The "Christian Greek Scriptures"

by Doug Mason 27 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Doug Mason
    Doug Mason

    Apognophos,

    I do have tucked far away in the back of my mind a Study that addresses Paul as a mystic. I should read what Maccoby writes as well as Tabor. Paul was the earliest writer. He gave his own new mystical ideas to baptism and the communal meal. He was given these in visions; they did not come from any eye-witness. The gospels were not penned by any eye-witness. (I have my doubts that Jesus literally died at Passover; I sense that the idea developed from Paul's relating Jesus' death to it sacrificially.) I have touched on the chasm between Paul and the Jerusalem Church in other Studies. The ideas come from him. I scanned the following pages as they better express the ideas. They are from pages 91-92 of "Christian Beginnings" by the recently deceased Geza Vermes (Google for him.)

    Doug

    ========================

    The Lord's Supper

    In addition to baptism, the first and unrepeatable Christian rite, Paul inherited from his predecessors a second great cult practice, the communal meal, referred to as the 'breaking of the bread' as well as `thanksgiving' or eucharist in Greek. As in the case of baptism, Paul supplied a new meaning to the community meal and turned it into an imitation and repetition of the 'Lord's Supper' — Jesus' last Passover dinner with his apostles on the evening before his crucifixion.

    Paul implies that the mythical significance of this meal was revealed to him directly by Christ: 'I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you' (1 Cor. 11:23 ). He does not say that it came to him through apostolic tradition as the story of the death, burial and resurrection of the Saviour: 'I handed over to you what I in turn had received' (1 Cor. 15:3 ). If my understanding is correct, the mystical significance of the Last Supper must not be attributed to the Synoptic evangelists composing their accounts between AD 70 and 100, but to Paul writing in the early 50s. It seems that the idea entered the tradition of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew through Luke, Paul's disciple, whose Last Supper account mirrors that of his teacher. Only Paul and Luke mention Jesus' command relating to the repetition of the ritual. For Paul the rite comprised a twofold allegory: the participation of the believers in the redemptive acts of the death and resurrection of Christ, and their assimilation into the mystical body of Jesus and the church. In Paul's view, those who partook of the bread and drank from the cup were in the first instance united, mystically and sacramentally, with the redeeming death of Christ.

    The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.” (1 Cor. 11:23-6)

    Moreover, as the bread was the symbol of Jesus' flesh, the many who consumed it were in addition spiritually transformed into a single body, that of the church: 'The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake in the same bread' (1 Cor. 10:16-17; Rom. 12:4-5).

    Having invested the communal meal with such superhuman qualities, it is not surprising that Paul's plebeian followers in Corinth fell short of the required standard both in thought and in behaviour. He complained that the members of the congregation, far from being united, were split into factions along social lines (1 Cor. 11:18; see 1:12) and they behaved in a disorderly fashion during the ceremony itself. Instead of all sharing the same meal, each family brought along their own food, and while the less well off felt humiliated and remained hungry, the wealthy gorged themselves on delicacies and got drunk (1 Cor. 11:21-2, 33-4). Paul paints an odd portrait of the company making up the Corinthian church when he prohibits table fellowship with drunkards, idolaters, revilers and robbers and with the sexually immoral and greedy (1 Cor. 5:11).

    Be this as it may, the breaking of the bread or the `Lord's Supper', as perceived through Paul's eyes, became the cornerstone of the cultic edifice of Gentile Christianity in his day and has remained so ever since.

  • Apognophos
    Apognophos

    Thanks, it's very interesting to think about how Christianity would have turned out if Paul were not in the picture.

  • kepler
    kepler

    Phizzy, Doug Mason,

    Good to hear from you. I tried to write a lengthy reply, but decided just to leave a couple of notes. Maybe I can revise to satisfaction later.

    To start somewhere, let's go back to Gibbon. It turns out I have the same D. M. edition which I picked up back in the 1960s while I was serving (across the pond) in Germany! A friend in the barracks had the equivalent of a garage sale since he was rotating back to the States. Finally, I am getting somewhere with it. That's the abridgement, by the way, which does not have the footnotes. Since it starts on chapter one, it leaves you wondering why Gibbon started compiling the book in the first place - and it left me wondering where I had read other passages - probably from a copy in the public library.

    Going back to Daniel. Doug says about 164 BC - and I would be inclined to agree, though my opinion is more like that of a member of a jury composed of 21st century citizens called in - and not that of any sort of pedigreed expert. I would like to say though, that references to Daniel in the book of Maccabees ( I Maccabees 3:59-60) bracket how late it might have been written. I Maccabees recounts events up to 134 BC, but Daniel in its veiled references does not venture into the "future".

    Best regards,

    K.

  • kepler
    kepler

    Phizzy, Doug Mason,

    Good to hear from you. I tried to write a lengthy reply, but decided just to leave a couple of notes. Maybe I can revise to satisfaction later.

    To start somewhere, let's go back to Gibbon. It turns out I have the same D. M. edition which I picked up back in the 1960s while I was serving (across the pond) in Germany! A friend in the barracks had the equivalent of a garage sale since he was rotating back to the States. Finally, I am getting somewhere with it. That's the abridgement, by the way, which does not have the footnotes. Since it starts on chapter one, it leaves you wondering why Gibbon started compiling the book in the first place - and it left me wondering where I had read other passages - probably from a copy in the public library.

    Going back to Daniel. Doug says about 164 BC - and I would be inclined to agree, though my opinion is more like that of a member of a jury composed of 21st century citizens called in - and not that of any sort of pedigreed expert. I would like to say though, that references to Daniel in the book of Maccabees ( I Maccabees 3:59-60) bracket how late it might have been written. I Maccabees recounts events up to 134 BC, but Daniel in its veiled references does not venture into the "future".

    Best regards,

    K.

  • smiddy
    smiddy

    Thank you Doug.for this information . I have often wondered how the WTB&TS distances itself from mainstream religion , yet adopts, not the catholic books of the bible , but the protestant view of the bible cannon. ( Yeah I know they hate the catholics more than they do the protestants.)

    I need a lot more time to wade through this informative material.

    smiddy

  • jamclark
    jamclark

    I look forward to reading the material and am sure there is a lot of references that the "New Testament" was originally written in Hebrew (as in all of the inspired Scriptures). Thus it would be the uninspired Greek Translation of the inspired Hebrew Scriptures (thus there will be concepts lost in translation).

  • Perry
    Perry

    ISAIAH 40:8 -- “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”

    Here's my exegisis on the matter: God said it. I believe it. That settles it.

    I used to see those bumper stickers and feel sorry for those people for not listening to the Watchtower. Now, it pretty well sums up my position: Believe God first.

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    jamclark, as far as I know there is no evidence that the "New Testament" as a whole was originally written in Hebrew as Greek was the common language. There is a suggestion that the Gospel of Matthew was first written in Hebrew or Aramaic and then translated into Greek but I think that is the only one.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit