1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Secret Alias »

Let's say the following about early Christianity. Despite what the forged and falsified documents of the 'Great Church' say we should imagine that:
1. from its beginnings to the time of Justin the Christian community struggled with Judaism (and other Israelite religions) over which was the 'true faith' of Israel
2. that after Justin until the end of the second century texts were being forged and falsified to assist in a new identity for the community - as an appeal to Gentile converts to a new religion which was somehow unrelated or less related to tradition Israelite religions
Marcionism was a left over from (1). Our canon was a left over from (2). To that end the religion that was based on the ur-gospel which survives in various references to Marcionism and the Diatessaron - viz. a heavenly being 'Jesus' or 'man' (cf. Justin 1 Apology 32) descended to Jerusalem or Judea to announce 'good tidings' to the Jewish population viz. the destruction of the demon-filled idolatrous temple of Jerusalem - and all the literature associated with it (i.e. the epistles of Paul) became modified in (2) as if Jesus came to announce the transfer of the 'promise' (Gen 26) from Isaac and his seed to the Gentiles by means of the 'Holy Spirit' at baptism. The literature was falsified accordingly to reflect this understanding and various doctrinal issues that emerged as a result of this transformation (i.e. Gentile converts relationship with their fellow Gentiles). Issues that did not exist in period (1).

And people will ask - how do we know this falsification occurred? There are many ways we can see it. But I would argue that food preparation is one of the strongest arguments. If Christianity was based on contemporary Judaism we have to go beyond modern Judaism back to the eating practices of the last generations of the Second Commonwealth period and acknowledge that contemporary Samaritan practices are undoubtedly reflective of ancient habits. To that end, there was no such thing as 'secular meat.' All meat was consecrated in effect. The slaughter of any animal was accompanied by a portion of that animal being offered to the priesthood and thus God - the god of the temple religion which governed that community. To that end, Paul lived and wrote in a time where meat consumption necessarily was ONLY connected with the temple religion. Paul, as Clement confirms, was really interested in vegetarianism. This was the preferred way. He's saying for those who can't stop eating meat - meat that is taken for granted to be consecrated - the fact that it was consecrated to idols (= the demons of the temple religion established by Solomon) is of no consequence because presumably the partaker in the agape meal is going to ascend past the seven watchers of the Jewish religion to the highest heaven. These beings have no power over the individual Christian so neither should the meat.

The reason why these passages had to be changed of course is that there is a laissez faire attitude toward 'believers.' Paul, according to Clement, knows that only those who are vegetarians (i.e. who abstain from meat) are going to be 'spiritual' rather than sarkic and only they are going to be saved. This sounds remarkably similar to the rewrite in chapter 5 where Paul allows incest to continue:
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you - A man is sleeping with his father’s wife ... when you are assembled ... hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh
The libertinism is plain. Anything goes in this community. No judgement. The fleshly believers will not be saved at the end of time. But judgement is from another god, not the Father of the Christian community. So if people want to eat meat or indulge in the flesh sexually, let them do it. No salvation will come to them but there are no 'thou shalts' in the original libertine Christian community.

And there is this consistent laissez faire attitude in the ur-Corinthians letter:

chapter 5: incest should go unpunished (not our job to punish perverts)
chapter 7: better not to be married but if they can't stop fucking better to be married than to burn
chapter 8 - 10: need to be a vegetarian to go to heaven but if they can't stop eating meat so be it

To that end it is tempting to see the ur-Corinthians as an important letter which defined Christianity as essentially libertine and may help explain Clement's conflict with the so-called Carpocratians (in QDS and elsewhere). Christianity was this hippy shared-love community up until the reforms of the late second century. It was a positive religion (i.e. to be saved you need to be a celibate, vegetarian monk) but it's okay to just hang around the saints and give money to sustain their supernatural escape from the world (a la Manichaeanism). It is tempting to suppose that only the priests of the new Israel were celibate, vegetarian and consecrated. The laissez-faire attitude meant that they would likely have accepted Charles Manson's money which explains some of the 'upsetness' of Celsus.
davidmartin
Posts: 1585
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by davidmartin »

If animal sacrifice was Paul’s concern, why does he never bring it up, e.g., among all his ravings about ‘works of the law’?

One of Paul’s many personae has him constantly policing community boundaries and withdrawal from pagan society, e.g. 1 Cor 5 and 2 Cor 6. So I don’t think it’s unlikely that he was concerned about his followers’ participation in pagan feasts
Indeed. He doesn't really care about animal sacrifice per se. The number 1, 2 and 3 concern for the apostle is his personal authority over his community
This is completely understandable without having to actually feel sympathy for him
He is continually trying to assert his authority against other influencers
His sole reason to mention the pagan feasts I maintain is it has nothing to do with the feasts themselves, but that at the pagan temples they would meet teachers and priests who were going to be saying different stuff to him. He doesn't want that so he invokes the specter of demons over the whole pagan religion but the meat itself, he doesn't care about because it's hard to find meat in those days that wasn't sacrificed to a god
The effect of his letter may leave ambiguity over the eating of the meat but it leaves none over hobnobbing with pagans at their temples. Perhaps this 'cultic' aspect was normal back then. Maybe if you attended Zeus's temple they told you to stay away from Isis's because it was competition. This dude is single handedly creating Pauline Christianity, that is a mighty task. I don't get how we imagine little points of doctrine were his main concern
lsayre
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by lsayre »

It seems rather obvious that the Christianity which 'Paul' initiated has essentially zero requirement for a foundation of Judaism. Why then is there seemingly a concerted effort by the majority whereby to twist Christianity such that it appears as if to be an evolution out of Judaism? Is there any archaeological level early CE history that can be dug up within the confines of Judea that definitively confirms such an evolution?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Ken Olson »

lsayre wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:50 am It seems rather obvious that the Christianity which 'Paul' initiated has essentially zero requirement for a foundation of Judaism. Why then is there seemingly a concerted effort by the majority whereby to twist Christianity such that it appears as if to be an evolution out of Judaism?
Aside from the claims made in the early Chrisitan writings themselves, the extensive use, or even basic presumption, of the Scriptures of Israel in the earliest Christian writings would appear to support the theory of a Jewish origin. An attempt to explain all the scriptural references in the early Christian writings in a credible manner as having been added as a later additions to some other foundation would be a massive undertaking.
Last edited by Ken Olson on Sat Dec 04, 2021 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Secret Alias »

When considering what cultural development is possible from Judaism fact is stranger than fiction. Read the entire article. Should be made into a Netflix series:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi

Netflix season 2:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankism

Hasn't anyone wondered how a religion founded on lying and dishonest Patriarchs could end up being so DULL AND DRAB. A culture that gave us the Marx Brothers and virtually every type of entertainment is so fucking boring when it comes to religion. Real Christianity was Hollywood Judaism.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Secret Alias »

The ancient Israelites descended from a tradition which understood that a great man 'Moses' forced God to save the Israelite people. The Pentateuch has an image of an anthropomorphic God who stands as a mirror of Moses. When the Israelites see Moses coming down off the mountain they see God reflecting on his face/person. It is this context which allows for the possibility of 'Jesus' - a God-man to come down at the times described in the apocalyptic sections of Deuteronomy (or so interpreted). Not Moses but the heavenly Man who reflected some of his divinity upon the mortal body of the apostle of Israel. Paul then becomes the latter day Moses - the apostle - who establishes the new covenant of Israel.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Ken Olson »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:37 am Ken,

Just to focus on your interpretation of these texts,
Ken Olson wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 3:27 pm There is an extremely plausible historical context in which this problem can be understood. Paul's converts are recent. They are Corinthians, and in all probability participated in the temple feasts in Corinth before Paul came and persuaded them to accept Christianity. For the poorer members of the church, the temple feasts (i.e, eating the sacrificial animals provided by rich donors) may well have been their main source of meat. They were also one of the major social occasions in the city, where the people of the city came together as a group. Paul had told the Corinthian converts that they did not have to withdraw from the larger society in which they lived and obey the Mosaic laws, dietary or otherwise.
I don’t know what text of Paul you are referring to. 2 Cor 6:14-18 says the exact opposite.
He told them food is just food and that idols are just material objects, not gods. Some of them clearly interpreted this to mean that they did not have to stop attending feats, because the food that is served there is just food and the idols are just inanimate objects. They inferred that attending the feasts could do them no harm.
You seem to be saying that in 1 Cor 8, Paul is giving the instruction that it’s OK to eat the meat, but that he leaves it open whether they should attend the feasts inside pagan temples. In fact, he gives the specific example of being seen by a weak brother to be eating at a feast, and that’s what he takes issue with.
This is actually a rational interpretation of what Paul had said about food and idols, but Paul had clearly not foreseen that his Christian converts would interpret what he said this way (some did not, which is why they wrote to him about it) and continue to take part in pagan feasts, which he considers to be worship, and he objects that those who participate in the feasts will harm both other members of the church (in chapter 8) and themselves (chapter 10).
But this is not the teaching of 10:1-22. Paul says nothing specifically about taking part in feasts as such. The teaching, rather, is that those who eat the meat thereby are sacrificing to demons. Eating the meat is tantamount to the idolatry he tells them to flee.
Irish1975,

I'm thinking of writing a longer post that will hopefully make what I was saying clearer. It's not clear to me whether you understood what I was addressing in the what you quoted from me or not, but I'm leaning toward not. But briefly, I was *not* referring to what Paul is arguing in 1 Cor. 8 in the parts of my post that you quote.

I was talking about what Paul taught the Corinthians when he was in Corinth and converted them to Christianity. He told them to stop worshipping their gods, which do not exist and their idols are merely material objects. He told them there was one God, the God of Israel, worshipped by the Jews. There's a book about him, the LXX, which Paul talked about, and they may have a copy, which describes the rules he commanded the people of Israel to follow. However, God has now sent his son to die for their sins, so they do not need to become Jews and follow the Mosaic law and separate themselves from the other Corinthians in the way the Jews do. In particular, they do not need to get circumcised and do not have to follow the Jewish dietary laws - meat is just meat, God made it, you can eat it. They can be incorporated into the people of God as Gentiles. without becoming Jews, through baptism into Jesus Christ.

In effect he told them they did not have to follow the traditional rules allegedly given them by their gods, which don't really exist. They also don't have to follow the laws of Moses. Then he left Corinth. What rules, exactly, do they need to follow? He left his Christian converts in a state of anomie - everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Things did not go well. A large number of differences of opinion divided the Corinthian church. Some of them wrote a letter to Paul explaining the problems that had come up and asking Paul to address them (1 Cor. 7.1). The First Epistle to the Corinthians is his response. Paul is horrified by the idea that a man is skoodilypooping with his step-mother (1 Cor. 5.1) and that some people are (apparently) attending pagan feasts and eating sacrificial animals in temples (1 Cor. 8.10).

In the paragraph:
This is actually a rational interpretation of what Paul had said about food and idols, but Paul had clearly not foreseen that his Christian converts would interpret what he said this way (some did not, which is why they wrote to him about it) and continue to take part in pagan feasts, which he considers to be worship, and he objects that those who participate in the feasts will harm both other members of the church (in chapter 8) and themselves (chapter 10).
I was saying that when Paul was in Corinth, he had taught that idols do not exist and meat was just meat, and all made by God, you don't have to follow the dietary laws in the Scriptures (as the Jews do). Some apparently interpreted this to mean they could attend the pagan feasts in the temples and eat the meat there. It had not occurred to Paul that they would take it that way - when he said they did not have to follow the Mosaic law, he didn't mean they could do things that were obviously wrong. The thing is, if you're not going by what the Bible says, skoodilypooping with your stepmother and eating meat sacrificed to idols in temples are not *obviously* wrong, though they are obviously wrong to Paul.

Paul's task in 1 Corinthians is to settle the series of issues that the Corinthians wrote him about, and he tries to do it while contradicting what he taught earlier as little as possible. But, yes, he thinks eating meat sacrificed to idols in pagan temples is wrong, though he uses two different arguments to get there in chapters 8 and 10.

You are correct that I haven't addressed 1 Cor. 10.23-33 yet, and particularly the problematic verses 10.29-30, but that will have to wait for another post.

But globally, I don't think there are any contradictions in there that can't be resolved when we consider that Paul is not a systematic theologian, but addressing immediate problems and not always writing terribly clearly (just about everyone writes unclearly at least some of the time and tensions among different parts of texts written by a single author are not at all uncommon). I think the tensions concerning what Paul says about idol meat can be resolved fairly easily without resorting to the kind of mental gymnastics required to claim that the Matthean and Lukan infancy narratives or the four canonical Passion Narratives are perfectly consistent.

Best,

Ken
Last edited by Ken Olson on Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:43 am, edited 4 times in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Secret Alias »

All of this might be true if we didn't have alternative traditions about Paul. Forget Marcion for a moment. Clement of Alexandria makes clear that Paul's interest was vegetarianism and there is circumstantial support for the idea that early Christians - especially their priestly class - didn't eat meat or drink wine. But given the fact that Clement is one of our earliest exegeses of this 'idolatry' material - and again leaving aside the 'Jewish idolatry' argument outlined above - how does vegetarianism fit into the mix if - as Ken and everyone else who accepts the late second century recension of these text?

If Paul's audience is Gentile converts to Christianity (as the Catholic texts have it) he is citing:

1. the experience of Moses as the leader of a group of Israelite slaves and their relationship with Yahweh as described in the Torah

to

2. justify Paul's own preference for vegetarianism but his tacit acceptance of meat eating - even meet sacrificed to idols (eat whatever is sold in the slaughterhouses)

It's just a bridge too far. Tertullian says in Against Marcion 3 that Marcionites appealed their message to Jewish proselytes. As such they must have understood Paul to be appealing to those who already in some nominal way 'Jews.' I think it makes better sense to imagine that the 'eating and drinking' with God after the theophany (where Israel saw God) was vegetarian.
Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank.
Paul was originally saying that the animal sacrifices that were introduced by Moses subsequent to this vegetarian theophany were somehow a falling away from God one of many including the Golden Calf incident. The vegetarian experience (meat can be eaten but you shouldn't) as noted before comes within the context of many libertine doctrines - better not to get married but some people can't control themselves, incest bad but what are you going to do etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by Secret Alias »

In order to make the Corinthians context work you have to forget that for Clement the material is about vegetarianism. It wasn't a rabid vegetarianism that condemn meat eating (= 'meat is murder'). But a kind of elitist vegetarianism (= do you want to go to heaven, don't eat meat, but if you eat meat give us money). Hard to see how this would fit within a cultural context of Gentiles who had no knowledge of the subtleties of the Torah. How would ignorant Gentiles have been able to figure out with any assistance that the original theophany with God for Israel and the basis for the agape eucharist was a meatless meal? Even the modern 'experts' aren't sophisticated enough with their understanding of the Pentateuch. How do you expect 3rd century and illiterate Christians to have teased this out of the material?

So that there was a vegetarian reading of Paul beyond Clement is confirmed by Tertullian:
The apostle reprobates likewise such as "bid to abstain from meats; but he does so from the foresight of the Holy Spirit, precondemning already the heretics who would enjoin perpetual abstinence to the extent of destroying and despising the works of the Creator; such as I may find in the person of a Marcion, a Tatian, or a Jupiter, the Pythagorean heretic of to-day; not in the person of the Paraclete.
And the Philosophumena:
You ( Marcion) forbid marriage , the procreation of children , ( and ) [ you advise ) the abstaining from meats which God has created for participation by the faithful, and those that know the truth ... you instruct your own disciples to refuse meats, in order not to eat any body (that might be) a remnant of a soul which has been punished by the Demiurge.
'The truth' here is 1 Tim 4:3:
They forbid marriage and demand abstinence from foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, provided it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer.
So as old as the old Catholic Pauline tradition (because there is no Church Father who doesn't use a Pauline collection which DOESN'T have 1 Timothy there is the acknowledgement of a previous 'vegetarian Paulinism' viz. Marcionism. As such it would stand to reason that the original Pauline understanding looked to Exodus 24 to see the agape as being modelled on the elite of Israel 'seeing' and 'eating and drinking' a meatless meal with God.

So when Clementine Homily 12 has Peter announce:

"The unnatural eating of flesh meats is as polluting as the heathen worship of devils, with its sacrifices and its impure feasts, through participation in it a man becomes a fellow eater with devils".

Ken and others will say 'there is proof that Christians were engaged in pagan idolatry. But the Clementine Literature is pseudepigraphon dated to the turn of the 3rd century. 1 Timothy by contrast testifies from a much earlier period that there was a specifically Pauline vegetarianism before 150 CE. Was this Pauline vegetarianism arguing against Christians eating meat only in a specifically PAGAN setting? No. Clearly it seems to be connected with Marcionite anti-Jewish themes. God gave meat for thanksgiving. In other words, meat as part of the sacrificial service.

What this also shows us is that the Marcionite recension of 1 Corinthians WENT BEYOND the references in the Church Fathers. There was a text floating around in antiquity which made the vegetarianism Paul was advocating EXPLICIT. It wasn't just 'an interpretation' it was a natural interpretation of a variant reading of 1 Corinthians and other text perhaps including the gospel. Notice also the 'Israel according to the flesh' in the material.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: 1 Cor 10:20, “they sacrifice to demons”

Post by DCHindley »

rgprice wrote: Wed Dec 01, 2021 8:15 am I agree that as the text stands its looks like a jumbled mess, and its possible that at some point this was accusing the Jews of sacrificing to devils.
I think it can be detangled, but not without a lot of effort.

Here is how I looked at the issue back in 2011:

BGT: Προς Κορινθίους Α΄ (NA 27 for NT & Rahlfs for OT quotations & allusions)
RSV: 1 Corthihians (with some changes required by my analysis)
BGT: Lxx & OG quotes & allusions per Rahlfs' edition) Verse numbering from Rahlfs.
LXA: Quotes & allusions from Brenton's ET (unless otherwise noted) LXA verse numbers = RSV.
10:1 Οὐ θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν πάντες ὑπὸ τὴν νεφέλην ἦσαν καὶ πάντες διὰ τῆς θαλάσσης διῆλθον 10:1 I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
2 καὶ πάντες εἰς τὸν Μωϋσῆν *ἐβαπτίσθησαν* ἐν τῇ νεφέλῃ καὶ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ 2 and all *were baptized* into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
3 καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν βρῶμα ἔφαγον 3 and all ate the same supernatural food
4a καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον πόμα· 4a and all drank the same supernatural drink.
4b ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός. (cf. MT Deu 32:4) 4b For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. (cf. MT Deu 32:4) An allusion to MT Deu 32:4 "The Rock, [ צוּר ] his work is perfect; for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is he." In the Lxx of Deu 32:4, 15, 18, 30 & 37, the Hebrew word for "Rock" is consistently translated as "God."
5 Ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν αὐτῶν εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεός, κατεστρώθησαν γὰρ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. 5 Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6 Ταῦτα δὲ τύποι ἡμῶν ἐγενήθησαν, εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι ἡμᾶς ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν, καθὼς κἀκεῖνοι ἐπεθύμησαν. 6 Now these things are warnings for us, not to desire evil as they did.
7 μηδὲ εἰδωλολάτραι γίνεσθε καθώς τινες αὐτῶν, ὥσπερ γέγραπται· ἐκάθισεν ὁ λαὸς φαγεῖν καὶ πεῖν καὶ ἀνέστησαν παίζειν. (Lxx Exo 32:6) 7 Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to dance." (Exo 32:6) 10:7 (BGT Exo 32:6) ἐκάθισεν ὁ λαὸς φαγεῖν καὶ πιεῖν καὶ ἀνέστησαν παίζειν 10:7 (LXA Exo 32:6) the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8 μηδὲ πορνεύωμεν, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν ἐπόρνευσαν καὶ ἔπεσαν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ εἴκοσι τρεῖς χιλιάδες. 8 We must not indulge in immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day.
9 μηδὲ ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν *Χριστόν*, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν ἐπείρασαν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων ἀπώλλυντο. 9 We must not put the *Christ* to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents;
10 μηδὲ *γογγύζετε*, καθάπερ τινὲς αὐτῶν ἐγόγγυσαν καὶ ἀπώλοντο ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀλοθρευτοῦ. 10 nor *grumble*, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer.
11 *ταῦτα δὲ* τυπικῶς συνέβαινεν ἐκείνοις, ἐγράφη δὲ πρὸς νουθεσίαν ἡμῶν, εἰς οὓς τὰ τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατήντηκεν. 11 *Now these* things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come.
12 Ὥστε ὁ δοκῶν ἑστάναι βλεπέτω μὴ πέσῃ. 12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
13 πειρασμὸς ὑμᾶς οὐκ εἴληφεν εἰ μὴ ἀνθρώπινος· πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός, ὃς οὐκ ἐάσει ὑμᾶς πειρασθῆναι ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε ἀλλὰ ποιήσει σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ καὶ τὴν ἔκβασιν τοῦ δύνασθαι ὑπενεγκεῖν. 13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
14 Διόπερ, ἀγαπητοί μου, φεύγετε ἀπὸ τῆς εἰδωλολατρίας. 14 Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols.
15 ὡς φρονίμοις λέγω· κρίνατε ὑμεῖς ὅ φημι. 15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say.
16 Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας ὃ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία ἐστὶν τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ; τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν; 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17 ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος, ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν, οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν. 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
18 βλέπετε τὸν Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα· οὐχ οἱ ἐσθίοντες τὰς θυσίας κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου εἰσίν; 18 Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?
19 Τί οὖν φημι; ὅτι εἰδωλόθυτόν τί ἐστιν ἢ ὅτι εἴδωλόν τί ἐστιν; 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?
20a ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι *ἃ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ [θύουσιν]* (Lxx Deu 32:17)· 20a But instead, *what things they [that is, Israelites = Judeans] sacrifice, [they offer] to demons and not to God* (Lxx Deu 32:17). (BGT Deu 32:17) ἔθυσαν δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ ... (LXA Deu 32:17) They [i.e., the Israelites] sacrificed to devils, and not to God; ...
20b οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων γίνεσθαι. 20b I do not want you to become partners with demons. Κοινωνοὺς here links to κοινωνοὶ in vs. 18, "are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?" However, the commentator turns it into an adversarial sense.
21 οὐ δύνασθε ποτήριον κυρίου πίνειν καὶ ποτήριον δαιμονίων, οὐ δύνασθε τραπέζης κυρίου μετέχειν καὶ τραπέζης δαιμονίων. (Paraphrase of Lxx Deu 32:37-38) 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. (Paraphrase of Lxx Deu 32:37-38) 10:21) (BGT Deu 32:37-38) 37 καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ποῦ εἰσιν οἱ θεοὶ αὐτῶν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐπεποίθεισαν ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς 38 ὧν τὸ στέαρ τῶν θυσιῶν αὐτῶν ἠσθίετε καὶ ἐπίνετε τὸν οἶνον τῶν σπονδῶν αὐτῶν ... 10:21) (LXA Deu 32:37-38) 37 and the Lord said, Where are their [the disobedient Israelites] gods on whom they trusted? 38 [false gods] who ate the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offering? ...
22 ἢ παραζηλοῦμεν τὸν κύριον; μὴ ἰσχυρότεροι αὐτοῦ ἐσμεν; (Lxx Deu 32:21) 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? (Lxx Deu 32:21) (BGT Deu 32:21) αὐτοὶ παρεζήλωσάν με ἐπ᾽ οὐ θεῷ παρώργισάν με ἐν τοῖς εἰδώλοις αὐτῶν κἀγὼ παραζηλώσω αὐτοὺς ... (LXA Deu 32:21) They have provoked me to jealousy with (that which is) not God, they have exasperated me with their idols; ... [this last word, unstated in the commentary, links it to idols in 10:19]
Vss. 10:4b, 8-11, 16-17, & 20-22 are, in effect, a "counter commentary" to a commentary on the Exodus story of the rebellion of Korah and its implications, in 10:1-4a, 5-7, 12-15, 18-19, followed by a paraphrase of Deu 32:37-38 at vs. 21. This passage in Deuteronomy is the testament of Moses against the disobedient Israelites just before his death . The counter commentary expands to cover the entire section of Deu 32:16-22. The implication is that the Israelites (the Judeans) deserve some state of destitution that they were experiencing. Note Deu 32: 21 "I will provoke them with a foolish nation." I thus date this comment to a period after the Judean rebellion of 66-73 CE, when early Christians began to position themselves as the true Israelites.

The Bolded parts are what I think were materials that were added to letters that originally had nothing to do with Jesus Christ. What was added certainly did deal with Jesus Christ. However, the interests of the Jesus-Christ editors and of Paul couldn't have been more different. They are often like oil & water.

*Since I consider that particular verse (1 Cor 10:20) as part of the interpolated Paul's "original" letter, yes, the interpolator is saying that back when Korah had rebelled, the Israelites had sacrificed to demons.* That was also what the original Paul was saying.

What does Paul or the interpolator mean by "Demons?" The word just means a divine-like being that exists solely to get specific tasks done, the soldiers and subordinates of the World Soul just doing their job. People at that time had little idea about cause & effect and did not understand physics to the point where they could explain how things "happen."

Plato, probably borrowing from others before him, took over that word view - that the world operates because of the unified efforts of beings that just made things happen and they are getting their orders from God but handed down a chain of command. When Paul or the interpolator calls the gods who the gentiles worship "demons" he is just saying that they are mere worker bees, functionaries, and not self-existent Gods like the Judean God.

DCH

Edit: Just realized I had stated the exact opposite if what I should have. Hmmmm.
Post Reply