(Part4/4 Appendix) Christianity, A Question of Reasoning: The Christ Myth Theory and the Lord’s Supper

John MacDonald | October 22, 2024

I’ve been talking about how Paul introduced the Lord’s Supper into the Jesus movement tradition as miming Jesus did alone in prison that represented a ritual meal for future Christians. The importance of Paul having this vision is it solidifies the idea that Jesus saw his own death as salvific and central to the religion. This is very important because it is contrary to the message the historical Jesus taught of repentance and charitable works as the key to salvation, not himself. Paul says

³For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures ⁴and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures ⁵and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:3-5)

The disciples, who Mark said got violent at the arrest and all fled, came to frame Jesus’ fate through an allegorical and mystical reading of scripture. As I said before, one of Paul’s innovations was the idea that just before his death, Jesus was alone and performed the Lord’s Supper as a ritual instruction for all future Christians. The Lord’s Supper Paul learned of through a vision was very important because it was proof that Jesus understood his death and resurrection as salvific before he died – even though the only evidence for this is Paul’s vision. James, John, and Peter taught the cross as the central message, but Paul placed this on Jesus’ lips too. The religion of Jesus was thus solidified into the religion about Jesus. Mark then took this and even further reinforced it by making it a meal Jesus had with his disciples, which the historical Jesus never did since as I said in previous posts the historical Jesus didn’t teach his death/resurrection, but rather repentance and charitable works. What scriptures did the Last Supper happen according to? There is a lot of guesswork and conjecture here, but Price suggests:

The Last Supper (14:17-31)

All critics recognize the seed of the last supper story in Psalm 41:9, “Even my bosom friend, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me.” Frank Kermode has traced (pp. 84-85) the logical process whereby the original, entirely and abstractly theological claim that Jesus had been “delivered up” (paredoqh, Romans 4:25) has been narratized. From God having “handed over” his son for our sins grew the idea that a human agent had “betrayed” him (same Greek word). For this purpose, in line with anti-Jewish polemic, a betrayer named Judas was created. His epithet “Iscariot” seems to denote either Ish-karya (Aramaic for “the false one)” or a pun on Issachar, “hireling” (Miller, p. 65), thus one paid to hand Jesus over to the authorities. Much of the Last Supper story is taken up with this matter because of the mention of the betrayer eating with his victim in Psalm 41… It is interesting to see how Matthew embellishes the enigmatic figure and fate of Judas. First, he knows the precise amount Judas was paid, 30 silver pieces. He knows this from Zechariah 11:11b (“And they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver.”) How does he know that Judas returned the money, throwing it into the Temple treasury, and that the priests decided to use it to buy the potter’s field? The Syriac version of Zechariah reads: “Then the LORD said to me, ‘Cast it into the treasury, this lordly price at which I was paid off by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and cast them into the treasury in the house of the LORD.” The Hebrew of the same verse reads: “”Cast it to the potter, etc.” How does Matthew know Judas hanged himself? That was the fate of David’s traitorous counsellor Ahithophel (2 Samuel 17:23), whom scribal tradition took to be the subject of Psalm 41:9, which the gospels applied to Judas (Helms, p. 106)… Almost secondary in the supper narrative is the bread and cup. Whatever the origin of the sacramental ritual underlying this etiological story, it has been interpreted here in scriptural terms as a covenant renewal. See the unmistakable connection with 24:8, “Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you in accordance with these words.” … In verse 26 Jesus and the disciples sing the traditional Passover hymn, which, as we will see, provided Mark the content of Jesus’ introspection in the Garden of Gethsemane. V. 27’s quotation of Zechariah 13:7, “I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered,” would seem to be the whole source for the subsequent scene where Jesus’ disciples flee from the arresting party…Peter avers that, no matter what the danger, he will not leave Jesus’ side. In this he reminds us, not coincidentally, of Elisha’s three avowals that he will not leave Elijah (2 Kings 2:2, 4, 6: “As the LORD lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you.” It seems not too much to suggest, with Roth (p. 17), that Mark has given Peter one such pledge and three betrayals of it. On the other hand (see below), Mark may have had in mind Ittai’s loyalty pledge to David, “Wherever my lord the king shall be, whether for death or for life, there also will your servant be” (1 Samuel 15:21) (Miller, p. 332).

As all commentators note, regarding scripture fulfillment and Jesus’ death, Mark creatively rewrites Isaiah and Psalms, and the resurrection on the 3^rd day can be found in such places as a recapitulation of the story of Jonah. The same was done with the Lord’s Supper. It’s important to note the details were not simply being invented out of whole cloth, but the writers were finding their savior in scriptures. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls were doing such recapitulation to create a biography for their Teacher of Righteousness, for instance. As noted above, the fleeing of all the disciples at the arrest may relate to antecedent scripture, but the detail of the disciples getting violent is generally considered historical because Mark is unlikely to invent a detail of the disciples getting violent.

Previous Posts in this Series:

(1/4) Christianity, A Question of Reasoning: The Continental/Analytic Philosophy Divide

(Part 2 of 4) Christianity, A Question of Reasoning: The Continental/Analytic Philosophy Divide

(Part 3/4, AFTERWORD) Christianity, A Question of Reasoning: The Christ Myth Theory and the Lord’s Supper

(1/2) Does Literary Imitation Suggest Christ Never Existed?

Does Literary Imitation Suggest Christ Never Existed: The Trump Lens (2/2)?

MY ESSAYS