3703[Synoptic-L] drinking the blood
- Feb 5, 2000Yuri Kuchinsky wrote --
>...Brian Wilson replied --
>But the whole account of the Last Supper as it is found in the gospels
>is probably quite late. Certainly "drinking the blood" appears to be a
>Yuri Kichinsky answered --
>The idea of "drinking the blood" seems to be present in the writing of
>Paul in I Corinthians 10.16 - "The cup of blessing which we bless, is
>it not a sharing in the blood of Christ?" It would seem that the idea
>could be early, and may even be original to Jesus.
>Lk 22:19,20 is equivalent to 1 Cor 11:24,25, and this presents a
>serious problem. Which way does the dependence go? There was a long
>discussion of this on Crosstalk couple of years ago. Evidence seems
>persuasive that there are interpolations in Paul in this area. You can
>see my arguments on my webpage, starting with my survey of Van Cangh's
>arguments that Markan eucharist is the earliest. From this follows that
>Lk/Paul version of the eucharist is late.
I was not writing about I Cor 11.24,25 but about the passage
concerning the worship of idols in I Cor 10. My reference, I Cor 10.16,
was clearly given, as shown above.
There is no reasonable doubt that Paul wrote I Cor 10.l6. There are no
scholarly grounds for excising I Cor 10.16 which has no similarly-worded
parallel in the synoptic gospels. Paul wrote the words of I Cor 10.16
before the synoptic gospels were written, even supposing Mark was penned
65 CE and the others soon afterwards.
In which case, Paul wrote "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not
a sharing in the blood of Christ?" at an early date compared with the
writing of the synoptics, and the idea may indeed have originated with
Jesus himself. This is even consistent with your argument stated above
that the Markan version of the eucharist is the earliest, and which
attributes to Jesus the words, "This (cup) is my blood of the covenant
which is poured out for many" (Mk 14.24).
Jesus did have some new things to say about God, and some of these did
get passed on to Paul. Neither of them was a tame traditionalist. One
was crucified for his beliefs, and the other was severely beaten
several times, imprisoned more than once, and possibly be-headed, for
his. There is no reasonable doubt that at least occasionally each said
something not in conformity with the teachings of others of their day.
We cannot validly rule out sayings attributed to Jesus or Paul merely on
the grounds that they are not the traditional teachings of their
I have been reading your homepage and your thought on Paul. Perhaps
contributors to this List have also read the following paragraph from
your homepage summarizing your findings -
>I really feel there is no need for me, or anyone else, to comment on
>In my view it is extremely improbable that he was some Mythical and
>Unique Apostle to the Gentiles Appointed So by God from Day One. This
>is how he was made to look -- over a number of generations -- by his
>dedicated followers who were adding up plenty to his original writings
>while they were polemicizing against various other rival Christian
>factions of their times -- especially the Jewish-Christians, who
>actually had _real disciples of Yeshu_ to base their claims on. So the
>Pauline school made themselves an Apostle who wasn't really a "real
>Apostle", but was instead "more than an Apostle", and who received his
>revelations directly from the Spiritual Jesus through a miracle.
such thinking on Paul, Jesus, and their followers in the years before
the synoptic gospels were written, or on the way in which this is
presented here. Scholars will make their own judgement.
EM brian@... HP www.twonh.demon.co.uk TEL+44(0)1480385043
Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE18 8EB,UK
> "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot_
> speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>