Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote:Paul would have been a lot more effective here if he had narrated his Last Supper (or at least invoked it). But he did not.

Unless they already knew about the Last Supper, as 11.23 expressly implies. In that case a simple reminder would suffice.

Of course, then we must ask why he did narrate the Last Supper in chapter 11, and the answer to that may well lie in the "after supper" line, as Crossan details.

to Ben,

Ben: Does it have to go with what follows? Can it not go with what precedes it? (The examples from Jewish scripture against idolatry.)

Bernard: 1 Cor 10:15 fits much better with what follows because next Paul invited his followers to ponder his two questions.
Furthermore, Paul concluded his section about the worship of idols at 10:13. I do not think Paul would be inviting his Christians to judge what he already said in very authoritative manner in 1-13.

I found a similar phrase syntax for 10:15-16 in 1 Cor 11:13:
"Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?"
Request to judge for yourselves => question(s) (to be answered by yes or no).
So what follows 10:15 (10:16) is new for the Corinthians and presented as being only Paul's thinking.

How many separate meals do you think Paul alludes to in 1 Corinthians?

The meals alluded in 1 Corinthians 10:16 are normal day to day meals of individuals or families. The other meals are the Last Supper of Christ and the Lord's supper of Christian assemblies.

Unless they already knew about the Last Supper, as 11.23 expressly implies. In that case a simple reminder would suffice.

There is no reminder in 10:16. We are dealing with Paul's thinking here, not the Last Supper.
11:23 may implies, but the Aorist indicative in "delivered" is not a strong indication the Last Supper story was "delivered" in the past (but the Perfect tense is) as I quoted earlier: "The aorist usually implies a past event in the indicative, but it does not assert pastness". And Paul certainly could not have used the "present tense" (suggesting the story was invented for the occasion).
Or maybe Paul was bluffing, hoping these Corinthians thought they could not remember everything he told them in the 1.5 years when he was in Corinth.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

Ben: Does it have to go with what follows? Can it not go with what precedes it? (The examples from Jewish scripture against idolatry.)

Bernard: 1 Cor 10:15 fits much better with what follows because next Paul invited his followers to ponder his two questions.
Furthermore, Paul concluded his section about the worship of idols at 10:13. I do not think Paul would be inviting his Christians to judge what he already said in very authoritative manner in 1-13.

I found a similar phrase syntax for 10:15-16 in 1 Cor 11:13:
"Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?"
Request to judge for yourselves => question(s) (to be answered by yes or no).
So what follows 10:15 (10:16) is new for the Corinthians and presented as being only Paul's thinking.

I actually have no problem with this line referring to what follows.

11:23 may implies, but the Aorist indicative in "delivered" is not a strong indication the Last Supper story was "delivered" in the past (but the Perfect tense is) as I quoted earlier: "The aorist usually implies a past event in the indicative, but it does not assert pastness".

Oh, my goodness. You understood nothing of what I said. Tell you what... find me a good, parallel example of a simple, ordinary indicative aorist lacking any special markers (such as conditions or exclamations) that you think ought to be translated as an English present tense, and we can talk about this.

How many separate meals do you think Paul alludes to in 1 Corinthians?

The meals alluded in 1 Corinthians 10:16 are normal day to day meals of individuals or families. The other meals are the Last Supper of Christ and the Lord's supper of Christian assemblies.

So the breaking of bread and the blessing of the cup in 1 Corinthians is just a normal family or individual meal? Wow, okay. I consider that to be a nearly impossible reading. What ever could have driven you to that contingency? Actually, never mind. I do not want to know. Is there any precedent at all for your reading?

There is no point in taking the discussion any further, since our disagreement on this issue is located at the level of the most basic reading of the text. I leave you with a smattering of commentaries on 1 Corinthians 10.16, all of which treat the meal implied in this verse as the meal described in 11.23-25 and its context. I hasten to add that it is fine to disagree with all major commentators on a text; you just need an excellent reason, and in your case, sorry, but I fear the worst.... All underlining is my own.

Richard A. Horsley, Abingdon Commentary on 1 Corinthians, page 140:


Craig S. Keener, 1-2 Corinthians, page 87:


Joseph A. Fiztmyer, Anchor Bible Commentary on 1 Corinthians, page 390:


Raymond Collins, Sacra Pagina Commentary on 1 Corinthians, page 379:


Gordon D. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, page 465:


Peter D. Gooch, Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8-10 in Its Context, page 47:


Ben.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Ben wrote:

Bernard wrote:to Ben, Don't you think the following would indicate Paul never said anything yet about a Last Supper:
1 Cor 10:15-16 "I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.

[these words indicate the following intellectual proposition was new for the Corinthians],

Is not the cup of Thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ?
And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?"

[how could Paul propose such a concept if he knew Jesus originated the Eucharist and the Christians were already told about it (1 Cor 11:23)?]

I take the final two "facts" about the eucharist ritual, related in the pericope above, to be rhetorical questions the answers to which ("Yes") should have been obvious to his readers. Being rhetorical, the answer to his question (and I am sure he was wagging his long spindly finger and scowling cross-eyed as he dictated the letter, like my avatar) did not need be spoken in response, but would mean that the intended audience of the writer of 1 Cor 10:16 was expected to be aware of these things.

It does not seem clear to me why you think this exchange has to suggest that these facts were new to them, and Paul was letting them in on something new, something that had more recently developed and was white hot with importance. Of course, I am employing hyperbole.

To me, I see a complex that can be stratified as follows:

Greek NT	RSV
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?

Again, a description of a ritual is interposed into an argument about some matter completely different from the eucharist ritual. Here it is about the need to adjust one's conscience to allow that since idols are nothing, it is nothing to eat meat purchased in the market, even if sacrificed to an idols.

Perhaps I was wrong about Corinthians experiencing a famine, as the recipients fear transgressing a Judean food law. Their attempts to implement these laws in their own culture, and apparently without much if any contact with the local expatriate Judean community, they had tried to completely cut meat from their diet, without knowing the best way to deal with the health issues. Apparently, this caused serious health issues for some.

I'd have expected the Corinthians addressed by the author to have simply consulted with members of a local Judean synagogue for advice on eating kosher, or sought out a kosher butcher for meat, so I have to assume there weren't any to be found in their parts at the time, or those synagogues or butchers were hostile to "their kind" (my guess - gentile God-fearers who were not moving towards full conversion).

Interesting.

DCH

to Ben,

Another point:
Instead of referring to the Last Supper & Jesus' alleged own words, Paul used Jewish belief in order to justify 1 Cor 10:16:
10:18 "Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar?"

find me a good, parallel example of a simple, ordinary indicative aorist lacking any special markers (such as conditions or exclamations) that you think ought to be translated as an English present tense, and we can talk about this.

Just looking at the beginning of 1 Corinthians:

5:11 "But now I have written [aorist, active, indicative] unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."
What "I have written" refers to the immediate preceding verses and the rest of 1 Cor 5:11 (that is immediate past and present). "But now I write" would be very justified.
About 1 Cor 11:16 "delivered", it can be argued that 10:16-18 is related to the Last Supper (immediate past) (and Paul thought that could considered as such, with hindsight, when writing 11:23) and what follows (11:23b-25) (present or near future).

4:8a "Now [or Already] ye are full [present, indicative], now ye are rich [or "have become rich", aorist, active, indicative) ye have reigned as kings [aorist, active, indicative] without us:"

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:

find me a good, parallel example of a simple, ordinary indicative aorist lacking any special markers (such as conditions or exclamations) that you think ought to be translated as an English present tense, and we can talk about this.

Just looking at the beginning of 1 Corinthians:

5:11 "But now I have written [aorist, active, indicative] unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."
What "I have written" refers to the immediate preceding verses and the rest of 1 Cor 5:11 (that is immediate past and present). "But now I write" would be very justified.

Just when I am ready to call it quits on this conversation, you come back with a pretty good point. I am pressed for time right now, but I will be back soon to discuss the aorist in 1 Corinthians 5.11 and how it might possibly help you in your interpretation of 11.23. (I am still not buying it, mind you, and would still regard it as forced, but I would not call it impossible as once I implied.)

Ben.

Okay, back with a bit more time now. Let me get a red herring out of the way first:

4:8a "Now [or Already] ye are full [present, indicative], now ye are rich [or "have become rich", aorist, active, indicative) ye have reigned as kings [aorist, active, indicative] without us:"

I do not think this example is parallel. The sense is past tense ("you have become rich"), even if sometimes an English translation might focus more on the present effects of that past action. IOW, there is no way (in this case) for the Corinthians to be rich in the present without having become rich in the past; to set this up as parallel to what we are talking about, then, assumes that Paul delivered something to the Corinthians in the past.

But now for the good stuff.

Bernard Muller wrote:

find me a good, parallel example of a simple, ordinary indicative aorist lacking any special markers (such as conditions or exclamations) that you think ought to be translated as an English present tense, and we can talk about this.

Just looking at the beginning of 1 Corinthians:

5:11 "But now I have written [aorist, active, indicative] unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."
What "I have written" refers to the immediate preceding verses and the rest of 1 Cor 5:11 (that is immediate past and present). "But now I write" would be very justified.

Okay. I would shy away from translating the aorist as a straight present here, because it is still retaining its normal force, but on some understandings of this verse (by no means all) the normal force requires a slight shift in perspective.

Basically, you are wanting to translate this aorist as an epistolary aorist. Here are some grammars on the topic.

Burton's Moods and Tenses:



Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament:


A. T. Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament:


In other words, in an epistle it is possible to write of something present for the writer (sending, writing) as if it were already past (using the aorist), simply by adopting the perspective of the reader. By the time you, the reader, read these words, I will already have written them.

As you can see from A. T. Robertson above, identifying epistolary aorists is not noncontroversial; he denies that 1 Corinthians 5.11 contains one, opting instead to think of a previous letter.

I am tempted to remind you that I asked for examples without markers, and to point out that the adverb νῦν is probably just such a marker, but language does not always work like that; such a demand of you on my part might also enable me to translate every markerless example you offer in the past tense by default, creating a no-win situation for you and thus invalidating my claim as unfalsifiable. So I freely admit that an aorist might fall into a category like this epistolary one, retaining an implied past force but requiring a change of perspective on the part of the reader in order to locate it properly.

So no, it is probably not impossible that Paul is adopting this epistolary perspective in 1 Corinthians 11.23: "[By the time you read this letter, it will be true that] I delivered unto you what I received...."

This still seems quite unlikely to me. This way of reading this particular aorist would never have occurred to me on its own; as you can see, as a matter of fact, it did not occur to me on its own. But I do not think it is impossible.

Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

spin wrote:Verses 23-27 are far more useful to the church than they are to Paul's Corinthians, as they clearly present the eucharist as a performative act, which we must assume Paul failed to communicate to his flock before, if he had indeed written them.

Let me proffer one more consideration in favor of interpolation. Matthew 26, Mark 14, 1 Corinthians 11, Justin Martyr in Apology 1.66, and John 6 all present the eucharistic order of bread/cup. The longer text of Luke 22 has cup/bread/cup, whereas the shorter has cup/bread; various Syriac and Latin texts of Luke 22 juggle the verses around in order to achieve the order of bread/cup. Didache 9, like the shorter version of Luke 22, has cup/bread.

Since 1 Corinthians 11 follows the order of Matthew and Mark, not to mention John and Justin Martyr, is bread/cup the preferred Pauline order? Well, 1 Corinthians 10.16, 19 has cup/bread:

16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? .... 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.

Is Paul playing with two different orders of the eucharistic elements (cup/bread in chapter 10, bread/cup in chapter 11)? Or does his order rather reflect the shorter Lucan order and that found in the Didache (cup/bread), with the relevant verses in chapter 11 being an interpolation based on the other order (bread/cup), which eventually came to dominate?

Ben.

Hi Ben,
' been a while .

I am led to believe that the order of bread/cup or cup/bread, interesting as it may be, does not argue one way or another. The issues for or against interpolation hinge on a number of issues which are, to my mind, of greater substance:

1) If 1 Cor 11:23-26 is from Paul's hand, it is the one and only instance in the corpus in which the apostle makes direct reference to a concrete gospel event. This would be the only time when Paul would have the Lord tell him what happened to him (as Jesus of Nazareth) in local time-space before his crucifixion. At minimum, since Paul was not present at the supper, his testimony thereof could potentially place him at variance with the eye-witnesses of the event, and open him to a charge of faking his "source". It stretches credulity in the extreme to believe that the recollections of the apostles of the event and Paul's revelation of it would come verbally so close. It looks far more probable that someone was paraphrasing someone else.
2) The rhetorical questions of 1 Cor 10:15-16 are also hugely important in assessing the probable origin of the Eucharist scenery. This of course would not be the only time Paul seems unaware of, or throws a hypothetical around, something that he should have been well familiar with, as a matter of common sense. You and I had a conversation around Paul's lack of awareness of the Pentecost event, which made him recreate it hypothetically (1 Cor 14:23). It almost seems the event was traded as a response to Paul's skepticism and disdain. Does it not ? And what about Paul's complaint that "we do not how to pray as we should" without the help of the Spirit (Rom 8:26) ? How could that be if Jesus himself taught the Lord's prayer ? Again, it is clear that the beginnings were not as the later churchmen imagined they were. The rhetorical questions of 1 Cor 10:16 are improbable, if the readers actually "know" that Paul refers to a historical event and words of Jesus on the eve of his death. The authenticity of the passage however is strained even further. In 10:17, Paul writes, "because there is one loaf of bread, we who are many, are one body". And he goes on to further elaborate on the meaning of the questions. So he eats his own spiritual food, so to speak. So somewhere, in the 1 Corinthians there is a redundancy, concerning the Eucharist.

To me, a great deal of the mystery is solved by Mark, who makes the Eucharist a central motive of his mystery tale in creating symbolical events around Paul's teachings. In a key passage, he pack Jesus with the disciples in a boat and informs the reader that the disciples had forgotten to bring bread "and had only one loaf in the boat". This is Mark at his most cleverly devious (or deviously clever, whichever you prefer). So, the disciples forgot to bring bread but there was "one loaf" (hello ?). Jesus ignores the object of the Marks narrative and paraphrases Paul from a different part of 1 Corinthians "Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, and the yeast of Herod" (transparently taken over from: 1 Cor 5:8, " let us,...celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil..."). The entourage, some of whom are not steeped in Paul's gospel, of course do not know that the "loaf" is Jesus himself and engage in a futile theological debate, which frustrates Jesus whose presence (and fate on earth) is the gospel they are supposed to get...but don't.

Best,
Jiri

Solo wrote:Hi Ben,
' been a while .

Indeed it has.

I am led to believe that the order of bread/cup or cup/bread, interesting as it may be, does not argue one way or another. The issues for or against interpolation hinge on a number of issues which are, to my mind, of greater substance:

1) If 1 Cor 11:23-26 is from Paul's hand, it is the one and only instance in the corpus in which the apostle makes direct reference to a concrete gospel event.

Well, except the similarly specific 1 Thessalonians 2.14-15, which of course is also often suspected as an interpolation.

This would be the only time when Paul would have the Lord tell him what happened to him (as Jesus of Nazareth) in local time-space before his crucifixion. At minimum, since Paul was not present at the supper, his testimony thereof could potentially place him at variance with the eye-witnesses of the event, and open him to a charge of faking his "source". It stretches credulity in the extreme to believe that the recollections of the apostles of the event and Paul's revelation of it would come verbally so close. It looks far more probable that someone was paraphrasing someone else.

Sure. The textual connection is close, especially between Paul and the longer version of Luke; somebody is copying somebody else (or both are copying another); these are not independent texts.

2) The rhetorical questions of 1 Cor 10:15-16 are also hugely important in assessing the probable origin of the Eucharist scenery. This of course would not be the only time Paul seems unaware of, or throws a hypothetical around, something that he should have been well familiar with, as a matter of common sense. You and I had a conversation around Paul's lack of awareness of the Pentecost event, which made him recreate it hypothetically (1 Cor 14:23).

I vaguely remember a conversation like that; what I know for certain is that I do not think (nor ever have thought, at least since consciously evaluating the question more than 2 decades ago) that Paul was aware of a Pentecost event as we find it in Acts.

It almost seems the event was traded as a response to Paul's skepticism and disdain. Does it not ?

I would need more details here; not sure what you mean.

And what about Paul's complaint that "we do not how to pray as we should" without the help of the Spirit (Rom 8:26) ? How could that be if Jesus himself taught the Lord's prayer ? Again, it is clear that the beginnings were not as the later churchmen imagined they were.

I agree with this; the Lord's prayer, at least as an element of the dominical teaching, came later.

The rhetorical questions of 1 Cor 10:16 are improbable, if the readers actually "know" that Paul refers to a historical event and words of Jesus on the eve of his death. .... So somewhere, in the 1 Corinthians there is a redundancy, concerning the Eucharist.

Here is where I think I disagree. Paul may very well be arguing from the known to the unknown: "You (Corinthians) already know that the bread and cup are the body and blood (somehow) of the Lord; hence my rhetorical questions; what you apparently do not know is that this means that participating in other cult meals is, by that token, forbidden." A chapter later, when Paul needs to use the Last Supper to bring order to the Corinthian communal meals, he has to quote the event in full because he has to get the sequence right, especially that phrase "after supper." I find Crossan thoroughly persuasive on this point. Crossan, of course, is assuming that the passage is genuine, and I am not willing to do that (I would be quite happy with it as an interpolation based on the synoptic gospels), but, if it is genuine, I think Crossan has nailed its purpose in chapter 11. Therefore, arguments that it is superfluous or redundant fall to the ground.

The authenticity of the passage however is strained even further. In 10:17, Paul writes, "because there is one loaf of bread, we who are many, are one body".

That bit is pretty close to the Didache, as it happens.

Ben.

to Ben,

Here is where I think I disagree. Paul may very well be arguing from the known to the unknown: "You (Corinthians) already know that the bread and cup are the body and blood (somehow) of the Lord; hence my rhetorical questions; what you apparently do not know is that this means that participating in other cult meals is, by that token, forbidden."

If Paul was referring to the Last Supper in 1 Cor 10:16, then why would Paul make next the following argument:
10:18 "Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?"

In his epistles, when trying to solve a problem, Paul invoked a revelation providing the solution, but obviously unheard before by his audience: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 & 2 Corinthians 12:1-9.
The Last Supper (1 Cor 11:23-27) would be no exception.

Sure. The textual connection is close, especially between Paul and the longer version of Luke; somebody is copying somebody else (or both are copying another); these are not independent texts.

Just a few days ago, you thought Lk 22:19a-20 was interpolated from 1 Corinthians: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2019&start=70#p44903

Cordially, Bernard