Early Christian Worship (page 6)

the_classicist

Posted below for comparison reasons only are two commentaries that typify the interpretation of 11:23:

I would answer that those commentaries have a particular purpose to interpret it in such as way as to deny any sort of oral tradition, and in a sense deny the dual nature of Apostolic teaching: oral and written (2 Thess. 2:15); and I also found the rabbinical interpretation of 1 Cor. 11,23 to be interesting.

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.

Gal. 1:11-12: "Now I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not of human origin. For I did not receive it from a human being, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

First we should establish what "gospel" St. Paul is referring to. Gal. 1:16 would seem to indicate he is talking about his aural vision of Christ recorded in Acts: that Christ is the Lord and that he, St. Paul, was set aside to preach to the Gentiles. And the main difference between the verse in Gal. and 1 Cor. would be that Paul's claims a revelation from the Lord in Galatians whereas in 1 Cor. it was received from the Lord, and if you take the rabbinic formula theory, it would seem these are different things.

As for 2 Cor. 12:11, I can't really see much of significance there except for the fact that St. Paul is ranting... again.

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.

I should like to rephrase my last statement, in order to exclude "belief" and make it more compatible with reason: Given the emphasis on right teaching and right belief in the apostolic epistles, it does not seem reasonable that St. Paul, a former Pharisee, would purposely take from a Greek mystery religion. It also does not seem very probable for St. Paul to claim that his statements at 1 Cor. 11,23 are from private revelation. St. Paul does claim private revelation for such things as his personal mission and the whole "Christ is the Lord, the Lord in heaven" thing, but he, assuming 1 Cor. 11,23 is not a private revelation, never claims historical information through private revelation. (I could be wrong here:) Early Christian mystics (sages, oracles, etc.) are never originators of unique historical information; it does not seem to be a part of the mystic charism of the Early Christian to know historical informtion through private revelation.

peacefulpete

I would answer that those commentaries have a particular purpose to interpret it in such as way as to deny any sort of oral tradition, and in a sense deny the dual nature of Apostolic teaching: oral and written (2 Thess. 2:15); and I also found the rabbinical interpretation of 1 Cor. 11,23 to be interesting.

2 Thess was written 80-120 CE and irrelevent for this discussion.

the_classicist

2 Thess was written 80-120 CE and irrelevent for this discussion.

Not really. Oral tradition of the early Christians is a well established fact.

Midget-Sasquatch

But then there's also the question about Paul's impact on the oral tradition. The segment he was evangelizing to, likely wasn't as influenced by the Jerusalem core. They were quickly becoming the majority of christians, so Paul's views may have easily won the majority mind share and affected oral tradition that way.

the_classicist

But then there's also the question about Paul's impact on the oral tradition. The segment he was evangelizing to, likely wasn't as influenced by the Jerusalem core. They were quickly becoming the majority of christians, so Paul's views may have easily won the majority mind share and affected oral tradition that way.

But that's assuming St. Paul preched something different from the other Apostles. Can you show this?

Midget-Sasquatch

I admit that its only supposition. I try to have some grounding though, like observations that can characterize Paul. For example:

Paul himself attests to his confrontations with judaizers or the circumcision party of christians. He even boasted about his publically challenging Peter over the matter. So he was going against the grain. Even the book of Acts shows how Peter at first was adverse to gentiles.

Then there's the pseudo-clementine literature, with its story of Peter attacking a Simon for his anti-Law stance. Peter is trying to tell people to not be deceived by the error being taught by that man. Its not very hard to see that Simon can be a thinly disguised Paul. Interestingly enough, Paul himself never wrote that the matter of following the Law or not was settled during his ministry. That version of history is found in the later book of Acts.

If Paul would counter other christians on something like the Law, then its not unthinkable for him to also go against the grain on the spiritual and metaphysical meaning of the thanksgiving meal. Especially since he lays claim to receiving revelations.

Then again, he may have been towing the line for the most part, regarding the eucharist.

peacefulpete

We have no idea what Peter believed or preached. Some suspect that Peter as portrayed in the many books that include him is simply a fictional construct, a composit of certain influential Jewish Christians (Simon? Cephus?) cast in the image of the protoOrthodoxy. The number 12 is apparently a later concept imposed upon the story. The very notion of a core set of "Apostles" appointed to direct the new church is missing in the earliest layers of the Jesus legend. So to ask if Paul conflicted with the "Apostles" is a dead end. The late harmonizing legends in Acts struggle to unite the sects of Christians and Jews for Jesus by rewriting proto-orthodox church history. However even there the writer had to include the apparent reality that the two magor camps never did agree about the mission and huge differences over doctrine about Law and baptism are thinly veneered. Paul made clear he had nothing to do with any other sect of Christians (interpolations aside) and only after 14 years of preaching did he attempt to influence/recruit the leading men of the Jerusalem Jews that had some similarity to his movement. A careful study of the suspected additions and glosses reveals an effort to do this type of revisioning. As Paul's influence seems to have been limited until after his death and only later because of Marcion, it is very very hard to even be certain that what we have critically identified as Pauline is really Paul. We have legend upon legend and polemics and apologetics. We have little to nothing that we can put a fork in and call history. This likley why Fundementalist leadership avoids critical investigation at all, it's a can of worms best left sealed, it is intellectually easier to just assert that the whole thing is inspired accurate and disregard the problems.

I'm writing this to stimulate research so don't ask for a complete documantation to support it. Much of this has been discussed on this forum elsewhwere.

Kenneson

Pete,

So, who are the twelve Paul speaks of at 1 Cor. 15:5?

Midget-Sasquatch

Hi PP,

Thanks for the reminder of how little we can verify and separate out from legend. Admit it though, you enjoy teasing out the revisions and deflating the legends.

At least we all agree, that there genuinely was a disagreement () between camps on key matters of practice and doctrine. I only wanted to establish that, to show how making variations on the eucharist was very likely for the paulinne camp, if not created whole-cloth by it.

Kenneson,
That may be genuinely part of the original letter or maybe its been added in. It wouldn't be the only one in the paulinne literature.

peacefulpete

Robert Price, "Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11"

Early Christian Worship

Share this