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.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Drive by

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:I question whether 2 instances of one form and 1 instance of another form are enough to be statistically relevant to the issue of authorship. But, supposing they are enough, ...
I tend to think: neither nor. It is not enough to make a case, but it is also not nothing. I think that it gives an impression. Therefore my conclusion is only that it is rather likely that Paul wrote the word than Luke.
If we are comparing only Luke and Paul, or for that matter only fullscale NT authors, then I agree. But my own tentatively preferred scenario involves this passage being penned by an interpolator, and this could conceivably be his or her only NT interpolation. In that case, comparing Luke to Paul means little or nothing, and of course we cannot tell anything about the interpolator's linguistic habits without broader examples of his or her work.
Ben C. Smith wrote:Also, would not the very solemn eucharistic tone of the context would tend naturally to call for an intensified form of the term?
Mmh. I think in Luke 24:6 we would expect an intensified form, but it is the simple form ("He isn’t here, but is risen. Remember (μνήσθητε) what he told you when he was still in Galilee"). But in Mark 11:21 and 14:72 it seems the other way around ("Peter, remembering (ἀναμνησθεὶς), said to him, Rabbi, look! The fig tree which you cursed has withered away.”; "Peter remembered (ἀνεμνήσθη) the word, how that Jesus said to him, Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.”) Therefore I think that the context is rather second-rate.
This is a good point, and I withdraw the argument from context.
Ben C. Smith wrote:... is it not also relevant that Paul uses the simple noun μνεία at least 5 times (not counting an instance in Ephesians and another in 2 Timothy), as compared to only two for the more complex ἀνάμνησις?
At least I think this is a further argument in favor of Paul. Only Paul used nouns to speak about remembrance.
Once again, "only Paul" from among the fullscale authors you have brought up, and even there it should probably be "only Paul and pseudo-Paul and, once, the author of Hebrews." Plus there is an instance of one of the nouns in 2 Peter, I believe (going from memory here). If one is forced to decide between Paul and, say, Luke, then you may have something; if, however, one already thinks that an interpolator is at work here, then one has only to imagine that interpolator in the same position as the author of Hebrews or pseudo-Paul, both of whom used nouns to speak about remembrance.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sat Sep 24, 2016 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Drive by

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:If we are comparing only Luke and Paul, or for that matter only fullscale NT authors, then I agree. But my own tentatively preferred scenario involves this passage being penned by an interpolator, and this could conceivably be his or her only NT interpolation. In that case, comparing Luke to Paul means little or nothing, and of course we cannot tell anything about the interpolator's linguistic habits without broader examples of his or her work.
Once again, "only Paul" from among the fullscale authors you have brought up, and even there it should probably be "only Paul and pseudo-Paul and, once, the author of Hebrews." Plus there is an instance of one of the nouns in 2 Peter, I believe (going from memory here). If one is forced to decide between Paul and, say, Luke, then you may have something; if, however, one already thinks that interpolator is at work here, then one has only to imagine that interpolator in the same position as the author of Hebrews or pseudo-Paul, both of whom used nouns to speak about remembrance.
I agree with that. But it seems that it is only your preferred scenario. So far I know all other advocates of an interpolation assume that Luke wrote it.

EDIT: Bernard may forgive me
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Drive by

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:If we are comparing only Luke and Paul, or for that matter only fullscale NT authors, then I agree. But my own tentatively preferred scenario involves this passage being penned by an interpolator, and this could conceivably be his or her only NT interpolation. In that case, comparing Luke to Paul means little or nothing, and of course we cannot tell anything about the interpolator's linguistic habits without broader examples of his or her work.
Once again, "only Paul" from among the fullscale authors you have brought up, and even there it should probably be "only Paul and pseudo-Paul and, once, the author of Hebrews." Plus there is an instance of one of the nouns in 2 Peter, I believe (going from memory here). If one is forced to decide between Paul and, say, Luke, then you may have something; if, however, one already thinks that interpolator is at work here, then one has only to imagine that interpolator in the same position as the author of Hebrews or pseudo-Paul, both of whom used nouns to speak about remembrance.
I agree with that. But it seems that it is only your preferred scenario. So far I know all other advocates of an interpolation assume that Luke wrote it.

EDIT: Bernard may forgive me
Well, I think that the questionable status of Luke 22.19b-20 in the text of that gospel ought probably to inform our reconstruction, too. I think that both texts (the Lucan and the Pauline) may well be interpolations.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Drive by

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:Well, I think that the questionable status of Luke 22.19b-20 in the text of that gospel ought probably to inform our reconstruction, too. I think that both texts (the Lucan and the Pauline) may well be interpolations.
I really appreciate that you and Bernard recognize that the things are not so easy.

I would like to give a further problem.
Bernard Muller wrote:I am thinking along theses lines:
a) "Mark" was the first to write about the "Last Supper".
b) It got copied by "Matthew".
c) "Luke" copied the "Last Supper" from gMark, but reversed the sequence.
d) 1 Cor 11:23-28 was added under the influence of gMark & gMatthew.
e) Lk 22:19b-20 was added to gLuke under the influence of 1 Cor 11:24b-25.
That was done for two reasons:
1) Introduce the concept of the Sacrifice (for atonement of sins), otherwise not in gLuke & Acts.
2) Partially recreate the same sequence as in gMark & gMatthew (bread first, cup second).
I would question that “Mark was the first to write about”. My impression is that at least the explicit equatings (or however we will call it) of bread and body, of wine and blood, are untypical for Mark, but that such explicit spiritual or mystical truths are typical for Paul.

1 Cor 11 Mk 14
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

1) It seems to me that the equation of bread and body or wine and blood can be “true” only in a spiritual or mystical sense as a higher truth (so to speak). In another sense bread and body are completely different things and it is impossible to equate them literally.

1.1) A parable or a metapher has not the same quality. It is only a comparison. For example
Mark 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? 31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, ...

1.2) So also a title. To call someone “Christ” or “Son of God” may be also a spiritual truth, but it is literally not impossible in the same sense in which a bread can’t be a body of a person.


1.3) I think one of the famous spiritual equatings in Mark is, that John the Baptist is Elijah. But Mark (in contrast to Matthew and Luke) doesn’t say explicitly that John the Baptist is Elijah or that John came in the spirit of Elijah. Mark gave only hints to the readers. But it is the reader who must draw the conclusion that John is Elijah and also in which sense he is Elijah.

John the Baptist Elijah
Mark 1:6 Now John was clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist2 Kings 1:8 They answered him, “He wore a garment of hair, with a belt of leather about his waist.” And he said, “It is Elijah the Tishbite.”
The beheading of John in GMarkMark 9:13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased

In the discussion with the Syrophenician woman there seems to be an equation of the “casting out of demons” and “the bread of the children”. But Mark doesn’t say explicitly that these things are the “same” and in which sense.
Mark 7:26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. 27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. 28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs. 29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.

In Mark 8:14-18 it seems that Jesus “is” the “one loaf”. But again Mark doesn’t say explicitly that Jesus is this “one loaf” and in which sense he is it.
Mark 8:14 Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf. 15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. 16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. 17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? 18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?

1.4) My impression is that Mark was an author who teached such spiritual equatings, but he never stated these mystical truths explicitly. He gave only hints and it is always the reader who must draw the conclusion.

So far I know the equation of bread and body or wine and blood is the great exception in GMark.


1.5) But Paul really loved such spiritual or mystical equatings.
2 Cor 3:3 And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.

1 Cor 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

1 Cor 5:7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

Therefore, if we are comparing only Mark and Paul, then I think it is most likely that Paul wrote this “spiritual equating” and Mark took it over in his story.


2) I think that Mark was able to incorporate a source easily in his narrative. From the text we would not expect that behind his story are sources. Three examples

Mark source
Mark 11:17 He taught, saying to them, “Isn’t it written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations?’ But you have made it a den of robbers!Jeremiah 7:11 Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I, even I, have seen it, says Yahweh
Mark 15:34 At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?LXX-Psalm 21:2 My God, my God, why have you take heed of me. Why did you forsaken me?
Mark 15:24 Crucifying him, they parted his garments among them, casting lots on them, what each should take.LXX-Psalm 21:19 They divided up my garments for themselves, and cast a lot over my clothing.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Drive by

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:Well, I think that the questionable status of Luke 22.19b-20 in the text of that gospel ought probably to inform our reconstruction, too. I think that both texts (the Lucan and the Pauline) may well be interpolations.
I really appreciate that you and Bernard recognize that the things are not so easy.

I would like to give a further problem.
Bernard Muller wrote:I am thinking along theses lines:
a) "Mark" was the first to write about the "Last Supper".
b) It got copied by "Matthew".
c) "Luke" copied the "Last Supper" from gMark, but reversed the sequence.
d) 1 Cor 11:23-28 was added under the influence of gMark & gMatthew.
e) Lk 22:19b-20 was added to gLuke under the influence of 1 Cor 11:24b-25.
That was done for two reasons:
1) Introduce the concept of the Sacrifice (for atonement of sins), otherwise not in gLuke & Acts.
2) Partially recreate the same sequence as in gMark & gMatthew (bread first, cup second).
I would question that “Mark was the first to write about”.
For whatever it may be worth, I think that the notion of the eucharistic elements being equivalent to or symbolic of the body and blood of the Lord is (A) not part of the original symbolism, which I think is better preserved in the Didache, and (B) not original to Mark, who was preceded (at least) by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10.16.

I also seriously doubt (from Bernard's reconstruction) that Luke simply copied the Last Supper from Mark and reversed the sequence. The reversed sequence is evidenced both in 1 Corinthians 10 and in the Didache; it seems more likely that Luke had other sources besides Mark (and besides Matthew, for those of the Farrer persuasion). I think the eucharist was practiced widely amongst early Christians, and hardly needed some specific gospel source text in order to come out in a certain way.

It would also not surprise me if the eucharist had been attached to (or built up into) the Last Supper before Mark wrote.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Fine, we agree on that.

I understand less and less why you are convinced that 1 Cor 11:23-27 is an interpolation ;)

Or better: Why are the two or three good thoughts (that 1 Cor 11:23-27 could be an interpolation) so important to set aside all “clear” points and to prefer complex (and maybe also very complicated) scenarios and assumptions of interpolations and back-interpolations here and there?

Is it that you can’t believe that Paul wrote a “historical narrative” about Jesus?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:Is it that you can’t believe that Paul wrote a “historical narrative” about Jesus?
I think we can, but the better question is whether we should. The thread's first page began by quoting me, and I'll quote it again:
Peter Kirby wrote: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).
I think we're a bit too conservative when it comes to condemning the hypotheses of interpolation into Paul. When we have one duck that quacks, two ducks that quack, three ducks that quack... and one last very-duck-looking-thing that may or may not quack, well, then... you may be forgiven for calling fowl.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:Fine, we agree on that.

I understand less and less why you are convinced that 1 Cor 11:23-27 is an interpolation ;)
To say that I am "convinced" is probably too much; I have been describing my current stance more judiciously as my "preferred" position. I came to this preference only recently (during the past year).
Or better: Why are the two or three good thoughts (that 1 Cor 11:23-27 could be an interpolation) so important to set aside all “clear” points and to prefer complex (and maybe also very complicated) scenarios and assumptions of interpolations and back-interpolations here and there?
Well, I suspect it is because I find the "two or three" indicators of interpolation to be stronger than "all" the points to the contrary. :)
Is it that you can’t believe that Paul wrote a “historical narrative” about Jesus?
As my current position is relatively new to me, such incredulity on my part is not a main ingredient. However, that said, I echo Peter to some extent here. Once one looks up from each individual case in which a seemingly historical reference to Jesus is suspected of being interpolated, usually with the support of Marcion (with only two exceptions, I think), one does begin to wonder if there is a pattern here. This sort of thought process, however, is ancillary to my main grounds for suspicion.

I have started to work on a longer response, assembling (for the first time) all or at least most of my relevant observations on the text so as to see the whole case at a glance. I am not sure when exactly I will be able to finish it, but with any luck it will not be too terribly long a wait.

In the meantime, may I ask you a question? Are you nervous, on principle, about proposing interpolations in texts with little or no manuscript evidence? Similarly, do you feel that the external evidence is more important than the internal evidence? Or vice versa? Or are they roughly equivalent in your book?

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
For whatever it may be worth, I think that the notion of the eucharistic elements being equivalent to or symbolic of the body and blood of the Lord is (A) not part of the original symbolism, which I think is better preserved in the Didache, and (B) not original to Mark, who was preceded (at least) by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10.16.
I think I said that before:
"Luke" (22:19a) and the Didache might have one common source: the practices of the Church of Jerusalem.
"Luke would have known them through the companions of Paul during his visits to Jerusalem and combined Mark's version with the observed reversed order.
Paul might have known about it also (1 Cor 10.16).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

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

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Peter Kirby wrote:
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:Is it that you can’t believe that Paul wrote a “historical narrative” about Jesus?
I think we can, but the better question is whether we should. The thread's first page began by quoting me, and I'll quote it again:
Peter Kirby wrote: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).
I think we're a bit too conservative when it comes to condemning the hypotheses of interpolation into Paul. When we have one duck that quacks, two ducks that quack, three ducks that quack... and one last very-duck-looking-thing that may or may not quack, well, then... you may be forgiven for calling fowl.
My yesterday’s question was a bit a personal question to Ben, because Ben and I agree on a lot of things and, if I understand it correctly, then Ben does not follow a Marcionite scenario.

We both have the impression that the Didache preserved more or less the oldest tradition of the Eucharist. Therefore our assumed chronological order of the writings in regard to this point is
Tradition of the Didache --> 1 Corinthians --> Gospel of Mark --> ...

We also agree – how Ben wrote it – that
I think that the notion of the eucharistic elements being equivalent to or symbolic of the body and blood of the Lord is
(A) not part of the original symbolism, which I think is better preserved in the Didache, and
(B) not original to Mark, who was preceded (at least) by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10.16.

My preferred scenario of the “development” of the Eucharist and of his narrated context is simple and fits the assumed chronological order (here totally schematically)
Eucharist of the Didache --> 1 Corinthians 11:23-27 --> Mark 14:22-24 --> ...

If I understand Ben correctly then Ben’s preferred scenario is or could be currently the following
Eucharist of the Didache --> 1 Corinthians 10:16 --> interpolation of 1 Corinthians 11:23-27 --> Mark 14:22-24 --> ...

For both scenarios it might be considered what Ben wrote.
Ben C. Smith wrote:I think the eucharist was practiced widely amongst early Christians, and hardly needed some specific gospel source text in order to come out in a certain way.

You might understand why I asked Ben. A Marcionite scenario and Bernard’s thoughts are far away from me, but it seems that Ben stands only on the other side of a little brook.

btw Personally, I tend to think that a Marcionite interpolation is nearly impossible. These pious biblicists and this spiritual symbolism? This, it seems to me, would be really a duck that quacks.
Post Reply