Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ 1 Corinthians

[Silk Fiji]

We know the Last Supper originated as a dream Paul had.

Remember the four Gospels were composed AFTER the letters of Paul.

Paul says he received the Last Supper info directly from Jesus himself, which indicates a dream.

1 Cor. 11:23: "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread"

The Gospels take Paul's wording and inserts disciples of Jesus.

However Paul faked this dream.

Translations often use "betrayed", but in fact the word paradidōmi means simply ‘hand over, deliver’. The notion derives from Isaiah 53.12, which in the Septuagint uses exactly the same word of the servant offered up to atone for everyone’s sins.

Paul is adapting the Passover meal. Exodus 12.7-14 is much of the basis of Paul’s Eucharist account: the element of it all occurring ‘in the night’ (vv. 8, 12, using the same phrase in the Septuagint, en tē nukti, that Paul employs), a ritual of ‘remembrance’ securing the performer’s salvation (vv. 13-14), the role of blood and flesh (including the staining of a cross with blood, an ancient door lintel forming a double cross), the breaking of bread, and the death of the firstborn—only Jesus reverses this last element: instead of the ritual saving its performers from the death of their firstborn, the death of God’s firstborn saves its performers from their own death. Jesus is thus imagined here as creating a new Passover ritual to replace the old one, which accomplishes for Christians what the Passover ritual accomplished for the Jews.

There are connections with Psalm 119, where God’s ‘servant’ will remember God and his laws ‘in the night’ (119.49-56) as the wicked abuse him.

[jimwalton]

I'm sorry, but this perspective is way off base.

> We know the Last Supper originated as a dream Paul had.

No, we don't know this. In 1 Cor. 11.23, the words "received" and "delivered" are common terms for the passing on of traditions (1 Cor. 11.2; 15.3). Some later rabbis spoke of what they received from Moses. They were most assuredly not claiming direct conversation, nor implying a dream. They meant that the information went back to Moses himself. Paul most likely means that earlier disciples told him about the Last Supper.

Luke's account (Lk. 22.17-20) is almost identical to this one in 1 Corinthians, and remember that Luke and Paul were travel mates, and Luke had done research.

So you're off on a bad foot.

> The Gospels take Paul's wording and inserts disciples of Jesus.

You have no evidence of this. It's altogether possible that Paul got his version from the disciples, who in their Gospels told their version of it.

> Translations often use "betrayed", but in fact the word paradidōmi means simply ‘hand over, deliver’. The notion derives from Isaiah 53.12, which in the Septuagint uses exactly the same word of the servant offered up to atone for everyone’s sins.

Similarity doesn't necessitate derivation. Just because the LXX uses the same term in Isa. 53.12 doesn't mean that Paul is adapting the Passover meal.

In Jewish tradition, the Passover meal was celebrated after sunset ("in the night"). There was no other choice. Your explanation is contrived to fit a template that doesn't legitimately exist.

Of course "paradidomi" means "deliver; pass on." Paul is taking a story that he received and is delivering to the Corinthians who are unfamiliar with it.

> Jesus is thus imagined here as creating a new Passover ritual to replace the old one, which accomplishes for Christians what the Passover ritual accomplished for the Jews.

I agree with this, except the imagination part. Jesus actually WAS creating a new understanding of the Passover. He was "filling it up," so to speak, as other NT texts speak of OT typology.

Regarding your reference to Psalm 119, again, similarity doesn't imply derivation. Lots of suffering happens in the night. To tie it into Paul's understanding of the Last Supper is stretching out of the ballpark. The use of a similar word and concept are meaningless.

As to the rest of your explanation, there are many obvious tie-in points between the Passover and Jesus's death. That is well established in Scripture. What you are lacking is direct evidence that Paul had a dream, and that he faked this dream.

[Silk Fiji]

> Luke's account (Lk. 22.17-20) is almost identical to this one in 1 Corinthians, and remember that Luke and Paul were travel mates, and Luke had done research.

Whoever wrote Luke was not a companion to Paul. This is just a Christian legend. Just throwing up baseless Church beliefs is not a rebuttal.

> You have no evidence of this. It's altogether possible that Paul got his version from the disciples, who in their Gospels told their version of it.

You are contradicting yourself. You yourself said the wording was nearly identical between Paul's letters and the Gospels. The Gospels are obviously copying Paul's letters.

> In 1 Cor. 11.23, the words "received" and "delivered" are common terms for the passing on of traditions (1 Cor. 11.2; 15.3).

Nope. Paul says he received the Last Supper info from the Lord.

[jimwalton]

> Whoever wrote Luke was not a companion to Paul. This is just a Christian legend.

Again, you have no evidence of this. Just throwing up baseless opinion is not rebuttal. There are many good reasons to regard the author of Luke and Acts as Luke the physician who was a traveling companion of Paul's.

- It is the uniform and uncontested testimony of the early church that Luke was the author.
- The title "According to Luke" is on the oldest extant manuscripts.
- There are numerous technical medical terms in the gospel, consistent with Dr. Luke (Col. 4.14) as the author.
- The Greek in Luke has a high quality consistent with a Gentile author.
- The author was well educated, consistent with Dr. Luke as the author, who does scholarly research.
- His knowledge of Palestinian geography and customs betrays that he is not a Palestinian.
- The author was well acquainted with both OT literary traditions and Hellenistic literary techniques, consistent with the position that Luke was the author.

> You are contradicting yourself. You yourself said the wording was nearly identical between Paul's letters and the Gospels. The Gospels are obviously copying Paul's letters.

I haven't contradicted myself at all. Paul and the apostles conversed with each other and discussed doctrine (Gal. 2). The wording is nearly identical between Paul's letters and the Gospels because they are both relating the same truths. Luke and Paul were travel mates; Paul and Peter had conversed about doctrinal matters. I haven't contradicted myself at all.

> The Gospels are obviously copying Paul's letters.

This isn't so obvious at all, and I respectfully request that you substantiate this position with abundant evidence if it is so obvious.

> Nope. Paul says he received the Last Supper info from the Lord.

Sure, so we have to interpret what he means by this. As I wrote, "Some later rabbis spoke of what they received from Moses. They were most assuredly not claiming direct conversation, nor implying a dream. They meant that the information went back to Moses himself. Paul most likely means that earlier disciples told him about the Last Supper." If the rabbis can consider that they received teaching from Moses, then Paul, who was trained in rabbinic methods, can use the same term in the same way.

Now, as I said, it is subject to interpretation. There are some biblical scholars who *do* consider that Paul received this teaching directly from Jesus, but this doesn't necessitate a dream state. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, claims that he saw Jesus physically, as the apostles had, but not before Jesus's ascension. We are able to reason that Jesus appeared to Paul, but nothing is ever said about a dream or a vision. As a matter of fact, the terms Paul uses claim the opposite. He claims to have been the last in the chain of people who have seen Jesus as the apostles had (1 Cor. 15.8). "Last of all" makes it clear that, as far as Paul at least is concerned, his "seeing of the risen Jesus was part of a sequence that came to an end. It was not part of an ongoing set of spiritual experiences that either he or anyone else were having or could have. It was of a different sort than a dreamlike vision.

Either way, you have not made your case for either that Paul saw Jesus in dream or that he faked that dream.

[Me 6]

Paul admits to not consulting or speaking with any disciple until 3 years after his revelation. He spends 15 days then doesn't engage with the pillars of Jerusalem for 14 years.

[jimwalton]

You appear to be speaking of Galatians 1 & 2, so let's look at what it says and to what it is referring.

Paul claims that it is Jesus who sent him, not any man (Gal. 1.1). What he preaches (the death and resurrection of Jesus, and salvation by grace through faith) is not of human origin (Gal. 1.11-12). He didn't consult any human being about this message; the message was not one of education but of revelation (Gal. 1.16).

None of this means he had no contact with the apostles and that they didn't exchange information. What it means is that he didn't get from them the message of the gospel that he is preaching. Here is a timeline of Paul's early years in Christianity:

- He was converted on the road to Damascus, in about AD 32.
- He spent an unknown length of time in Arabia.
- He returned to Damascus for about 3 years, give or take, but this includes the time in Arabia. He is actively preaching the message he got from the Lord, and eventually there is a threat on his life (probably around AD 32-35).
- Then he makes a trip to Jerusalem. There he is preaching, teaching, and debating. He was treated with suspicion by the apostles. Barnabas takes Paul under wing and introduced him to Peter. He stayed with Peter for two weeks, and also met James. No doubt there were many conversations during this time.
- Then there was a threat on his life, and the believers help him escape (Acts 22.17-18).
- Then he went to Tarsus in Cilicia by way of Caesarea.
- After an unknown length of time in Cilicia, Paul travels to Antioch and is active in ministry there.
- Roughly 14 years later he does to Jerusalem for a second time, this time with Barnabas, to negotiate that Gentiles can be part of the Church without having to become Jews first (around AD 49, Acts 15).
- Other missionary journeys follow.

There is every reason to believe that by about AD 35-36 or so, Paul is in Jerusalem for about 2 weeks and is interacting heavily with the apostles there. For sure, he didn't get from them the message of the gospel he is preaching, but there is great likelihood that he got plenty of other information in the course of conversation.

[Cicero]

> Of course "paradidomi" means "deliver; pass on." Paul is taking a story that he received and is delivering to the Corinthians who are unfamiliar with it.

You misunderstand the issue. The context where this word is used is "the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread" and the question is whether this corroborates the historicity of the account of Jesus' betrayal by Judas. I would need to check a lexicon to be sure, but I believe Silk Fiji is right to say that the traditional translation is incorrect.

> Luke's account (Lk. 22.17-20) is almost identical to this one in 1 Corinthians, and remember that Luke and Paul were travel mates, and Luke had done research.

This is widely disputed. I'm not going to be drawn into debate on this subject as we've debated it at great length in the past, but it is somewhat disingenuous to make this point as though it were generally accepted.

For the rest I find your criticisms well taken. I would, however, like to make an additional argument for the original poster's thesis (which I suspect is correct, apart from the somewhat un-nuanced "dream" terminology) just to see how it fares: an early (and by no means heretical) Christian document (the Didache) describes the Eucharist meal without any reference to Jesus' life, death, or even any language relating to atonement or substitution. Under the lectio difficilior principle, and granted the usual direction of mythologisation, isn't it more likely that the historicised account followed the "watered-down" (and somewhat simplistic) symbolic account rather than vice versa?

From the Didache:
"as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus. First, as regards the cup: We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou madest known unto us through Thy Son Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever. Then as regards the broken bread: We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus; Thine is the glory for ever and ever. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever."

[jimwalton]

> You misunderstand the issue. The context where this word is used is "the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread" and the question is whether this corroborates the historicity of the account of Jesus' betrayal by Judas. I would need to check a lexicon to be sure, but I believe u/slkfj08920 is right to say that the traditional translation is incorrect.

I'm trying to understand your point here. Pointing to the texts would be helpful. Let me try to trace through it here to see if I cross the path somewhere.

Paul, in 1 Cor. 11.23, uses παραδίδωμι twice. "For what I received from the Lord I παρέδωκα to you," (the aorist active indicative of παραδίδωμι). Then he continues on and speaks of the night on which Jesus was betrayed (παρεδίδετο, the imperfect passive indicative of παραδίδωμι). It speaks of Judas's betrayal in the Gospels. Both times it is used of a deliverance over to another party. The first time it is translated "passed on" since Paul is speaking of information received and transmitted. The second time it is translated "betrayed" since Paul is speaking of the Judas event in the Garden. Paul is using a play on words to make his point. One event brought about the Lord's death in ignominy; one event proclaims the Lord's death in victory, "until He comes." To eat unworthily (11.27, 29) is a betrayal; to eat worthily is a kerygma—a declaration. The blood ceremony is a recounting as well as a reinterpretation of the Sinai revelation. Judas's "delivering over" of Jesus for crucifixion played out God's plan so that Paul could "deliver over" the good news of atonement that was the consequence of the crucifixion. All of this, as I agree, conforms to an agreement with what the OP was saying, but only up to a point. I still don't see how any of this makes the case that the Last Supper originated as a dream and that Paul faked the dream. I'll need more explanation.

> The Didache

I'm well aware that the Didache doesn't mention the death or resurrection of Jesus, but the Didache is not the only early Church writing we have and it doesn't stand in a vacuum. Clement of Rome, for instance (writing in about AD 95), does speak of Jesus's resurrection. The Didache also shows very little connection with anything Paul wrote, but that doesn't discredit Paul's writings. Estimates of the date of its writing range from about AD 50 to somewhere in the 3rd century, and many scholars consider it to have been an agglomeration of writings from disparate sources. So we can't necessary take the Didache and rest on any laurels that it is the authoritative declaration about the eucharist.

[Me 6]

Galatians 1:16-20 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. [17] I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus. [18] Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. [19] I saw none of the other apostles---only James, the Lord's brother. [20] I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

Galatians 2:1 NIV Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also.

At that time he was called to answer the rumors that had been circulating and

Galatians 2:2 NIV I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Galatians 2:6 NIV As for those who were held in high esteem---whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism---they added nothing to my message.

It's pretty obvious that things weren't smooth. The goal of acts is to smooth things over between the Jerusalem pillars and Paul, that apostolistic authority can be established. What's really fun is when James gets involved.

Galatians 2:11-13 NIV When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. [12] For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. [13] The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

[jimwalton]

Wow, you seem to have missed my timeline, the bulk of the post to which you were responding. After his conversion, you're right (v. 17), he didn't go to Jerusalem to meet the apostles but straight into Arabia. It's what I said. We don't know how long he was there. After three years he went to Jerusalem and met with Peter (v. 18) and James (19), as I said, and as the text says. During the 14 years he is in Tarsus and Antioch, and most likely traveling around a little, as I said and as the text says. I guess I don't understand your purpose in quoting these texts when this is what I was saying.

> It's pretty obvious that things weren't smooth.

That's true. It was a difficult transition for Jewish believers to build on their Jewish roots and grasp the Christian gospel. Even Peter struggled with it (Gal. 2.11-21).

> What's really fun is when James gets involved.

This suggests James was strongly Judaistic, as might be expected. Pretty much they all were. We don't know enough about James or this situation in particular to pin it down very well. James was the head of the Church in Jerusalem, but he was also the spearhead of the resolution securing liberty to the Gentile Christians (Acts 15.13-19).

It seems from what you've written that you agree with me, but you probably wouldn't have written so much if that were the case, so I'm obviously confused.

And it still doesn't support the case that Paul got his perspective on the Last Supper from a dream, and in addition that he faked the dream.