Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:- early attestion: Papyrus 46, not omitted in a mss
When one is arguing for an interpolation it is always the case that the manuscript evidence is not helpful, otherwise one would not be arguing for an interpolation, as it would be demonstrable through the best manuscripts.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:examples of a typical Pauline word usage
1 Cor 11:23-25
23 Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον
Gar by its syntactic nature is always the second element of a clause, while where do you normally expect to find egw but there?
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν• τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν• τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
I don't understand why you link the possessive adjective with the verb to be. If anything, it links to the demonstrative touto. ETA: I note that Aland et al. cite P.46 as the source for μού ἐστιν, which might explain why you relate them here.
And your logic in the second underlining is mysterious, even underlining part of the verb. The word order in this second is due to it being part of a subordinate clause and placed before the subordinated verb, as in the case on Lk 22:20:
τουτο το ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη εν τω αιματι μου υπερ υμων εκχυννομενον
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood that is poured out for you." |
This is just Greek "inclusive" syntax.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
25 ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι λέγων• τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι• τοῦτο ποιεῖτε, ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.[/size]
- typical Pauline word usage
τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα
this (of) me is the body
- typical word usage by the synoptics
τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου
this is the body (of) me
The Pauline is "
this mine" "is the body". There is no link between "
mou" and "
estin"!? (But see below for more on syntax.)
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:- typical Pauline word usage
εν τω εμω αιματι
in the (of) me blood
- typical word usage by the synoptics
τω αιμα μου
the blood (of) me
It has nothing to do with Paul's typical word order as a look at the many other examples of his use of possessive adjective demonstrates, my god, my gospel, my prayer, my brothers.
What we see in the 1 Cor 11 last supper is a word order for performance. If you remember from my initial post I said that this version is performative. By placing the nouns "blood" and "body" at the ends of their respective clauses, they are emphasized. This is done by changing the word order and moving the possessive adjectives forward.
The removal of third person material is another indicator of the change of usage. The three synoptics include the logical "and gave it to [them]", but 1 Cor 11:24 doesn't say what happens to the bread/body, because it's been omitted. But you can't have third persons in performative rituals, yet the writer can't say "give it to you", because Jesus gave it to the disciples, not the generic reader, though it could have been converted into direct instruction, as Matt did: "Take, eat", which is not necessary in the Lucan version which keeps "and gave it to them", so "Take" from Mark isn't necessary there. But that option wasn't open for 1 Cor 11:26, so the text is rendered defective, though the late corrector of Codex Ephraemi added the Matthean variation to deal with the problem.
Also new in the 1 Cor version is the use of
osakis... an "as often as" to emphasize the performative, "do this as often as you...".
In 1 Cor the main elements of the last supper have been converted into church ritual. Until then it was never so overt.
And I knew I should have remembered to deal with the bread and the cup in 11:28, as the only thing one could grasp as related to the last supper passage. The Corinthians were well prepared through 10:16-17 and the whole discourse of the spiritual food and drink, the table of the lord and the table of demons, food and sacrifices (10:1-31).
Still no-one engages in the issue of the unprecedented use of "the lord" in 1 Cor 11:26-27 which must refer to Jesus. I doubt if anyone would think that "the table of the lord" is that of Jesus, when we have the parallel "sacrifice to demons and not to god" (10:20) with "the table of the lord and the table of demons" (10:21) or that the lord chastizing the Corinthians (11:32) is Jesus. Can anyone imagine how a Paul could expect his readers to follow his discourse if he uses
kurios so wantonly for both god and his christ? Is everyone so dominated by trinitarian nonsense that they cannot apply reasonable analysis to the conflicting use of diaspora Jewish
kurios (=god) with what appears to be hellenistic savior
kurios, ie the application of the non-titular use of "the lord" to Jesus?