The Seder in 1 Corinthians? It's Greek to me.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have a question for those familiar with Biblical Greek. Referring to 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 we read:

• For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
• and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
• In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

In an interesting (although I believe somewhat uneven) book by Rabbi Michael J. Cook titled Modern Jews Engage the New Testament: Enhancing Jewish Well-Being in a Christian Environment, the Rabbi observes:

In Paul's sole reference to the Last Supper ("the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was delivered up [to death], took bread"), the Greek word Paul uses is that for regular bread (artos), not the proper designation for unleavened bread (azyma), and Paul conveys no awareness that this meal might have been a Passover observance.

Based on this and other arguments, he concludes that the most reasonable explanation of the apparent discrepancy between the Synoptics and John is that Mark took a prevailing tradition and "transform[ed] the occasion into a Passover observance ... by inserting a single paragraph (14:12-16) as a lens through which he wished the story of Jesus' Last Supper now to be understood."

At this point in the discussion I'm primarily interested in informed opinions on what weight we should give to Paul's use of artos versus azyma (and wholly uninterested in 'Christian' or 'atheist' apologetics).

 

[Oberon]

At this point in the discussion I'm primarily interested in informed opinions on what weight we should give to Paul's use of artos versus azyma (and wholly uninterested in 'Christian' or 'atheist' apologetics).

Personally, I would say your source is reading too much into Paul, for the following reasons:

1. Paul dictated his letters. artos is by far the more typical greek word for bread. It is well known that scribes often corrected grammar, terminology, etc, of those dictating to them (which is one reason for the many textual variants in our manuscripts). It is very possible, perhaps even likely, that if Paul used azuma his scribe would have changed the wording.

2. Even if this is not the case, the gospels are of course narratives, and concerned with taking the independent traditions and putting them into context and a chronological order. As they place the last supper during passover, they would likely have taken more pains than Paul to ensure that the proper terms were used. Even if Paul knew that the last supper took place during passover, his wouldn't be overly concerned with proper terminology.

3. Research into uncovering oral formulae in Paul has revealed that this is an early credal formula, and probably not from Paul. While the last supper may very well have taken place during passover, in an oral formulaic summary of the event, it is far more likely that the normal word for bread (artos) would be used.

4. Given that John is the latest and most unreliable, I would go with the synoptics over John in the case of disagreement, unless there was good evidence to suggest otherwise. I don't think the use of artos in Paul is good evidence (as argued above).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Personally, I would say your source is reading too much into Paul, ...

That may be true, but I doubt it.

1. Paul dictated his letters. artos is by far the more typical greek word for bread. It is well known that scribes often corrected grammar, terminology, etc, of those dictating to them (which is one reason for the many textual variants in our manuscripts). It is very possible, perhaps even likely, that if Paul used azuma his scribe would have changed the wording.

On the contrary, one would expect the scribe to have more than a passing familiarity with the Judaism of the time and to be more than a little resistant to changing such a word when used by a leader presumably schooled at the feet of Gamaliel. Your argument (1) strikes me as naive at best.

2. Even if this is not the case, the gospels are of course narratives, and concerned with taking the independent traditions and putting them into context and a chronological order. As they place the last supper during passover, they would likely have taken more pains than Paul to ensure that the proper terms were used. Even if Paul knew that the last supper took place during passover, his wouldn't be overly concerned with proper terminology.

You seem to know a great deal about Paul. All I can tell you is that I cannot imagine a Jew talking about bread at a seder.

3. Research into uncovering oral formulae in Paul has revealed that this is an early credal formula, and probably not from Paul. While the last supper may very well have taken place during passover, in an oral formulaic summary of the event, it is far more likely that the normal word for bread (artos) would be used.

Nonsense.

4. Given that John is the latest and most unreliable, I would go with the synoptics over John in the case of disagreement, unless there was good evidence to suggest otherwise. I don't think the use of artos in Paul is good evidence (as argued above).

I certainly do not think it sufficient evidence, hence the post.

 

[Oberon]

On the contrary, one would expect the scribe to have more than a passing familiarity with the Judaism of the time

Why on earth would you expect that? This is a GREEK scribe. He may or may not be of Jewish background, be at the least he would be a hellenist. And as he is recording Paul's dictation in Greek, why would he not use the typical word for bread? It certainly would make the greek text more accesible to greek speakers who would have had Paul's epistles read to them. Even by Paul's time, there were adherents to the Jesus sect who were not from a Jewish background.

You seem to know a great deal about Paul. All I can tell you is that I cannot imagine a Jew talking about bread at a seder.

Paul specifically uses technical terms to refer to the passing of oral traditions:
εγω γαρ παρέλαβον απο του Κυρίου, ὃ και παρέδωκα υμιν/ ego gar parelabon apo tou Kyriou, ho kai paredoka hymin
He follows this by what is clearly a credal formula. That the creed itself is seperated from the context is not suprising, to anyone having studied orality within the Jesus tradition. He is simply reciting a formula. We know that translation of the Jesus tradition from Aramaic into Greek took place probably even during Jesus' mission, and certainly immediately afterward. Short oral credal formulae like the one Paul recites were unlikely to have taken into account the difference between artos and azuma, particularly given that translations from aramaic to greek were not always perfect.

Nonsense.

Terrific argument. For research into the oral transmission of the Jesus tradition within Paul, see Reisner "Jesus as Preacher and Teacher" and more importantly Holtz "Paul and the Oral Gospel Tradition." Both can be found in the book Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition ed. Henry Wansborough. I can give you more citations if you wish. Paul is very obviously reciting an oral credal formula which he received, and given the translations of independent formulae, teachings, narratives, etc, within the Jesus tradition, it is not to be wondered that a greek rendering of the last supper crede did not take into account the technical hebrew terminology (i.e. the difference between artos and azuma.

I certainly do not think it sufficient evidence, hence the post.

Then I would suggest you do a bit more research into the oral tradition in Paul, scribal practices during his day, the typical issues in translating the tradition from aramaic to greek, etc.


Basically, the sum of your sources argument is that a more technical word for passover bread (unleavened bread) should take precedence over all the synoptics, who had access to early sources, and Luke at least was quite active in Christian communities. For the likelihood that the synoptic authors had fairly reliable access to eyewitness testimony (and no, I am not arguing that Matthew wrote Matthew, etc) see Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels As Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Paul is very obviously reciting an oral credal formula which he received, ...

From whom?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... I would suggest you do a bit more research into the oral tradition in Paul, scribal practices during his day, the typical issues in translating the tradition from aramaic to greek, etc.

Whose traditions? Perhaps it would be interesting to determine what term Philo and Josephus might have used. I'll see what I can find ...

 

[Oberon]

From whom?

That is a very complicated question, requiring several books (and hopefully my finished dissertation to answer). The long version involves detailed arguments positing a particular model for how oral tradition within the earliest christian communties was controlled and formally transmitted. I have elsewhere given a farily complete bibliography of recent scholarship in this area. To sum up: those who accompanied Jesus (particularly the leaders of the early christian communities) were most likely responsible for ensuring that his teachings and his mission were accurately relayed. For some time, such oral traditions existed along with the written, but eventually the written traditions (i.e. the gospels) replaced the oral. We don't know where Paul recieved all of his traditions.

However, we do know that Paul at one point felt it necessary to go to the source to receive the tradition. He records this in Gal. 1:18:
Επειτα μετα ἔτη τρία ανηλθον εις ῾Ιεροσόλυμα ιστορησαι Κεφας, και επέμεινα προς αυτον ημέρας δεκαπέντε/epeita meta ete tria anelthon eis Ierosoluma histoesai Kephan, kai epemeina pros auton hemeras dekapente

The word ιστορησαι (the verbal form of the greek for history) means inquire into. It is clear given this word choice (as opposed to gignosko or some other word which would simply mean become acquainted or get to know) that Paul is actually there to learn from Peter.

Whose traditions?

And here I thought you were familiar with the Jesus sect in its beginnings. The traditions most likely began during his ministry through constant repetition of teachings, and were passed on by those present during his ministy. Again, if you need citations to scholarly works, just ask.

 

[dogsgod]

I have a question for those familiar with Biblical Greek. Referring to 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 we read:

• For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
• and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
• In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

In an interesting (although I believe somewhat uneven) book by Rabbi Michael J. Cook titled Modern Jews Engage the New Testament: Enhancing Jewish Well-Being in a Christian Environment, the Rabbi observes:Based on this and other arguments, he concludes that the most reasonable explanation of the apparent discrepancy between the Synoptics and John is that Mark took a prevailing tradition and "transform[ed] the occasion into a Passover observance ... by inserting a single paragraph (14:12-16) as a lens through which he wished the story of Jesus' Last Supper now to be understood."

At this point in the discussion I'm primarily interested in informed opinions on what weight we should give to Paul's use of artos versus azyma (and wholly uninterested in 'Christian' or 'atheist' apologetics).

"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you"

Paul states that he received this from the Lord, possibly through revelations, visions. If he received this as a passed on tradition from other men then these words of his are not making sense. Paul is denying that this comes from others. Incidentally, Paul never refers to a Last Super, but to a Lord's Super.

Paul's use of artos is a non issue since there is not necesarily a connection between Paul's Lord's Super and with that of a passover meal. The gospels provide confusion due to the passover setting of a Last Super, but they are a later development most likely drawing partly from an earlier Pauline tradition.

 

[Oberon]

"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you"

Paul states that he received this from the Lord, possibly through revelations, visions. If he received this as a passed on tradition from other men then these words of his are not making sense.

Wrong. Paul did not say "I heard the lord say" or "The lord told me" or some variation. Rather, he using a specific term, a technical term used to refer to oral traditions passed on, to indicate the source of his tradition. Ultimately, it comes from Jesus. Saying he "received it from the lord" does not mean "I heard the lord say it" or "the lord revealed it to me" but that this tradition is from Jesus.

Paul is denying that this comes from others. Incidentally, Paul never refers to a Last Super, but to a Lord's Super.

The last supper was the name given to the meal later. It isn't in the gospels either.

 

[dogsgod]

Wrong. Paul did not say "I heard the lord say" or "The lord told me" or some variation. Rather, he using a specific term, a technical term used to refer to oral traditions passed on, to indicate the source of his tradition. Ultimately, it comes from Jesus. Saying he "received it from the lord" does not mean "I heard the lord say it" or "the lord revealed it to me" but that this tradition is from Jesus.

Nonsense. Paul consistently denies receiving traditions from others, and in this case he is specifically stating that he received from the Lord directly denying any human intervention.

 

[dogsgod]

The last supper was the name given to the meal later. It isn't in the gospels either.

Regardless, Paul refers to a Lord's Super, and not necessarily acquainted with a passover meal as in the gospels, which were a later development.

 

[Oberon]

Nonsense. Paul consistently denies receiving traditions from others, and in this case he is specifically stating that he received from the Lord directly denying any human intervention.

Apart from misinterpreting the Greek you can't read, your interpretation also doesn't make sense elsewhere in Paul. For one thing, Paul uses specific terms when it comes to his "visions" and what was "revealed" to him from God or Jesus. For example, in Gal. 1:16, he says that God "revealed"/apokalypsai his son. When he speaks of Jesus, and not any man, "revealing" the gospel to him personally (Gal. 1:12), he uses the nominal form of the same word "reveal" (apokalypsis). In other words, when he says that the gospel was revealed to him by no man but by Jesus, he is very specific about how. It was a revelation, not the receiving of tradition he describes in 1 Cor. 11:23-25. He uses a word in 1 Cor. which refers to the passing on of oral traditions. He doesn't say it was revealed to him, but that it was passed on to him, and that Jesus was the ultimate source.

He doesn't consistently deny receiving traditions from others. In fact, he explicitly states that spent days with Peter inquiring into the tradition. What he does deny (and attempts to downplay) is that those who knew Jesus while he was alive have any more of a claim to being an apostle than Paul.

That you are completely wrong is also demonstrated elsewhere in paul:

1 Cor 7:10- tois de gegamekosin paraggello, ouk ego alla ho kyrious.../to those married I command (not I but the Lord)
1 Cor 7:12 - tois de loipois lego ego, ouch ho kyrios.../to the rest I say (not the lord)

Here Paul is seen passing on traditions he received concerning Jesus' teachings on divorce. If Jesus is simply revealing to Paul his commands, why does Paul take the trouble to distinguish those commands which he has received from the Jesus tradition from his own commands? It is because he is aware of the Jesus tradition, part of which is the credal formula he recites in 1 Cor 11:23-25.

Regardless, Paul refers to a Lord's Super, and not necessarily acquainted with a passover meal as in the gospels, which were a later development.

You have no evidence for it being a later development. Just because it isn't fully represented in a letter Paul is writing is NOT evidence that the whole narrative wasn't circulating orally at that time, nor is it evidence that Paul was not acquainted with it.

 

[dogsgod]

Apart from misinterpreting the Greek you can't read, your interpretation also doesn't make sense elsewhere in Paul. For one thing, Paul uses specific terms when it comes to his "visions" and what was "revealed" to him from God or Jesus. For example, in Gal. 1:16, he says that God "revealed"/apokalypsai his son. When he speaks of Jesus, and not any man, "revealing" the gospel to him personally (Gal. 1:12), he uses the nominal form of the same word "reveal" (apokalypsis). In other words, when he says that the gospel was revealed to him by no man but by Jesus, he is very specific about how. It was a revelation, not the receiving of tradition he describes in 1 Cor. 11:23-25. He uses a word in 1 Cor. which refers to the passing on of oral traditions. He doesn't say it was revealed to him, but that it was passed on to him, and that Jesus was the ultimate source.

He doesn't consistently deny receiving traditions from others. In fact, he explicitly states that spent days with Peter inquiring into the tradition. What he does deny (and attempts to downplay) is that those who knew Jesus while he was alive have any more of a claim to being an apostle than Paul.

That you are completely wrong is also demonstrated elsewhere in paul:

1 Cor 7:10- tois de gegamekosin paraggello, ouk ego alla ho kyrious.../to those married I command (not I but the Lord)
1 Cor 7:12 - tois de loipois lego ego, ouch ho kyrios.../to the rest I say (not the lord)

Here Paul is seen passing on traditions he received concerning Jesus' teachings on divorce. If Jesus is simply revealing to Paul his commands, why does Paul take the trouble to distinguish those commands which he has received from the Jesus tradition from his own commands? It is because he is aware of the Jesus tradition, part of which is the credal formula he recites in 1 Cor 11:23-25.


You have no evidence for it being a later development. Just because it isn't fully represented in a letter Paul is writing is NOT evidence that the whole narrative wasn't circulating orally at that time, nor is it evidence that Paul was not acquainted with it.

Paul's writings predate the gospels, and we we have no evidence of any sort whatsoever that the narratives were circulating during Paul's time. The use of artos is a non issue here since there is no way to connect Paul's Lord's Super with the Passover meal portrayed in the gospel fictions, a later development. Paul makes no claim nor gives so much as even a hint of knowing anyone that knew or met a Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[dogsgod]

That you are completely wrong is also demonstrated elsewhere in paul:

1 Cor 7:10- tois de gegamekosin paraggello, ouk ego alla ho kyrious.../to those married I command (not I but the Lord)
1 Cor 7:12 - tois de loipois lego ego, ouch ho kyrios.../to the rest I say (not the lord)

Here Paul is seen passing on traditions he received concerning Jesus' teachings on divorce. If Jesus is simply revealing to Paul his commands, why does Paul take the trouble to distinguish those commands which he has received from the Jesus tradition from his own commands? It is because he is aware of the Jesus tradition, part of which is the credal formula he recites in 1 Cor 11:23-25.

Is this the only so called teaching you can come up with? This comment on marriage is rather paltry compared to all the teachings we read of in the gospels. This is evidence that Paul is unaware of Jesus as a teacher if this is all you that you've got.

Let's talk about Jesus as teacher since you keep bringing this up.

4. - 1 Thessalonians 4:9

• Now, about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.

Was this love command not the centerpiece of Jesus' teaching? Paul seems to be completely ignorant of that. Imagine giving credit to God rather than that great teacher of all times. Obviously Paul is completely unaware of a Jesus ministry, and no wonder since the gospels weren't written until after his death. For more of the same see Romans 13:8, 1 Cor. 13:1, Gal. 5:14, Eph. 5:1, James 2:8, 1 & 2 John.

So much for receiving tradition.

 

[Dunemeister]

Is this the only so called teaching you can come up with? This comment on marriage is rather paltry compared to all the teachings we read of in the gospels. This is evidence that Paul is unaware of Jesus as a teacher if this is all you that you've got.

Let's talk about Jesus as teacher since you keep bringing this up.


4. - 1 Thessalonians 4:9

• Now, about brotherly love we do not need to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love each other.

Was this love command not the centerpiece of Jesus' teaching? Paul seems to be completely ignorant of that. Imagine giving credit to God rather than that great teacher of all times. Obviously Paul is completely unaware of a Jesus ministry, and no wonder since the gospels weren't written until after his death. For more of the same see Romans 13:8, 1 Cor. 13:1, Gal. 5:14, Eph. 5:1, James 2:8, 1 & 2 John.

So much for receiving tradition.

Here, Paul is appealing to the Thessalonians' experience of the Holy Spirit as teacher. Yes, Jesus is the great love teacher, and yes, Paul knows that. But the Thessalonians were not taught by Jesus, they were taught by Paul (who was taught by Jesus). Having believed through Paul's ministry, the Thessalonians are continually taught by the Holy Spirit.

Paul shows every indication of knowing a great deal about Jesus and his ministry.

But what does all this have to do with seder?

 

[dogsgod]

Here, Paul is appealing to the Thessalonians' experience of the Holy Spirit as teacher. Yes, Jesus is the great love teacher, and yes, Paul knows that. But the Thessalonians were not taught by Jesus, they were taught by Paul (who was taught by Jesus). Having believed through Paul's ministry, the Thessalonians are continually taught by the Holy Spirit.

Paul shows every indication of knowing a great deal about Jesus and his ministry.

But what does all this have to do with seder?

Nothing, other than to perhaps demonstrate that Paul knows even less of Jesus as a teacher than he does of a Passover dinner as portrayed in the gospel fictions.

 

[Oberon]

Paul's writings predate the gospels, and we we have no evidence of any sort whatsoever that the narratives were circulating during Paul's time.

We do. Not only are nuggets of the tradition found in Paul's letters (like Jesus' teaching on divorce, echoed in Mark and Q), but Q and Urmarkus date to around Paul's time.

The use of artos is a non issue here since there is no way to connect Paul's Lord's Super with the Passover meal portrayed in the gospel fictions

Except for the whole "on the night he was betrayed" bit, not to mention his actual words, recorded independently in the gospel traditions. And, despite your claim that the gospels are "fictions" (which, as has already shown many times, is simply indicative of you lack of knowledge in this area) they are relying on oral traditions of the teachings of Jesus which are present even in Paul's letters.

Paul makes no claim nor gives so much as even a hint of knowing anyone that knew or met a Jesus of Nazareth.

We've gone over this. He knew Jesus' brother James, he knew Jesus' teaching on divorce, he knew Peter, and so on. However, we are getting back into your mythicist claims, which aren't relevent here. If you want to take those up again, I have no problem showing all your many basic mistakes, and feel free to add to them. I have a whole thread dedicated to the historical Jesus reseach here

 

[dogsgod]

We do. Not only are nuggets of the tradition found in Paul's letters (like Jesus' teaching on divorce, echoed in Mark and Q), but Q and Urmarkus date to around Paul's time.

Wow, one narrow minded remark about divorce, it hardly makes a case for qualifying as a teacher. So what if some of Q dates to Paul's time, they weren't attributed to a Jesus until Matthew got a hold of them and Q is not associated with any narrative. Q makes no mention of a sacrifice and resurrection rendering it as of no significance for Paul.

Except for the whole "on the night he was betrayed" bit,

Ignoring the fact that 'offered up" is consistent with the other uses of the term within the epistles.

not to mention his actual words, recorded independently in the gospel traditions.

Borrowed from Paul's writings since they came first.

And, despite your claim that the gospels are "fictions" (which, as has already shown many times, is simply indicative of you lack of knowledge in this area) they are relying on oral traditions of the teachings of Jesus which are present even in Paul's letters.

One lousy remark about divorce hardly qualifies Paul's Christ as a teacher.

We've gone over this. He knew Jesus' brother James, he knew Jesus' teaching on divorce, he knew Peter, and so on. However, we are getting back into your mythicist claims, which aren't relevent here. If you want to take those up again, I have no problem showing all your many basic mistakes, and feel free to add to them. I have a whole thread dedicated to the historical Jesus reseach here

Your reading the gospels into the James and Peter that Paul wrote of, how crude is that?

Again, you can't connect Paul's Lord's Supper to a Passover meal without reading the gospels into it. Paul's writings came first, later Christian developments can't be used to interpret Paul, and that's all you've ever attempted to do. Give it up already.

 

[Oberon]

Wow, one narrow minded remark about divorce, it hardly makes a case for qualifying as a teacher. So what if some of Q dates to Paul's time, they weren't attributed to a Jesus until Matthew got a hold of them and Q is not associated with any narrative. Q makes no mention of a sacrifice and resurrection rendering it as of no significance for Paul.

They were attributed to Jesus. Q sayings start with "and Jesus said" or some variant.

Ignoring the fact that 'offered up" is consistent with the other uses of the term within the epistles.

For example?

Borrowed from Paul's writings since they came first.

None of the gospels show any awareness of Paul's writings.

One lousy remark about divorce hardly qualifies Paul's Christ as a teacher.

That is not the only one. It was merely an example. There are more. The point is Paul wasn't writing a biography of Jesus, but letters to churches already familiar with the tradition.

Your reading the gospels into the James and Peter that Paul wrote of, how crude is that?

You've done exactly that. Furthermore, it isn't crude at all, because unlike you I know the genre and style of the gospels, and I know they aren't the "myth" literature you claim. What's more, Josephus also calls James Jesus' brother.

Again, you can't connect Paul's Lord's Supper to a Passover meal without reading the gospels into it.

True. However, I (like every expert in the field) have no problem using the gospels as historical documents which contain (to a debatable degree) reliable traditions concering the mission and teachings of Jesus.

Paul's writings came first, later Christian developments can't be used to interpret Paul,

They absolutely can, especially because they originate from the same period. That's like saying Thucydides can't be used to interpret Herodotus, just because Herodotus wrote first. And once more, rather than hijack this thread, why not address the subject on a thread devoted to it (in the link I provided in my last post)?

 

[dogsgod]

For example?

arrested/betrayed (paradidomi) can basically mean "hand over" or "deliver up," e.g., Romans 8:32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Ephesians 5:2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. and 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her

None of the gospels show any awareness of Paul's writings.

Right, and Jesus wasn't crucified.

That is not the only one. It was merely an example. There are more.

No there aren't, except maybe one about being paid for services. Some teacher. None of the epistle writers are aware of a Galilean ministry.

You've done exactly that.

No, I dont read the gospels into Paul.

Furthermore, it isn't crude at all, because unlike you I know the genre and style of the gospels, and I know they aren't the "myth" literature you claim. What's more, Josephus also calls James Jesus' brother.

You're delusional.

True. However, I (like every expert in the field) have no problem using the gospels as historical documents which contain (to a debatable degree) reliable traditions concering the mission and teachings of Jesus.

You're a true believer like the millions that came before you, and a hack.

They absolutely can, especially because they originate from the same period. That's like saying Thucydides can't be used to interpret Herodotus, just because Herodotus wrote first. And once more, rather than hijack this thread, why not address the subject on a thread devoted to it (in the link I provided in my last post)?

You can't connect Paul's Lord's Super with a Passover meal without reading the gospels into it just like all the other hacks. No one can because there is no connection. Paul's use of artos provides no controversy at all. Give it up and stop pretending.