Is 1 Cor 11:23-27 an Interpolation? (split)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 4962
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Doherty's reading of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11)

Post by Peter Kirby » Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:50 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Of course, I am also not opposed to the idea that this is an interpolation, possibly even a Marcionite interpolation, given its presence in Marcion. It's just that there is so little (internal) evidence for interpolations in Marcion's Paul, that I am much more reluctant to allow the possibility of even one (despite the shenanigans that are evident in the parallel text of Luke). When a passage is attested in Marcion, I'd consider a hypothesis of interpolation only as a sort of last resort (to maintain consistency with some other evidence, naturally).
On the other hand, not too terribly long ago one of your very own shadow selves argued:
Fridge logic (why didn't you think of that?) should lead to the conclusion, IMO, that the remaining, very clear Apostolikon references to a historical Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23-26 and 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16) are Marcionite interpolations (or at least 'post-Pauline'), hewing as they do towards Marcionite themes ([non-alcoholic] water [the Greek word for 'cup' used] and bread meal ritual, anti-Judaism). They also each have additional markers of interpolation (verbal agreement with the synoptic / Marcionite Evangelion, which came later than the epistles of Paul, and implied reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, which also came later than the epistles of Paul). .... Unfortunately we'll forever be at an impasse because of the grip of Jesus on the western imagination (and preference for 'interpolation-free' texts).
To the extent that 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 represents an interpolation which shows up in Marcion, other interpolations might well have made it into Marcion, as well. I salute your caution on such hypotheses; it is commendable. But I do not want to abandon the idea of interpolation here altogether.
Good point! I forgot about 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
spin
Posts: 1857
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Drive by

Post by spin » Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:52 am

Peter Kirby wrote:So why do you believe it's an interpolation?
I haven't thought about this for a while so I now have a chance to work through this. (And I'll say at the outset 1 Cor 11:18-19 is hard to understand in the discourse.)

First before looking at the passage I must note that it is one of two in the letters of Paul that contains references to the Lord (as though it were a name) that must be read as Jesus. Paul is writing before the gospels and has no written tradition before him that features Jesus simply referred to as the Lord. There's plenty with "my lord" or the lord Jesus"and these are all titular in significance. In Diaspora Jewish tradition the nominal use is restricted to god. It is such a clear distinction that there is no problem understanding Ps 110.1 "the lord says to my lord" for the first example is nominal (therefore god) and the second is titular. It's a little like our use of "the boss". You'd know who I meant if you knew my context. Now there was some sexual harrassment at work recently and the boss told his boss about it, who immediately fired the person. You have no difficulty differentiating between "the boss" and "his boss", nominal and titular, so we can put aside the trinitarian indoctrination that helps us confuse the lord (nominal = god) with the lord (title of Jesus). Paul coming from a Jewish tradition has no precedent for using the nominal form "the lord" for anyone but god, therefore we must be suspicious when it appears that he does so. (The other unmistakable example is 1 Cor 6:14, a verse which has scholarly argument against it.)

Coming to 1 Cor 11:17-34a, Paul is faced with a problem involving a feast he has set up at Corinth, his "lordly feast" (note: not "lord's" anything, for the word is an adjective). This is plainly not a ritual or sacrament such as the one the last supper initiated, but a communal meal, similar to, though less formal than, the communal meal found at Qumran. Such a meal in its turn is probably influenced by shared meals in hellenistic associations—for Paul's community is such an association of brothers.

Paul's problem regards the fact that people aren't participating as a community of brothers, but every "man" for himself. If you get there early, you can stuff yourself and so others who come later miss out on the meal entirely, as there is nothing left. This naturally is completely against Paul's notion of community.

Let me present what I think Paul's exposition and teaching is. My format below is a little strange, as the second half is paralleled to the first half, only backwards, as a species of chiasm.

A17 Now in this instruction I do not praise [you] that when you come together, it is not for the better but for the worse. 33 Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that your coming together will not bring judgment (krima).
B18 Firstly, when you come together in assembly I hear that there are divisions (schismata) among you, and I partly believe it 19 for there must be factions (aireseis) among you to make the approved (dokimoi = tested) among you manifest! 31 But if we judged (diekrinomen) ourselves, we would not be judged (ekrinomeQa). 32 Now, being judged (krinomenoi) by the Lord, we are being disciplined (as with children) so we won’t be condemned with the world.
C20 When you come together in one place, it is not to eat the lordly feast (kuriakon deipnon), 21 for as you eat, each of you rushes to eat his own feast, and one person goes hungry while another gets drunk. 30 That’s why so many of you are weak and lack strength and an ample number are fallen asleep (dying?).
D22 You have homes in which to eat and drink, don’t you? Or do you despise God’s church and humiliate those who have nothing? 29 because whoever eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment (krima) on himself, not judging (diakrinwn) the body [of the Lord].
EWhat should I say to you? 28 A person must examine (dokimazetw = test) himself and in this way eat the bread and drink from the cup,
FShould I praise you? (22) I will not praise you for this!


A 17: Paul's instruction will deal with coming together. 33: Provides the instruction in a nutshell.

B 18-19: deals with divisions within. 31-32: deals with the division between those who are chastised by the Lord and those condemned with the world.

C 20-21: the problem. 30: the result.

D 22a: meaning of what the Corinthians are doing. 29: how it works.

E 22b: Rhetorical question about Paul's message. 28: Paul's understanding of the crux.

F 22ci: Praise? 22cii: No praise.

Let's look at the crux: "28 A person must examine himself and in this way eat the bread and drink from the cup". By examining oneself one will recognize if they are hungry or not. One's own body will tell them, hence the comment about judging the body. If you don't make this examination of your physical state when you eat and drink the lordly feast, you are liable to bring judgment on yourself. There is nothing eucharistic about Paul's discourse: it is not a reenactment of the last supper. He is dealing with the abuse of his community meal, not the ritual of partaking in the body and blood of Jesus, which only appears in the Lukan account of the last supper used by the scribe to place this more performative version of the supper in Paul's feast instruction.

But let's go on to this version of the last supper:

(Introduction to eucharist)23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you—how the Lord Jesus, on the night he was given up,
(~Luke 22:19-20)took a loaf of bread, 24 gave thanks for it, and broke it in pieces, saying, “This is my body that is for you. Keep doing this in memory of me.” 25 He did the same with the cup after the supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.
(Commission)Do this, as often as you drink from it, in memory of me. 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
(hook back to the context)27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks from the cup in an unworthy manner will be held responsible for the Lord’s body and blood.

In passing, the two examples of "the Lord" in 26-27 can only be conceived of as Jesus. This is in stark contrast to the use of "the Lord" in 32, which deals with the Lord disciplining or chastizing the Corinthians, a role generally reserved for god as chastizer. Paul of course is not a binitarian (see for example 1 Cor 8:6). Had Paul written the last supper passage, we would be stuck with this confounding use of "the Lord": how could he use the one term for two different referents? People who are trying to communicate do not set out to use confusing language and Paul is trying to make sense to his Corinthians. (For those who still don't understand the distinction I made at the beginning between "the Lord" as a name and as a title, sorry, but try to reread rather than challenging the notion.)

The payload of the last supper is the commission, "Do this, as often as you drink from it, in memory of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." That's what the last supper is doing there, allowing the scribe to make clear to readers what the last supper is really about in the eyes of the church. For the Corinthians, Paul has already established his meal, so they don't need the commission presented to them.

Now for the Lukan source:

Mt 26 Mk 14 Lk 22 1 Cor 11
26 ...Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it,
λαβων ο ιησους αρτον ευλογησας εκλασεν
22 ...he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it,
λαβων αρτον ευλογησας εκλασεν
19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it
και λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας εκλασεν
23 ...[he] took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it
ελαβεν αρτον και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν
and gave it to the disciples,
και δους τοις μαθηταις
and gave it to them,
και εδωκεν αυτοις
and gave it to them,
και εδωκεν αυτοις
and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."
και ειπεν λαβετε φαγετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου
and said, "Take; this is my body."
και ειπεν λαβετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου
saying, "This is my body,
λεγων τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου
and said, "This is my body
και ειπεν τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα
which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
το υπερ υμων τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
και λαβων ποτηριον ευχαριστησας εδωκεν αυτοις λεγων πιετε εξ αυτου παντες
23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it.
και λαβων ποτηριον ευχαριστησας εδωκεν αυτοις και επιον εξ αυτου παντες
20 And he did the same with the cup after supper,
και το ποτηριον ωσαυτως μετα το δειπνησαι
25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper,
ωσαυτως και το ποτηριον μετα το δειπνησαι
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
τουτο γαρ εστιν το αιμα μου της καινη διαθηκης το περι πολλων εκχυννομενον εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων
24 He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
και ειπεν αυτοις τουτο εστιν τω αιμα μου της διαθηκης το εκχυννομενον υπερ πολλων
saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood that is poured out for you."
λεγων τουτο το ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη εν τω αιματι μου υπερ υμων εκχυννομενον
saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood.
λεγων τουτο το ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη εστιν εν τω εμω αιματι

Luke is working from Mark and improving his source. The specific agreements between Luke & the other synoptics against 1 Cor are in azure. Those between Luke & 1 Cor against the other synoptics are in yellow. The one example between 1 Cor and the other synoptics against Luke is in green (and I put that one occasion down as cross fertilization by a copyist). The relationship between Luke & 1 Cor should be evident from the above, so the simplest conclusion from the data is that 1 Cor used Luke as its source for the last supper. One could try the approach of those who deny the existence of Q (by claiming Luke used Mark & Matt) and posit that Luke used both Mark and 1 Cor, though that has nothing to support it, so we are left which a chronological order for the development we see in the text of the last supper of Mark to Luke to 1 Cor. This doesn't make sense, as 1 Cor was written before Mark, so it strengthens the case for the last supper material in 1 Cor being a later inclusion.

The effect of the inclusion of verses 23-27 was to confuse Paul's argument, for its reference to "body" separates the term's use in v.29 from the earlier part of his discourse and in so doing had the interesting effect of causing a secondary interpolation as a misguided explanation of "body" in v.29. Codex Sinaiticus includes a 7th century second corrector's effort to clarify "body" as "body of the Lord". The same correction was later made in Codex Ephraemi and onwards into the 14th century. Paul intended the "body" in v.29 to refer to that of the individual engaging in his lordly feast, but later readers lost sight of Paul's discourse through the inclusion of last supper and read the "body" as that "of the lord".

In sum:

1. Paul's discourse relates to a communal meal of an association of brothers, not a reenactment of the last supper.

2. Verses 23-27 add nothing to the discourse and do not follow from the context. It has only the most generic lexical hook onto what precedes it, ie "for" (γαρ), and nothing really to hang it on. And there is nothing made of verses 23-27 in what now follows, no development from anything in the verses. The best that can be said is that it deals with a meal of sorts.

3. Verses 23-27 break the structure of Paul's argument—a structure outlined in the first table above.

4. Verses 23-27 contain as use of "the Lord" which unexplainably conflicts with that in v.32. (It also reflects a use of the term which is unprecedented in the literary milieu Paul was writing in).

5. Verses 23bii-24 reflect a version of the last supper dependent on Luke, which is an apparent anachronism. (Working from Pervo & Tyson, Luke was written a centry after Paul.)

6. The inclusion of verses 23-27 confused later readers, as seen by a later interpolation in v.29.

Verses 23-27 are far more useful to the church than they are to Paul's Corinthians, as they clearly present the eucharist as a performative act, which we must assume Paul failed to communicate to his flock before, if he had indeed written them.

That's my response to Peter's question.

(Beam me up, Spotty.)
Last edited by spin on Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 7243
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Doherty's reading of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11)

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:56 am

Hey brother miss you
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 4962
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Doherty's reading of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11)

Post by Peter Kirby » Sat Dec 19, 2015 8:05 am

Nice post there, spin. Thanks.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2575
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Doherty's reading of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11)

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Dec 19, 2015 11:45 am

Spin made a good case.
I think now 1 Cor 11:23-27 could be an interpolation (certainly that would solve my problem with 1 Cor 10:15-16).
However, I do not agree with the progression. The one I would support is:
First, 1 Cor 11:17:34 (minus 23-27), as written by Paul around 55 CE.
Second, Mark's gospel written 71 CE, with his own (& first) rendition of the Last Supper.
Third, gLuke's gospel written around 85-90 CE, with Mark's Last Supper (order reversed for bread & cup, but without the 1 Corinthians-like additions (22:19b-20)).
Fourth, 1 Cor 11:23-27 added on (around 100 CE) when the Corinthians letters were combined and edited (same order for bread & cup as for gMark. Difficulty: why this addition does not conform more with gMark?).
Fifth, gMarcion (130 CE) copying gLuke Last Supper (no evidence Marcion had Lk 22:19b-20 in his gospel).
Sixth, gLuke Last Supper added on and witnessed by Justin Martyr's 1 Apology (150-160 CE).

Note on sixth:
Lk 22:19b-20 is likely a later insertion because:
a) it is lacking in Codex Bezae & some early Latin translations. And in other early manuscripts, sequence of the three clauses is changed in 22:17-20 (wine, bread, wine).
b) it duplicates the cup offering.
c) it suggests Jesus' atoning death ("which is poured out for you"), but this concept never appears again in gLuke/'Acts'.
d) it shares with 1 Co 11:24-25 expressions like "given for you", "do this in remembrance of me" & "This cup is the new covenant in my blood", not appearing in gMark & gMatthew's versions of the Last Supper.
e) Another segment where Jesus is shedding blood also (Lk 22:44, also witnessed by Justin Martyr) is most probably a late addition (would pouring of blood from Jesus' body be anti-Marcionite?).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Drive by

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:34 pm

spin wrote:...
nice to see you back
spin wrote:
Mt 26 Mk 14 Lk 22 1 Cor 11
which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
το υπερ υμων τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
τουτο γαρ εστιν το αιμα μου της καινη διαθηκης το περι πολλων εκχυννομενον εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων
24 He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
και ειπεν αυτοις τουτο εστιν τω αιμα μου της διαθηκης το εκχυννομενον υπερ πολλων
saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood that is poured out for you."
λεγων τουτο το ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη εν τω αιματι μου υπερ υμων εκχυννομενον
saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood
λεγων τουτο το ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη εστιν εν τω εμω αιματι

It seems a Lukan error while mixing his sources

Bernard Muller
Posts: 2575
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Doherty's reading of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11)

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:59 pm

But I still prefer what I initially wrote in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2014#p44619

The progression then would be:
First, 1 Cor 11:17:34 written by Paul around 55 CE.
Second, Mark's gospel written 71 CE, with his own rendition of the Last Supper.
Third, gLuke's gospel written around 85-90 CE, with Mark's Last Supper (order reversed for bread & cup, but without the 1 Corinthians-like additions (22:19b-20)).
Fourth, gMarcion (130 CE) copying gLuke Last Supper (no evidence Marcion had Lk 22:19b-20 in his gospel).
Fifth, gLuke Last Supper added on and witnessed by Justin Martyr's 1 Apology (150-160 CE).

Same Note on Fifth than I made on Sixth in my earlier post.

Two difficulties:
On First,
a) How could Paul propose the concept in 1 Cor 10:15-16 if he had in mind then Jesus originating (somewhat) the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-27)?
b) 1 Cor 11:23-27 could be an interpolation because not fitting well within the context of 11-22 & 11-28-34. Also 11:23-27 can be removed without creating any discontinuity (except maybe one, see below).

Here is 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 without 11:23-27:
1 Cor 11:17
But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.
1Co 11:18
For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it,
1Co 11:19
for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
1Co 11:20
When you meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
1Co 11:21
For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk.
1Co 11:22
What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
1Co 11:28
Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Co 11:29
For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
1Co 11:30
That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
1Co 11:31
But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32
But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
1Co 11:33
So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another--

"the cup" (11:28)? It sounds like a particular cup had been featured earlier. But there is no cup before outside 11:23-27.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 3695
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Drive by

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:00 pm

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
spin wrote:...
nice to see you back
spin wrote:
Mt 26 Mk 14 Lk 22 1 Cor 11
which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
το υπερ υμων τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
τουτο γαρ εστιν το αιμα μου της καινη διαθηκης το περι πολλων εκχυννομενον εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων
24 He said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
και ειπεν αυτοις τουτο εστιν τω αιμα μου της διαθηκης το εκχυννομενον υπερ πολλων
saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood that is poured out for you."
λεγων τουτο το ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη εν τω αιματι μου υπερ υμων εκχυννομενον
saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood
λεγων τουτο το ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη εστιν εν τω εμω αιματι

It seems a Lukan error while mixing his sources
Why an error? It seems to me to be a deliberate paralleling with the body, "given for you."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 3695
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Doherty's reading of the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11)

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:04 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:But I still prefer what I initially wrote in viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2014#p44619

The progression then would be:
First, 1 Cor 11:17:34 written by Paul around 55 CE.
Second, Mark's gospel written 71 CE, with his own rendition of the Last Supper.
Third, gLuke's gospel written around 85-90 CE, with Mark's Last Supper (order reversed for bread & cup, but without the 1 Corinthians-like additions (22:19b-20)).
Fourth, gMarcion (130 CE) copying gLuke Last Supper (no evidence Marcion had Lk 22:19b-20 in his gospel).
fifth, gLuke Last Supper added on and witnessed by Justin Martyr's 1 Apology (150-160 CE).

Same Note on Fifth than I made on Sixth in my earlier post.

Two difficulties:
On First,
a) "how could Paul propose the concept in 1 Cor 10:15-16 if he had in mind then Jesus originating (somewhat) the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-27)?
b) 1 Cor 11:23-27 could be an interpolation because not fitting well within the context of 11-22 & 11-28-34. Also 11:23-27 can be removed without creating any discontinuity (except maybe one, see below).

Here is 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 without 11:23-27:
1 Cor 11:17
But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.
1Co 11:18
For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it,
1Co 11:19
for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
1Co 11:20
When you meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
1Co 11:21
For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk.
1Co 11:22
What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
1Co 11:28
Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Co 11:29
For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
1Co 11:30
That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
1Co 11:31
But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.
1Co 11:32
But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
1Co 11:33
So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another--

"the cup" (11:28)? It sounds like a particular cup had been featured earlier. But there is no cup before outside 11:23-27.
How is the cup different than the bread in this respect? If the Last Supper passage is an interpolation, are they not both (bread and cup) referring back directly to 10.16 and indirectly to the concept of eating and drinking in 11.22?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 3695
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Drive by

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Dec 19, 2015 2:33 pm

spin wrote:Verses 23-27 are far more useful to the church than they are to Paul's Corinthians, as they clearly present the eucharist as a performative act, which we must assume Paul failed to communicate to his flock before, if he had indeed written them.
Let me proffer one more consideration in favor of interpolation. Matthew 26, Mark 14, 1 Corinthians 11, Justin Martyr in Apology 1.66, and John 6 all present the eucharistic order of bread/cup. The longer text of Luke 22 has cup/bread/cup, whereas the shorter has cup/bread; various Syriac and Latin texts of Luke 22 juggle the verses around in order to achieve the order of bread/cup. Didache 9, like the shorter version of Luke 22, has cup/bread.

Since 1 Corinthians 11 follows the order of Matthew and Mark, not to mention John and Justin Martyr, is bread/cup the preferred Pauline order? Well, 1 Corinthians 10.16, 19 has cup/bread:

16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? .... 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

Is Paul playing with two different orders of the eucharistic elements (cup/bread in chapter 10, bread/cup in chapter 11)? Or does his order rather reflect the shorter Lucan order and that found in the Didache (cup/bread), with the relevant verses in chapter 11 being an interpolation based on the other order (bread/cup), which eventually came to dominate?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Ben C. Smith, Bernard Muller, Bing [Bot], hakeem, james_C, John2, lsayre, MrMacSon, outhouse, Peter Kirby and 35 guests