Early Christian Worship

by the_classicist 63 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  I don't think we're going to reach any meeting of the minds here.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Classicist,

  I can see the point you're making and its tenable as you described it. But as you yourself wrote, one would have to add in other material to understand the relevant portions of the Didache in that way. The approach itself is sound, and I've seen the benefits of looking at intertestamental writings for learning more about the context of the NT belief system. I wonder if one isn't retroactively imposing an orthodox view on something that wasn't though in this particular case?
• 

  the_classicist

  I wonder if one isn't retroactively imposing an orthodox view on something that wasn't though in this particular case?

  That could very well be. I must say, though, that I do not think that it is very probable for St. Paul to invent the words of institution and someone else inserted it into the Gospels (and as peacefulpete's link noted, they must've done a really crappy job considering they didn't change the Gospel of John to fit their theology).
• 

  peacefulpete

  Remember that each community was unlikely to have had access to or accepted the 4 gospels that made it into the Canon. That is why there are the dozens of discrepencies.
• 

  Leolaia

  Actually, I did mark that statement as hypothetical by saying "I believe", i.e. as a belief, not a fact.

  BTW, I think that was an early post too and I would not now use the word "derived" which is far too strong; I would say that there may have been influence from Hellenistic mysteries (such that Gentile Christianity was not an entirely discontinuous entity from these other cults but shared some common features with them), but that the primary soil which such practices took root was Jewish (which itself may have influenced by Hellenistic culture, such as has been suggested with regard to the communial meal and the Greek symposia).
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  I guess that we'll never be sure of what those very first teachings were and surmising and beliefs are all we can bring to the table.

  I grew up in the JWs and went through the Roman Catholic school system at the same time (see why I'm so mixed up?). So to the credit of the orthodox, they've done an excellent job of competing and spreading their version of christianity. And I'm also intrigued that, apparently, even early on, there wasn't a single view on the meaning of that Galilean's life and death.

  Regards all.
• 

  peacefulpete

  
  
  
  
  
  

  How's that.
• 

  the_classicist

  Considering Paul's claim to have received his eucharist ideas by 'revelation' it again seems a desperate grasp to postulate he got it from his predecessors just so as to favor an entirely Jewish origin.

  It again seems to be a desperate grasp to claim that St. Paul invented his Eucharistic theology from a vision. Obviously, this teaching of St. Paul wasn't new for he says thus: "For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you" (1 Cor. 11:23). Paul claims the Eucharistic doctrine not from revelation in terms of a vision or voice, but through reception. Indeed if St. Paul had had an explicit vision or supernatural source of revelation, 1) one would expect (though, this is far from conditional) that there would be an apocryphal work telling us about the vision or at least some sort of early Christian legend such as those about St. Clement of Rome and 2) that the other Apostles in St. Paul's region, such as St. John or St. Peter, would have a problem with St. Paul's revisionist history; and if not the other Apostles themselves, at least the disciples of the Apostles, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, who as the disciple of St. John and wrote relatively extensively on the Christological nature of the Eucharist at the beginning of the second century.

  From "Primitive" and "Pauline" Concepts of the Eucharist, by Gerard S. Sloyan (Catholic Biblical Quarterly 23.1):

  One accepts as proved the arguments of Allo, Jeremias (p. 129; cf. n. 15, infra) and Cullman ("The Tradition," in The Early Church [London: SCM Press, 1956] 63f) that parelabon (apo tou kyriou) 'o kai paredoka 'ymin of 1 Cor. 11,23 is simply the rabbinic formula qibbel min and masar le translated, the kai requiring that the tradition shall have been received just as it was passed on, namely through human mediation.

  Within the context of the Epistle, it is clear that he is correcting abuses at Corinth and reminding them of things taught, not simply introducing new ideas. Of course, there is the possibility that he was elucidating previously taught doctrine.

  It seems to me that a great deal of stretching goes on through efforts to claim exclusively Jewish origins for every aspect of primitive Christianity, especially when there existed nonJewish practice that bears much closer resemblance and intercultural contact is well documented

  It is not that every aspect of primitive Christianity has to have Jewish origins, it is the belief that the doctrines of Christianity came from Christ and then from the Apostles, not through borrowing or personal invention.
• 

  peacefulpete

  I found that intersting. I have never heard someone argue from that standpoint. It certainly is not a majority view, but I never worried about that. Posted below for comparison reasons only are two commentaries that typify the interpretation of 11:23:

  The apostle describes the sacred ordinance, of which he had the knowledge by revelation from Christ.

  Matthew Henrey’s Concise Commntary

  11:23 {For I received of the Lord } (ego gar parelabon apo tou kuriou). Direct claim to revelation from the Lord Jesus on the origin of the Lord 's Supper . Luke's account (#Lu 22:17-20) is almost identical with this one. He could easily have read I Corinthians before he wrote his Gospel .

  Robertson’s Word Studies

  Even cross reference bibles generally take you to Gal 1:12 and 2 Cor 12:11 where Paul insists he did not recieve his info from any human agent but by revelation. Paul said he received it not from men but from the Lord, this seems a poor way to argue that what he is presenting is an established tradition that does not originate from himself and those who traveled with him. But I can see the matter is not as clear as anyone wishes.

  Your last comment was a surprise to me, I generally avoid arguing with anyone who feels as you do, not because that necessarily makes them unreasonable, but simply because it's just not my style to attack religious conviction.
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  that the other Apostles in St. Paul's region, such as St. John or St. Peter, would have a problem with St. Paul's revisionist history; and if not the other Apostles themselves, at least the disciples of the Apostles

  That point is definitely something that makes you go "hmmmm". We have evidence pointing to the friction between Paul and those christians holding to the Law, but as far as I know, no mentioned disputes about the meaning of the eucharist. Just how much of the framework was already in place among say the Johannine community? (Lamb of God imagery lends itself sweetly methinks) Maybe it wasn't that much of a leap then, for Paul to just tack on the idea of the mystical union, and just claim that extra detail as a revelation.