1 Corinthians and the Temple Cult

[andrewcriddle]

1 Corinthians 9:13

Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?

seems to imply that the temple is still in operation.

(More generally; if one wishes to argue that the references to Jerusalem in Paul are genuine but after 70 CE then the issue is not just the existence of a Christian community in Jerusalem at this time but the apparent importance and authority of this community. )

Andrew Criddle

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks for this argument, Andrew.

I'd like to reiterate that I do not know whether the Pauline epistles are genuine.

So far, I was just arguing against the idea (based on an argument presented here above) that they couldn't be genuine and after 70 AD. It has nothing to do with "wishes," as I am as interested as anyone else in the truth of the matter.

The verse is part of a general argument that preaching the gospel would legitimately enable one to earn their bread by it, a right Paul does not exercise,

"This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? ...

"Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel."

So the question one must ask of this passage is simple. What does this sentence refer to, the temple in Jerusalem specifically, or the existence of those who make their living employed in temple service generally? Based on the context, the last reference to a temple was here:

1 Cor 8:10. "For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?"

And the general plausibility of such a reference is also indicated by Romans 2:22. "You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?"

Moreover, there is at least one reference that suggest a dating after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

1 Thessalonians 2:13-16. "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!"

This has been so frequently remarked as belonging to the period after 70 AD that some scholars view it as an interpolation.

As to: "the issue is not just the existence of a Christian community in Jerusalem at this time but the apparent importance and authority of this community." The brothers of the Lord is the group referenced in Paul, a group understood as having apparent importance and authority. That they lived in Jerusalem after 70 AD, or at another place and another time (whether before or after, whether here or elsewhere), doesn't disqualify them as being important or diminish their authority.

[andrewcriddle]

Thanks for this argument, Andrew.

I'd like to reiterate that I do not know whether the Pauline epistles are genuine.

So far, I was just arguing against the idea (based on an argument presented here above) that they couldn't be genuine and after 70 AD. It has nothing to do with "wishes," as I am as interested as anyone else in the truth of the matter.

The verse is part of a general argument that preaching the gospel would legitimately enable one to earn their bread by it, a right Paul does not exercise,

"This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? ...

"Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel."

So the question one must ask of this passage is simple. What does this sentence refer to, the temple in Jerusalem specifically, or the existence of those who make their living employed in temple service generally? Based on the context, the last reference to a temple was here:

1 Cor 8:10. "For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?"

And the general plausibility of such a reference is also indicated by Romans 2:22. "You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?"

<SNIP>

As to: "the issue is not just the existence of a Christian community in Jerusalem at this time but the apparent importance and authority of this community." The brothers of the Lord is the group referenced in Paul, a group understood as having apparent importance and authority. That they lived in Jerusalem after 70 AD, or at another place and another time (whether before or after, whether here or elsewhere), doesn't disqualify them as being important or diminish their authority.

Hi Peter

The word for idol's temple in 8:10 is quite different from the word for temple in 9:13 it is not a parallel. I agree that hIERON could be used for a pagan temple. But I would be surprised to see ThUSIASTHRION altar used of a pagan altar.

Jerusalem is also the base for Cephas and other apostles quite apart from the brethren of the Lord such as James. I'm not sure what scenario you are suggesting as a possibility. Is it one in which there is a Jerusalem church before and after 70 CE ruled by leaders claiming to be relatives of Jesus with Paul only coming along after 70 CE ?

Andrew Criddle

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Andrew,

Why would you be suprised to see THUSIASTHRION used for a pagan altar?
Greco-Roman Temples had contained altars for animal sacrifice for at least the previous 1,000 years.

According to David Gill in his article: Trapezomata: A Neglected Aspect of Greek Sacrifice, in The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 117-137, Greco-Roman temples generally contained two tables. On one cakes and other gifts for the gods were left and a second table next to the sacrificial altar outside the temple. On this table, priests and/or the person doing the sacrifice would eat the sacrificed animal after it was burnt. The food and presents left on the other table in the temple would be more communally shared. It is this duality of tables in Greco-Roman Temples that the writer is most probably referencing.

There is nothing in the text to suggest that Paul is talking about the Jerusalem temple and altar, which no Corinthians had probably ever seen as opposed to the thousands of Greco-Roman temples and altars familiar on a daily basis to the Corinthians. A few paragraphs before Paul is talking about food sacrificed at pagan altars: -- 8:10For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?

Since the writer has not indicated that he has switched from talking about pagan temples and food sacrificed at pagan altars, it is logical to believe that he is still talking about food sacrificed at pagan altars in this verse.

It is absurd to suggest that this passage indicates that the text is being written during a time when the temple in Jerusalem exists. There is no evidence for it.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Thanks for this argument, Andrew.

I'd like to reiterate that I do not know whether the Pauline epistles are genuine.

So far, I was just arguing against the idea (based on an argument presented here above) that they couldn't be genuine and after 70 AD. It has nothing to do with "wishes," as I am as interested as anyone else in the truth of the matter.

The verse is part of a general argument that preaching the gospel would legitimately enable one to earn their bread by it, a right Paul does not exercise,

"This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? ...

"Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel."

So the question one must ask of this passage is simple. What does this sentence refer to, the temple in Jerusalem specifically, or the existence of those who make their living employed in temple service generally? Based on the context, the last reference to a temple was here:

1 Cor 8:10. "For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?"

And the general plausibility of such a reference is also indicated by Romans 2:22. "You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?"

<SNIP>

As to: "the issue is not just the existence of a Christian community in Jerusalem at this time but the apparent importance and authority of this community." The brothers of the Lord is the group referenced in Paul, a group understood as having apparent importance and authority. That they lived in Jerusalem after 70 AD, or at another place and another time (whether before or after, whether here or elsewhere), doesn't disqualify them as being important or diminish their authority.

Hi Peter

The word for idol's temple in 8:10 is quite different from the word for temple in 9:13 it is not a parallel. I agree that hIERON could be used for a pagan temple. But I would be surprised to see ThUSIASTHRION altar used of a pagan altar.

Jerusalem is also the base for Cephas and other apostles quite apart from the brethren of the Lord such as James. I'm not sure what scenario you are suggesting as a possibility. Is it one in which there is a Jerusalem church before and after 70 CE ruled by leaders claiming to be relatives of Jesus with Paul only coming along after 70 CE ?

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

Hi Andrew,

Why would you be suprised to see THUSIASTHRION used for a pagan altar?
Greco-Roman Temples had contained altars for animal sacrifice for at least the previous 1,000 years.

According to David Gill in his article: Trapezomata: A Neglected Aspect of Greek Sacrifice, in The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 117-137, Greco-Roman temples generally contained two tables. On one cakes and other gifts for the gods were left and a second table next to the sacrificial altar outside the temple. On this table, priests and/or the person doing the sacrifice would eat the sacrificed animal after it was burnt. The food and presents left on the other table in the temple would be more communally shared. It is this duality of tables in Greco-Roman Temples that the writer is most probably referencing.

There is nothing in the text to suggest that Paul is talking about the Jerusalem temple and altar, which no Corinthians had probably ever seen as opposed to the thousands of Greco-Roman temples and altars familiar on a daily basis to the Corinthians. A few paragraphs before Paul is talking about food sacrificed at pagan altars: -- 8:10For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?

Since the writer has not indicated that he has switched from talking about pagan temples and food sacrificed at pagan altars, it is logical to believe that he is still talking about food sacrificed at pagan altars in this verse.

It is absurd to suggest that this passage indicates that the text is being written during a time when the temple in Jerusalem exists. There is no evidence for it.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay

The issue is the specific word THUSIASTHRION . It is not a usual Greek word. It is a primarily Septuagintal/Jewish Hellenist/Christian word. In the NT it always refers to altars (literal or symbolic) to the Jewish/Christian God. In the Septuagint it usually means an altar for Yahweh but it can occasionally be used for an altar stone for Baal. I am not aware of it being used for a pagan Greek sacrificial table,

As I said in my reply to Peter the passage about an idol temple uses quite different vocabulary. However there is a parallel use of THUSIASTHRION in 1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel according to the flesh. Are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? which is definitely talking of the Jewish altar.

Andrew Criddle

[Peter Kirby]

Trapezomata: A Neglected Aspect of Greek Sacrifice, in The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 67, No. 2

As I said in my reply to Peter the passage about an idol temple uses quite different vocabulary.

To elaborate on this, the word for a table used by this letter regarding a non-Jewish place of worship is found in 1 Cor 10:21, "you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons," and it is a form of the word Trapezomata worked into the title of the article above.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi andrew,

Thank you for finding this second passage. It is even more clear here that the writer is not talking about the Jerusalem temple and is talking about pagan temples. Notes the lines that follow:

18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

Only by taking the line out of context can we get it to mean the Jerusalem temple.

The word thysiatherion is made up of two Greek words Thysia, meaning rite or sacrifice and Therion, meaning beast. It refers to a beast-sacrifice. Perhaps instead of "altar," it should be translated as beast-sacrifice. Then the line makes even more sense: "Behold Israel after the flesh, are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the beast-sacrifice.
While the word is used in the Bible, it is not used to refer only to the altar in the Jerusalem Temple. For example, in James 2:21, it refers to the sacrifice of Issac: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" Obviously Abraham's sacrifice was not done in the Jerusalem Temple. Again in Matthew:23:18, the term is used generally to mean any altar: "You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.'"

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Andrew,

Why would you be suprised to see THUSIASTHRION used for a pagan altar?
Greco-Roman Temples had contained altars for animal sacrifice for at least the previous 1,000 years.

According to David Gill in his article: Trapezomata: A Neglected Aspect of Greek Sacrifice, in The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Apr., 1974), pp. 117-137, Greco-Roman temples generally contained two tables. On one cakes and other gifts for the gods were left and a second table next to the sacrificial altar outside the temple. On this table, priests and/or the person doing the sacrifice would eat the sacrificed animal after it was burnt. The food and presents left on the other table in the temple would be more communally shared. It is this duality of tables in Greco-Roman Temples that the writer is most probably referencing.

There is nothing in the text to suggest that Paul is talking about the Jerusalem temple and altar, which no Corinthians had probably ever seen as opposed to the thousands of Greco-Roman temples and altars familiar on a daily basis to the Corinthians. A few paragraphs before Paul is talking about food sacrificed at pagan altars: -- 8:10For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?

Since the writer has not indicated that he has switched from talking about pagan temples and food sacrificed at pagan altars, it is logical to believe that he is still talking about food sacrificed at pagan altars in this verse.

It is absurd to suggest that this passage indicates that the text is being written during a time when the temple in Jerusalem exists. There is no evidence for it.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay

The issue is the specific word THUSIASTHRION . It is not a usual Greek word. It is a primarily Septuagintal/Jewish Hellenist/Christian word. In the NT it always refers to altars (literal or symbolic) to the Jewish/Christian God. In the Septuagint it usually means an altar for Yahweh but it can occasionally be used for an altar stone for Baal. I am not aware of it being used for a pagan Greek sacrificial table,

As I said in my reply to Peter the passage about an idol temple uses quite different vocabulary. However there is a parallel use of THUSIASTHRION in 1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel according to the flesh. Are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? which is definitely talking of the Jewish altar.

Andrew Criddle

[spin]

The issue is the specific word THUSIASTHRION . It is not a usual Greek word. It is a primarily Septuagintal/Jewish Hellenist/Christian word. In the NT it always refers to altars (literal or symbolic) to the Jewish/Christian God. In the Septuagint it usually means an altar for Yahweh but it can occasionally be used for an altar stone for Baal. I am not aware of it being used for a pagan Greek sacrificial table,

As I said in my reply to Peter the passage about an idol temple uses quite different vocabulary. However there is a parallel use of THUSIASTHRION in 1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel according to the flesh. Are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? which is definitely talking of the Jewish altar.

The word θυσιαστηριον can be found in Jdg 2:2 for the altars of the inhabitants of the land. In Jdg 6:28, 30-32 it's an altar of Baal, also in 1 Kgs 16:32, 18:26, 2 Kgs 11:18. In 2 Kgs 21:5 it's an altar to all the powers of heaven.

But I would be surprised to see ThUSIASTHRION altar used of a pagan altar.

The altars of the people of the land, altar of Baal (must be considered a pagan god), altar to all the powers of heaven. θυσιαστηριον may be a word that was developed in the Judeo-christian tradition, but it was certainly used for "pagan" altars.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Spin,

Thank you for this very important evidence on the use of the term THUSIASTHRION.
It seems that its primary use in Hebrew Scripture is to describe both Yahweh's altars and pagan altars. Let us look at some of these cases.

jdg 2:2: And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?

This is a definite reference to a non-Yahweh altar.

jdg. 6.28 And it came to pass the same night, that the LORD said unto him, Take thy father's young bullock, even the second bullock of seven years old, and throw down the altar of Baal that thy father hath, and cut down the grove that is by it: jdg 6.29 And build an altar unto the LORD thy God upon the top of this rock,

Here the word is used twice, the first time to mean an altar to Baal and the second time to mean an altar to Yaweh.

jdg 6:30. Then the men of the city said unto Joash, Bring out thy son, that he may die: because he hath cast down the altar of Baal, and because he hath cut down the grove that was by it.Jdg 6:31Jdg 6:31 And Joash said unto all that stood against him, Will ye plead for Baal? will ye save him? he that will plead for him, let him be put to death whilst it is yet morning: if he be a god, let him plead for himself, because one hath cast down his altar. Jdg 6:32 Therefore on that day he called him Jerubbaal, saying, Let Baal plead against him, because he hath thrown down his altar

Here the word is used three times. All three times, it is used to mean an altar to Baal.

1 Kgs 16:32 He set up an altar for Baal in the temple of Baal that he built in Samaria

Here, again it means an altar for sacrifices to Baal.

1 kgs. 18.26 26 So they prepared one of the bulls and placed it on the altar. Then they called on the name of Baal from morning until noontime, shouting, “O Baal, answer us!”

Again, this refers to an altar to Baal.

2 Kgs. 11.18 All the people of the land went to the temple of Baal and tore it down. They smashed the altars and idols to pieces and killed Mattan the priest of Baal in front of the altars.

This is another reference to an altar to Baal.

2 Kgs. 21: Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years. His mother’s name was Hephzibah. 2 He did evil in the eyes of the Lord, following the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites. 3 He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he also erected altars to Baal and made an Asherah pole, as Ahab king of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and worshiped them. 4 He built altars in the temple of the Lord, of which the Lord had said, “In Jerusalem I will put my Name.” 5 In the two courts of the temple of the Lord, he built altars to all the starry hosts.

Here again we get a reference to a non-Yaweh altar. It is an altar for sacrifice to the starry hosts. While the altar is in the Temple of the Lord, this only emphasizes the alien (and evil) nature of the altar.

Hos 8:11 Because Ephraim has multiplied altars for sinning, they became for him altars for sinning.

This is another reference to altars to non-Yaweh Gods.

Hos 10:8 The high places also of Aven, the sin of Israel, will be destroyed. The thorn and the thistle will come up on their altars.

This is about an altar to Aven (vanity).

Ezekiel 6:6 In all your dwelling places the cities shall be laid waste, and the high places shall be desolate; that your altars may be laid waste and made desolate, and your idols may be broken and cease, and your incense altars may be cut down, and your works may be abolished.

Here are more references to pagan altars.

It seems pretty clear that there is no distinction in the Hebrew Scriptures between THUSIASTHRION to mean altars to Yaweh and THUSIASTHRION to mean altars to other Gods. It is used interchangeably.

This leaves us with the uses in the NT. Do they disagree with the Hebrew Scriptures and use the word specifically to mean an altar to Yaweh or the Jerusalem temple altar?
Strong's Concordance lists 23 NT occurences. Eight of these take place in Revelation and talk about an altar in heaven to Yaweh. That leaves us with 15 other references.
Rom 11.3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
This is a quote from Ezakiel in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Matthew 23.18

And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.

Matt 23:20

Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.

Matthew 5.19

Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

Matt 5.23

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

Matt 5.24

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

1 Cor 9:13.

Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?

1 Cor 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

These six references are to altars in general. There is no indication that they refer specifically to the Jerusalem temple.

Hebrews 7.13

For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

This refers to the Levitical altar in general, but not necessarily to the one in Jerusalem.
Hebrews 13.10

We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

Possibly a reference to the Jerusalem temple altar or not.
James 2.21

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

A reference to an ancient altar to Yaweh, but certainly not the Jerusalem Temple altar.

Matthew 23:35

And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Luke 11:51

From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

This is a reference to an ancient event that happened at the altar of the Jerusalem temple.

Luke 1:11 And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
This talks about an old event that happened to the father of John the Baptist at the Jerusalem temple.

Thus in the New Testament, there are about 20 references that do not reference the Jerusalem temple altar but either altars to Yaweh or altars in general. There are 3 references to old or ancient events happening at the altar in Jerusalem.

Thus neither the writer of Paul's letters or any other NT writer uses the term THUSIASTHRION to reference a 1st century event at the Jerusalem Temple. One can make an inference without any evidence that X or Y writer is talking about the Jerusalem temple when they use the word, but there is no textual evidence to back it up.

To sum up, the Hebrew Scriptures use the word THUSIASTHRION to refer to animal sacrificial altars indiscriminantly both for Hebrew and non Hebrew Gods.
The Christian Scriptures use the word to refer to altars to Yaweh, sometimes in Jerusalem and sometimes not and to refer to altars in general. An inference that the use of the word warrants the assumption that the verse is talking about the Jerusalem temple is invalid.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

The issue is the specific word THUSIASTHRION . It is not a usual Greek word. It is a primarily Septuagintal/Jewish Hellenist/Christian word. In the NT it always refers to altars (literal or symbolic) to the Jewish/Christian God. In the Septuagint it usually means an altar for Yahweh but it can occasionally be used for an altar stone for Baal. I am not aware of it being used for a pagan Greek sacrificial table,

As I said in my reply to Peter the passage about an idol temple uses quite different vocabulary. However there is a parallel use of THUSIASTHRION in 1 Corinthians 10:18 Behold Israel according to the flesh. Are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? which is definitely talking of the Jewish altar.

The word θυσιαστηριον can be found in Jdg 2:2 for the altars of the inhabitants of the land. In Jdg 6:28, 30-32 it's an altar of Baal, also in 1 Kgs 16:32, 18:26, 2 Kgs 11:18. In 2 Kgs 21:5 it's an altar to all the powers of heaven.

But I would be surprised to see ThUSIASTHRION altar used of a pagan altar.

The altars of the people of the land, altar of Baal (must be considered a pagan god), altar to all the powers of heaven. θυσιαστηριον may be a word that was developed in the Judeo-christian tradition, but it was certainly used for "pagan" altars.

[Peter Kirby]

The word thysiatherion is made up of two Greek words Thysia, meaning rite or sacrifice and Therion, meaning beast. It refers to a beast-sacrifice.

This seems to be a mistake. The word θηρίον means offering or sacrifice, the word θηρίον means beast, and θυσιαστήριον means altar, with the etymology coming "from a derivation of thusia and -térion (suff. denoting place)" according to the NAS exhaustive concordance. Notice that the Greek word for beast starts with the letter theta, not tau.

While there are several interesting examples in the translation of the Septuagint, original compositions in Greek may be more relevant. It is "a word found only in Philo (e. g. vita Moys. iii. § 10, cf. § 7; Josephus, Antiquities 8, 4, 1) and the Biblical and ecclesiastical writings" according to Strong's, which might be the first clue in fact. There is indeed no way to assume that the word here used for altar always refers to the Jerusalem one. As you point out, "the Christian Scriptures use the word to refer to altars to Yaweh, sometimes in Jerusalem and sometimes not and to refer to altars in general."

Really the best way to read this passage might be to divide it into three thoughts or questions, instead of assuming a strict parallel between the first two:

Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple?
And those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?
In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

The text of 1 Corinthians attests that Christians share a meal at table in memory of the Lord. There is presumably a leader at the table of some kind. So perhaps the second question (or second half of the first question) regards those who serve at their table/altar and share in the offering of bread and wine.

Then the first part could refer to those who are employed at temples who get their food from the temple, and the last one refers to Paul himself, who proclaims the gospel and has a right to a living by the gospel (not, apparently, that he exercises it--but still, he says, I could if I wanted to).

This leaves the other passage:

1 Cor 10:18 "Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?"

So unusual an expression this "Israel after the flesh"! Where else do we remember this famous phrase?

2 Cor 5:16. "Wherefore we henceforth know no man after the flesh: even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know [him so] no more."

The understanding "after the flesh" is the kind that has passed away, that is no more. Something similar might be implied in 1 Cor 10:18 by the qualifying phrase.

I understand that these may not be typical interpretations, and I am not committed to them. But we must seriously consider the state of the evidence and all possible explanations before deciding on something that bears on so weighty a question for our understanding of Christian origins such as the date, authorship, and authenticity of the Pauline epistles.