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

[Silk Fiji]

Paul never mentions Judas, dude.

[jimwalton]

I'm quite aware that he never uses the name. But when Paul speaks of the night Jesus was betrayed, he is obviously speaking of the night he was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane by the betrayal of Judas (1 Cor. 11.23; Matt. 26.47-50 and parallels). As I said, "Then he continues on and speaks of the night on which Jesus was betrayed ... It speaks of Judas's betrayal in the Gospels." I didn't say he mentioned Judas, but he mentions the betrayal event perpetrated by Judas.

[Cicero]

I'll come back on the παραδιδωμι-related points in a few days, as I don't have access to BDAG where I am now and I don't like debating complex semantic issues from memory.

Where the Didache is concerned, "range of estimates" tends not to be very informative. The broad consensus is that it's a late 1st century document and the primitive nature of the document strongly supports that view. That it shows evidence of disparate sources in some way or another is pretty much self-evident, granted the nature of the document, so I don't think source criticism is a particularly salient issue here either. Furthermore, I do not dispute that the resurrection was widely held by Christians at the time of the Didache, nor do I claim that Paul's writings are unimportant.

Whatever your view of the Didache, it demands an explanation. This holds no matter how many early Christian documents support Paul's narrative. Two branches of a tradition are two branches of a tradition: the fact that one is represented by a single text and the other is represented by 20 texts is much less relevant. Positing an explosive, kerygma-based early Christianity does not seem to me to be the most parsimonious explanation for why what is ostensibly one of the most primitive documents we possess lacks that kerygma. I do not pretend that this is a conclusive argument and far be it from me to rest on laurels: when documentation is as sparse as it is for early Christianity the very concept of laurels is moot. Granted, however, that our methodological approach is one of "which view is more likely than the alternative"? -- which, I think, is the only rational approach -- I think it may fairly be pointed out

1) That the Didache is a primitive text, making historically plausible claims, giving no indication that it represents a fringe or heretical view within the Christian community of its time and strongly indicating the opposite.

2) That the Didache presents a Eucharist which is radically different from Paul's but is nonetheless easily explained within a more symbolically oriented Christianity (of the sort which, in my view, the most primitive layers of Christianity force us to posit anyway).

3) That the opposing tradition is best represented in the letters of a man who, though indisputably very early and of great interest, displays a (professedly) idiosyncratic theology and an interest in mystical revelation which does not (to put it mildly) immediately excite confidence.

4) That the theory "the Didache's symbolic meal of fellowship is a later development of Paul's Last Supper" is less plausible than "the Pauline historicised narrative is a later development of a symbolic meal early Christians shared" -- a reasoning which, I think, is broadly in line with what we know of the usual developments in human mythology (and also, although you will probably not share this premise, the developments we see in other early Christian stories).

5) That one may, on basis of this data, conclude that it is more likely than not that the Eucharist story is not based on a historical event.

I see two counter-arguments to my own view: the first is the arguably distasteful nature of the Eucharist ceremony, which may muddy the "usual direction of evolution"; I don't think this is a particularly strong argument, however, as one would still expect a reference to Jesus' institution of the feast in the Didache, or at least a reference either to Atonement or to the kerygma in relation to it.

Secondly, someone else's argument (that Matthew and Mark represent a different textual tradition to Luke and Paul) was one of which I was not aware and it is well taken. That being said, I am inclined to regard this as a result of the fact that Luke had access to 1 Corinthians while Matthew only had access to Mark. The chronology still easily allows for a narrative indirectly derived from the Pauline tradition. That is not, however, necessary: even if the tradition cannot be traced to Paul is still more likely to be secondary.

[jimwalton]

Great comments, and I appreciate the dialogue. I agree that most scholars place the Didache in the late first or early second century.

1) I agree that the Didache is therefore a primitive text and seems to have been respected by the early Church though never recognized as authoritative canon. It is not regarded with the same authority as the writings of Paul.

2) The Didache treats the eucharist as a thanksgiving meal, while Paul treats it as a memorial meal. Agreed. Inunison, though, both warn against eating the "meal" unworthily, and both speak of it as something that signifies unity in the church.

3) The "opposing tradition" you speak of is, I presume, Paul? If that is so, my contention with your claim is that that early church recognized Paul as authoritative and the Didache as worthy and of interest.

4) You're right, I don't share your premise. My perspective is that Paul got information from the apostles, and some directly from the Lord by revelation, and he wrote down what he had received (1 Corinthians was written in about AD 55). The records of the Gospels, reflecting the same source, the historical event, concur with Paul's record (the Gospels were probably written from AD 56-66). The Didache, an early manual of the early Church's practices (not theology), mentions nothing of Jesus's death or resurrection, but only of the eucharistic ritual as a thanksgiving meal.

I haven't read the other post, but scholarly assumption is that Luke tapped into Mark just as Matthew did.

[Silk Fiji]

> But when Paul speaks of the night Jesus was betrayed, he is obviously speaking of the night he was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane by the betrayal of Judas (1 Cor. 11.23; Matt. 26.47-50 and parallels).

No. He is speaking of when Jesus was captured by Satan and his demons in the firmament.

[jimwalton]

Wow. Now you have some explaining to do. I don't even have a clue what you're talking about. Bible verses, please. We can discuss when we have a base of information on the table.

[Me 6]

> 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:

I was hoping this would be obvious, but since I can see you're an evangelical I'll try to simplify it.

If he isn't exchanging information about his gospel until 17 years after the fact when he is explicit about his message, it's pretty pointless to assume he's exchanging any information. What else could be pertinent? Brownie recipes? It's absurd to think it has any relevance to my original point.

> 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).

They were Jewish, of course they were Judaistic. In fact it should question why there is a consistent theme of the sources closest to Jesus staying Jewish and then much much later someone appropriating their messianic figure and applying it to gentiles. As I mentioned before, acts is clearly by all scholarly accounts intended to establish Paul as successor to Peter and in turn the Bishops and Popes so they could have apostolistic authority. It doesn't even agree with events that Paul described. It's understandable given the author of Acts didn't have google. Acts records Paul as going to Jerusalem a couple days after damascus but Paul pretty clearly rejects that concept. The author also added the whole bit about a public revelation (Not even agreeing with himself on whether they heard or saw it [Acts 9:7 vs 22:9] ) The Author of Acts has Peter describing the law as unbearable (15:19) yet Matt 5:18-19 and Luke 16:17 clearly contradict that. The book of Acts is also riddled with historical inaccuracies. Using Acts to support Paul is absurd, but whatever.

> 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.

There's no witnesses, even Paul says that his revelation was in or of Jesus, that's it. Similar to how in Luke 24 the people traveling didn't recognize Jesus until they learned what he taught: "Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, 'Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?' ”

And how Paul says that Jesus arose in a different form: 42 s So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 t It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

Paul also emphasised his own opinions into his letters (by the way, simply letters to churches, not any kind of formal doctrine) and stripped the Jewishness out of the early followers, so whether it was a dream or a lie, he clearly ruled out a Physical interaction with Jesus which leaves the non-physical spiritual or a lie. Given that he contradicts the source disciples/followers, the OT, and admits to being less-than upfront: "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law."

And had to constantly insist he wasn't lying: "(In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) (Galatians 1:20) I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—(Romans 9:1) The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed forever, knows that I am not lying.(2 Corinthians 11:31) For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.(1 Timonthy 2:7)"

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[jimwalton]

> but since I can see you're an evangelical I'll try to simplify it.

I don't appreciate the insult, and I think it's unbecoming to reasoned debate.

> If he isn't exchanging information about his gospel until 17 years

Here is your flaw. You can't conclude this since we know Paul had contact with the apostles for two weeks' time (Ga. 1.18). Are you claiming that during those two weeks Peter and Paul didn't discuss Jesus, the gospel, or anything theological? To me that's an unreasonable assumption. What Paul claims is that he didn't get his preaching of salvation by grace through faith from the apostles, not that he didn't get any information from them. All he is claiming is that the apostles are not the source of his soteriology.

> In fact it should question why there is a consistent theme of the sources closest to Jesus staying Jewish and then much much later someone appropriating their messianic figure and applying it to gentiles.

The apostles themselves apply their messianic figure to the Gentiles. Matthew is strong on the theme (the visit of the Magi, the prophecy of 4.15-16, all the way to the commission of Mt. 28.19-20). Peter, in his sermons in Acts, Mark, in like manner (though it was probably the first one written), infuses his Gospel with a message of Gentile inclusion (Legion, the Syrophoenician womankind the conclusion of his Gospel with a confession of Jesus's divine Sonship from the lips of a centurion). Luke, as a Gentile author, is replete with Gentile references. John also mentions that the messiah will apply to Gentiles (Jn. 10.16; 17.20).

> As I mentioned before, acts is clearly by all scholarly accounts intended to establish Paul as successor to Peter and in turn the Bishops and Popes so they could have apostolistic authority.

"All scholarly accounts"? I don't agree with this at all, and know many scholars who also do not agree with it. This is a Catholic rendition, but not a Protestant one.

> The Author of Acts has Peter describing the law as unbearable (15:19)

This interpretation is not warranted by the text or context. Jewish teachers fell on a spectrum of teaching from strict to lenient. The lenient ones taught that any righteous Gentiles who kept the basic laws (as outlined in Acts 15.20) would have a share in the world to come. Stricter Jewish teachers went along with such when outvoted by the majority, out of respect for those teachers. James is rendering a similar judgment. He doesn't even get close to claiming the law is unbearable.

> The book of Acts is also riddled with historical inaccuracies

?????

> even Paul says that his revelation was in or of Jesus, that's it

1 Cor. 11.23: He says it was "from" (ἀπὸ) the Lord.

> Similar to how in Luke 24 the people traveling didn't recognize Jesus until they learned what he taught

There's no justification to take it as similar to this experience.

> And how Paul says that Jesus arose in a different form

Of course he did. It was a physical resurrection, but a different form (1 Cor. 15.37). The earthly and risen beings differ in duration, value, and power. The resurrection body has a different nature; it has undergone a complex change. It is related to it, but in a different form. The plant has little resemblance to the seed; a caterpillar isn't like the butterfly. The resurrection body has some kind of germinal connection to the earthly body. Paul explains the difference in 1 Cor. 2.14-15. The two categories he uses here in 1 Cor. 15 relate to opposite dominating principles towards which a person can be fundamentally oriented: either towards oneself or towards God. Paul isn't drawing a contrast between a physical body and a non-physical body. One is corruptible and other is not. One is an ordinary human and the other in indwelled by the Spirit of God. The physical body won't be left behind in the afterlife, but it will be reanimated so that its duration is eternal.

> he clearly ruled out a Physical interaction with Jesus which leaves the non-physical spiritual or a lie.

Not so. In 1 Cor. 15.8 he gives his "seeing" of Jesus of the same sort as the previous examples of the apostles. It's just that his "seeing" was not before the ascension, and hence "abnormally born." If he had meant something visionary, he wouldn't have claimed "last of all," because visionary experiences have continued through the ages.

[Cicero]

> though never recognized as authoritative canon. It is not regarded with the same authority

I don't think the "authority" with which the second/third century Church regarded documents is a particularly good argument. The fact that one of these works was written by an apostle makes it pretty much inevitable that Paul was going to be accorded more authority: that does not necessarily make him more representative. One might also argue that this is something of a circular argument, since the Church was always going to regard as more authoritative works which were more in line with its orthodoxy.

Your #4) doesn't really respond to my argument. Stating vaguely that the Didache speaks of the eucharistic ritual as a "thanksgiving meal" ignores the specificities of Didache's account and doesn't address the "direction of evolution" problem.

> 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).

The fact that Paul speaks of Jesus being “delivered/handed over” does not mean he was thinking of betrayal nor even that had Judas in mind. I have checked and BDAG agrees. Other than that, the point you make on the word play is plausible, and I don’t dispute it.

The only point I wish to make here is that due to the ambiguity of the word it is impossible to use this word as evidence for any specific historical context to this passage. That doesn’t prove it was made up, but it removes what would be an important reason to think it wasn’t. I very much question the historicity of the Judas account on other grounds but that is tangential.

[jimwalton]

> I don't think the "authority" with which the second/third century Church regarded documents is a particularly good argument.

In my opinion, what gives the works of the Church Fathers any authority is their relationships with the apostles themselves. According to Irenaeus, Clement of Rome had seen and conversed with the apostles. Other records claim he also knew Paul. Hermas of Dalmatia was said to have been numbered among the 70 disciples (Lk. 10.1-24), and he is possibly referenced in Rom. 16.14. Theodore of Cyrrhus reported that Ignatius was appointed to his position by the apostle Peter. Irenaeus was a study of Polycarp, who is said to have known the apostle John. This is why I grant the church fathers some authority in biblical matters.

> Stating vaguely that the Didache speaks of the eucharistic ritual as a "thanksgiving meal" ignores the specificities of Didache's account and doesn't address the "direction of evolution" problem.

Another refutation I would have to that is that in 1 Cor. 10.16, Paul speaks of a "cup of thanksgiving" in direct relation to participation in the blood of Christ at the Lord's supper (10.21; 11.20).

I don't have much more to say about the Didache. The truth is we don't know tons about it. We don't know who wrote it, how many authors it had, or exactly when it was written. I would still have some questions, though, for which there may not be answers.

- what does "the holy vine of Thy son David" mean? (Didache 9)
- how was this "vine" made known through Jesus?
- how was the broken bread made known through Jesus?

Are these oblique references to his death?

> The fact that Paul speaks of Jesus being “delivered/handed over” does not mean he was thinking of betrayal nor even that had Judas in mind.

I looked back through the thread to see what alternative event he could be referring to. The text surrounding 1 Cor. 11.17-34 all seems to be referring to a special passover dinner the Jesus shared with others, one called "The Lord's Supper" (1 Cor. 11.20). About it we read about broken bread (which sounds like passover), a cup after supper (Passover), a remembrance of death and a looking forward to a deliverance.

So I'm trying to get your point. Help me to understand. To what does ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο (on the night he was παρεδίδετο) refer, the night when bread was broken and wine was drank (drunk? drunken?) after supper?

It seems that your point is the historicity of the Judas betrayal, about which we could certainly talk. Maybe it's not so tangential.

But let's start with my former question: To what does ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο (on the night he was παρεδίδετο) refer?