The Text of Acts on Ephesus: Evidence for A Mythical Jesus

[robert j]

Hi Jay,

I've been devoting my spare time to another activity, but when I see such inaccuracies about Paul's authentic letters it's hard not to respond.

PhilospoherJay wrote, regarding 1 Corinthians 11:23 ---

I believe the key word is [Greek: paradidomi] It is translated as he was betrayed, but I believe it should be translated as "I was delivered."

I do agree that delivered over, not betrayed, is the correct translation.

Then PhilospoherJay wrote, translating 1 Corinthians 11:23 ---

For I delivered from the Lord what I also delivered to you, on the night when I was delivered that the Lord Jesus took bread...

And PhilospherJay interpreted this passage as follows ---

The night Paul was delivered probably refers to something in Corinthians 2 …

….What Paul is saying is that anytime you eat or drink, at any meal whatsoever, remember that I am spirit and my body is the bread and water you eat. It is like my body and my blood.

By changing the words, it's easy to support just about any kind of claim. Where did you get your translation of 1 Corinthians 11:23? I'm not aware of any manuscript variants that would support such a translation.

The extant Greek for 1 Corinthians 11:23 is translated as follows, with the form of the verb as to person enclosed in [brackets] as my addition ---

For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered [first person] to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which
he was delivered [third person] took bread …

The extant words are clear, it was Jesus --- not Paul --- who was delivered over and who took bread.

This doesn't necessarily mean a betrayal and arrest of Jesus in Jerusalem as told by Mark --- I believe that was Mark's invention. In the process of bringing Paul's Christ down to earth using scriptural midrash and a skeleton provided by Paul to construct his tale, Mark incorporated Paul's passage into his earthly story --- shifting things around a bit as he sometimes did with scriptural material.

I think Paul was just trying to impose some order into the raucous meetings of the exuberant Corinthians. I believe that this event of Paul's Christ, like the rest of those in Paul's letters, was imagined to have taken place in the heavenly realms or --- if on earth --- sometime in the primordial past.

robert j.

[robert j]

And in 1 Corinthians 11:23, when Paul wrote, "I received from the Lord" --- that, in my opinion, is Paul-speak for "I made it up".

robert j.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Robert,

I am basing my change on logic.

First, this is the only time we get any awareness on the part of Paul that he knows any scene that takes place in the gospels. My small change allows the writer's total ignorance of the gospels to remain intact. This anomaly gets eliminated with my suggested change. My change allows us to accept what the other 99% of the Pauline writings demonstrate.
These are our choices to explain the situation: 1) the writers of the Pauline letters knew no scenes in the gospels, 2) they only knew one of the several hundred scenes in the Gospel or 3) they only chose to write about one scene in the Gospels, although they knew more. To me, the first explanation best explains why we only have this one scene which seems to point towards knowledge of the gospels, whereas everything else in the letters points away from it.

It makes no sense for Jesus to be quoting to Paul something he already told the disciples. Imagine a preacher saying that he had a special revelation from Jesus, and he is going to deliver it to us, just as Jesus delivered it to him. He buys time on television to broadcast it. He announces, I saw Jesus and he told me, "Remember what I said in Mark 21: Love thy neighbor." Obviously this would be the most banal revelation ever.
Paul is making a big deal that he is delivering this important message exactly as Jesus told him. If Jesus already said this to the other apostles, what is the big deal that he has to tell it to Paul. Paul could have learned it from any of the apostles. Any of the Corinthians could have learned it from any of the countless teachers that Paul says they had. He could have just said that all the apostles were told by Jesus the bread and wine are his body and blood on the night he was betrayed. In other words, Paul is given us a fanfare announcing something special (a revelation from Christ that must be delivered exactly) and then giving us nothing special.

That is, it is nothing special if Jesus has already told his disciples plus Mary plus the waiters and whoever else was hanging about at the last supper about it. It is special, if it is a direct revelation just to Paul and none of the other apostles had ever heard of it.

Secondly Paul's whole point is that Jesus is spirit and the things we eat are material things. Therefore Christians should not eat when they get together because they should take care of material things at home.
Once we put it in the context of Paul's argument, it makes no sense that he should be confusing the Corinthians by saying that Christians ate together at a meal with Jesus. This would be giving the exact opposite argument that Paul wants to give.

If a small change will correct a major problem, we should certainly point this out and assume it was this way originally. For example, if my history book says that that President Obama was elected president in the 1908 elections, one can presume that a change or error has occurred and the author originally wrote or meant to write 2008.

In this case if the phrase "he was betrayed" or "he was delivered" is the original phrase, the paragraph is banal and doesn't match the writer's point nor style. On the other hand, if the original phrase was "I was delivered" (meaning delivered to Jesus), it matches perfectly the author's-overall point, and matches the writer's witty, egotistical style.

For these and others reasons, I think the change I suggest was original to the author and the text we now have reflects a change from the original author's intentions.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay,

I've been devoting my spare time to another activity, but when I see such inaccuracies about Paul's authentic letters it's hard not to respond.

PhilospoherJay wrote, regarding 1 Corinthians 11:23 ---

I believe the key word is [Greek: paradidomi] It is translated as he was betrayed, but I believe it should be translated as "I was delivered."

I do agree that delivered over, not betrayed, is the correct translation.

Then PhilospoherJay wrote, translating 1 Corinthians 11:23 ---

For I delivered from the Lord what I also delivered to you, on the night when I was delivered that the Lord Jesus took bread...

And PhilospherJay interpreted this passage as follows ---

The night Paul was delivered probably refers to something in Corinthians 2 …

….What Paul is saying is that anytime you eat or drink, at any meal whatsoever, remember that I am spirit and my body is the bread and water you eat. It is like my body and my blood.

By changing the words, it's easy to support just about any kind of claim. Where did you get your translation of 1 Corinthians 11:23? I'm not aware of any manuscript variants that would support such a translation.

The extant Greek for 1 Corinthians 11:23 is translated as follows, with the form of the verb as to person enclosed in [brackets] as my addition ---

For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered [first person] to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which
he was delivered [third person] took bread …

The extant words are clear, it was Jesus --- not Paul --- who was delivered over and who took bread.

This doesn't necessarily mean a betrayal and arrest of Jesus in Jerusalem as told by Mark --- I believe that was Mark's invention. In the process of bringing Paul's Christ down to earth using scriptural midrash and a skeleton provided by Paul to construct his tale, Mark incorporated Paul's passage into his earthly story --- shifting things around a bit as he sometimes did with scriptural material.

I think Paul was just trying to impose some order into the raucous meetings of the exuberant Corinthians. I believe that this event of Paul's Christ, like the rest of those in Paul's letters, was imagined to have taken place in the heavenly realms or --- if on earth --- sometime in the primordial past.

robert j.

[robert j]

Hi Jay,

PhilosopherJay wrote, in reference to 1 Corinthians 11:23 ---

If a small change will correct a major problem, we should certainly point this out and assume it was this way originally

.

Rather than change the extant words to account for what one sees as difficult passages, I believe a better approach is to dig deeper to better understand those passages. And I certainly wouldn't call your suggestion a "small change." Sure, you're just changing a word or two, but the implications are large indeed.

And what "major problem" are you referring to? This one?

PhilosopherJay wrote ---

Secondly Paul's whole point is that Jesus is spirit and the things we eat are material things. Therefore Christians should not eat when they get together because they should take care of material things at home.
Once we put it in the context of Paul's argument, it makes no sense that he should be confusing the Corinthians by saying that Christians ate together at a meal with Jesus. This would be giving the exact opposite argument that Paul wants to give.

If a small change will correct a major problem, we should certainly point this out and assume it was this way originally.

Paul doesn't say that Christians (more accurately his Corinthian congregation) "should not eat when they get together because they should take care of material things at home", as you claim.

Rather, Paul was addressing a problem ----

1 Corinthians 11:20-22 ----
"Now, when coming together in one place, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating one takes his own supper first, and one is hungry, and another is drunk. Do you not have houses in which to eat and to drink? or do you despise the church of God and put to shame those having nothing? What should I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not."

Paul was trying to impose some order when his congregation took his ritual bread and cup. When concluding this discussion, Paul wrote ---

1 Corinthians 11:33-34 ---
"So then, my brothers, when coming together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, that you might not come together for judgment."

robert j.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Robert j.,

Thanks for pointing out the last line in the argument. 11:33:

The Greek is ὥστε ἀδελφοί μου συνερχόμενοι εἰς τὸ φαγεῖν ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε.

Greek did not have punctuation marks. We have to use the context to understand where the punctuation should be.

When we notice that Paul is criticizing eating at meals, we can punctuate the sentence this way:

When my brothers, you come together, to eat, wait for one another.

The sense is that when you come together, wait until everybody has eaten before coming together.

This works with Paul's statement, "22What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?"
Paul is telling the people to eat at home, not during meetings.

If Paul was talking about a shared meal, he would have told the people eating to share their meals with those who cannot afford them. He does no such thing.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay,

PhilosopherJay wrote, in reference to 1 Corinthians 11:23 ---

If a small change will correct a major problem, we should certainly point this out and assume it was this way originally

.

Rather than change the extant words to account for what one sees as difficult passages, I believe a better approach is to dig deeper to better understand those passages. And I certainly wouldn't call your suggestion a "small change." Sure, you're just changing a word or two, but the implications are large indeed.

And what "major problem" are you referring to? This one?

PhilosopherJay wrote ---

Secondly Paul's whole point is that Jesus is spirit and the things we eat are material things. Therefore Christians should not eat when they get together because they should take care of material things at home.
Once we put it in the context of Paul's argument, it makes no sense that he should be confusing the Corinthians by saying that Christians ate together at a meal with Jesus. This would be giving the exact opposite argument that Paul wants to give.

If a small change will correct a major problem, we should certainly point this out and assume it was this way originally.

Paul doesn't say that Christians (more accurately his Corinthian congregation) "should not eat when they get together because they should take care of material things at home", as you claim.

Rather, Paul was addressing a problem ----

1 Corinthians 11:20-22 ----
"Now, when coming together in one place, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating one takes his own supper first, and one is hungry, and another is drunk. Do you not have houses in which to eat and to drink? or do you despise the church of God and put to shame those having nothing? What should I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not."

Paul was trying to impose some order when his congregation took his ritual bread and cup. When concluding this discussion, Paul wrote ---

1 Corinthians 11:33-34 ---
"So then, my brothers, when coming together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, that you might not come together for judgment."

robert j.

[bcedaifu]

I'm not sure what it means that the codex Sinaiticus doesn't have Mark using new.

"New", isn't the only thing missing in Mark's version found in Codex Sinaiticus.

"Son of God" is also missing, in Mark 1:1. yes, the four letters are scribbled in, in tiny "furigana", AFTER THE FACT.

So, I acknowledge that your suggestion of a scribal error, in failing to copy what was sitting right in front of his nose, is a possibility. I don't view it as likely, in my opinion, the other gospel writers "enhanced" Mark, by adding "son of God", and "new". I simply deny the likelihood of scribal error--I think those fellows were far too talented, to have overlooked two such important additions to the text. I simply follow the path of least resistance: The original version of Mark did not contain, either expression.

For me, in my simple minded view of the world, the absence of "new", suggests that Paul followed Mark, not vice versa. For Mark's version, Jesus did not demand a "new" pledge, because these were all Jews at the last supper. What need have they, of a "new" anything? Paul, on other hand, sought to expand this nascent church, improve the marketing, and procure "new" sources of capital. That translates, in my opinion, to a requirement to attract fresh blood, and that in turn, required revising the orthodox doctrine, to accommodate wealthy non-Jews.

I think additional analysis of the last supper passage is possible: Is the Greek from Mark's version consistent with someone copying Paul's version? An expert grammarian, would be able to offer some opinion. I cannot. I remain unconvinced that the earliest version of Mark did contain "new" covenant. Scribes may not have been automatons, but neither were they careless. "New" represents a deliberate change, as does "son of God".