entryway.[g]

69When the servant girl saw him there, she said again to those standing around, "This fellow is one of them." 70Again he denied it.
After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean."

71He began to call down curses on himself, and he swore to them, "I don't know this man you're talking about."

72Immediately the rooster crowed the second time.[h] Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: "Before the rooster crows twice[i] you will disown me three times." And he broke down and wept.

I guess I need to rephrase my question.

According to Paul, when was the time, and where was the place? When you quoted him, you said he was making a statement of time and place.

Gregg · 03-12-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Gregg, if you don't mind, what is your source or reasoning for believing that Paul actually wrote that (as opposed to the rest of the passage) ? Many thanks.

Jiri

Seems to be a misunderstanding. I was telling gnosis92 that Paul didn't write that long gospel passage about the Last Supper and the betrayal, all he wrote (assuming it wasn't a later interpolation) was a brief passage in one of his letters about Jesus establishing a sacred meal the night he was betrayed (or given up). The gospel passage was written by someone else a few decades later. My source is the New Testament and near-universal scholarly consensus on the timeline of New Testament writings ...

GakuseiDon · 03-12-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

I think even GakuseiDon would agree that had Jesus' life really unfolded in the dramatic fashion portrayed in the gospels, filled with richly symbolic characters suited to a Greek tragedy, powerful, deeply moving, and highly memorable incidents, and quotable quotes galore (all recalled in loving detail through oral transmission), Paul and the other epistle writers would have been sorely pressed not to include more of this material in their letters, writing conventions or no.

Actually, I wouldn't agree. You make is sound like people today write in some kind of a "real" way, whereas the people in Paul's time used writing conventions that they would drop when they wanted to write something "real". But in fact we have examples where early writers were well aware of Gospel details but still didn't use them in their epistles (Tertullian as mentioned before), preferring instead to refer back to the OT. IMO the OT was used like we use science today -- if it could be found in the OT, then that somehow "proved" their case. We simply have to take those writing conventions into account.

Here is Ignatius:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s-roberts.html

"And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved."

You can see how the OT, even in Ignatius's time, was being used as "the proof" for what was being preached. I think that there was a lot of contention in the early days about Christ's words and deeds that wasn't cleared up until the Second Century, where orthodoxy was slowly imposed, perhaps as a reaction to Marcion. And one of the ways to clear things up was by measuring their confirmance to the OT, as per my quote from Ignatius. IMVHO Paul simply didn't have a lot of material to work with when he came to try to prove that Jesus's death and resurrection had implications for the Gentiles.

Ben C Smith · 03-12-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I don't necessarily mind people hacking this material up, but I need to see it done in bits that allow me to understand why changes were made.

Murder the text, but murder it carefully.

Ben.

03-12-2007, 02:39 PM

Greetings gnosis92,

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

he Lord's Supper
12On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?"
...

Mate,
Paul said nothing of that.
Paul has no historical details.

The Gospels with these details were written much later - no other Christian writer mentions these details until early-mid 2nd century.

You are retro-jecting 2nd century details into a 1st century text that has no such details.

The only elements that match are the NON-historical details.

Your method is unsound.

Iasion

spin · 03-12-2007, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Murder the text, but murder it carefully.

It died long ago. I'd just like to get the most value we can out of the post mortem. :Cheeky:

spin

gnosis92 · 03-12-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Greetings gnosis92,

Mate,
Paul said nothing of that.
Paul has no historical details.

The Gospels with these details were written much later - no other Christian writer mentions these details until early-mid 2nd century.

You are retro-jecting 2nd century details into a 1st century text that has no such details.

The only elements that match are the NON-historical details.

Your method is unsound.

Iasion

I was responding to another poster, I am well aware of what Paul did or did not say. Dating of the Gospels remains unknown. It appears most scholars date Mark toward the end of the first Jewish-Roman war.

My point is that Paul was referring to the Last Supper, where the details are more clearly delineated in the earliest Gospel, Mark. There is no evidence of interpolation nor of any dependence of Mark on Paul. The earliest Christian community may have consisted of many different groups, Luke-Acts does not reference Paul's letters, and there is no textual nor any plausible reason to suppose Mark's author would have known of a letter Paul wrote to the Corintians.

Paul's mention of the Last Supper is an example of "historical detail", there is no indication that his readers would ahve regarded "on the night he was betrayed" to not occur nowhere notime.

We are not Paul's immediate readers. If Paul's immediate readers knew what Mark knew, there would be no reason for him to say more than what he said.

Regards

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2007, 03:06 AM	#31
Niall Armstrong Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Norway's Bible Belt Posts: 85	Fascinating discussion from spin & godfrey! If this is correct, it makes understanding the author of Mark easier, as we don’t have to envision him having direct knowledge of 1 Cor. As to the argument whether the interpolation is Lucan or Pastoral, perhaps we should take into consideration Doherty’s view. As he finds this passage to be in concordance with an MJ view (taking into consideration that it is portrayed as a vision, of the night that Jesus was “taken up”), the Lucan ascription becomes unnecessary, even difficult. Wouldn’t a Lucan insertion have naturally created an apostolic tradition here? A Pastoral insertion also makes sense in comparison with the Lord’s Supper in Didache, which, whatever its date, also has a pastoral motivation.

03-12-2007, 03:39 AM	#32
Gregg Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 1,877	gnosis92, Paul didn't write that. That was written three or four decades after Paul. All Paul wrote was "Jesus on the night he was betrayed (or "given up," as the Greek word can also be translated) broke bread and ..." If you think all these gospel events actually happened, and Paul uses this one to answer a question, why doesn't he refer to gospel events more often to answer questions and make points? Why doesn't he quote Jesus more often? Are you going to tell me that out of all those long speeches and wise sayings and illustrative parables and memorable goings-on, Paul and all the other epistle writers never again found any occasion to mention any of them? That all this rich, fascinating history was passed along solely by oral tradition until "Mark" finally thought to write some of it down? I think even GakuseiDon would agree that had Jesus' life really unfolded in the dramatic fashion portrayed in the gospels, filled with richly symbolic characters suited to a Greek tragedy, powerful, deeply moving, and highly memorable incidents, and quotable quotes galore (all recalled in loving detail through oral transmission), Paul and the other epistle writers would have been sorely pressed not to include more of this material in their letters, writing conventions or no.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.