Ben C. Smith wrote: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?
For sure! I really appreciate that - for example - Bart Ehrman makes really strong cases in his argumentations and not only “a few good thoughts”.
Ben C. Smith wrote: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?
In this case I feel that at the end internal and external evidence go hand in hand because I see no better candidate than Paul to create the spiritual symbolism of the Eucharist. I am convinced that it was not Mark. I think it is nearly impossible that it was someone like Matthew, Luke or Marcion. Someone like John with his abilities would be theoretically an option, but John omitted the Eucharist.
I think it was someone like Paul. He would be exactly the right guy. And then, why not he himself?
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: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 --> ...
I have thought a lot about the relative sequence of the passages in Luke and 1 Corinthians, but I am not sure I have written much about the relative sequence of the 1 Corinthians passage and the passage in Mark. Is there anything weird about the following scenario?
Didache [tradition] --> 1 Corinthians 10.16 [text] --> Mark 14.22-24 [text/tradition] --> 1 Corinthians 11.23-28 [interpolation] --> Luke 22.19b-20 [interpolation].
It would make sense to me that somebody (Paul?) might introduce the body-and-blood symbolism in a manner like what we find in 1 Corinthians 10.16 before somebody else (Mark or one of his tradents) actually put the words themselves ("this is my body; this is my blood") onto Jesus' lips in a gospel narrative. And it makes sense to me that the gospel narrative might then be imported back into Paul in the context of the dominical meal.
Ben C. Smith wrote: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?
In this case I feel that at the end internal and external evidence go hand in hand because I see no better candidate than Paul to create the spiritual symbolism of the Eucharist.
Is that not exactly what we find in 1 Corinthians 10.16? "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the loaf which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?" The step from the Didache symbolism to this is pretty huge, but the step from this to Jesus saying, "This is my body; this is my blood," seems to me to be small and completely in line with what Mark has done elsewhere: put words from early Christian prophets or apostles (like Paul) onto Jesus' lips.
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
Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.
This, the cup (is) the new covenant in the blood (of) me, the for you (is being) poured-out.
- "cup" and "poured out" are in nominative
- "blood" in dative
It seems that in Luke the cup is poured out and not the blood.
This could be an argument that Luke mixed his sources (Paul and Mark) and created an error.
this cup is the new covenant in my blood( which is poured out for you)
There is no error. It makes the chalice the symbol of the ritual. People drink wine in memory of an event of great significance to the converted and of no importance to outsiders.
Bernard Muller wrote:Cup cannot be poured out, but blood can.
By this logic, one cannot drink a cup, either. But then we have passages such as Isaiah 51.17 LXX:
Awake, awake, stand up, O Jerusalem, who have drunk the cup [πιοῦσα τὸ ποτήριον] of his fury at the hand of the Lord: for you have drunk out and drained the cup of calamity, the cup of wrath.
If you can drink it, you can pour it.
This is all just metonymy, a rather common figure of speech in most if not all languages: "cup" for "contents of cup" in this case.
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
Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.
This, the cup (is) the new covenant in the blood (of) me, the for you (is being) poured-out.
- "cup" and "poured out" are in nominative
- "blood" in dative
It seems that in Luke the cup is poured out and not the blood.
This could be an argument that Luke mixed his sources (Paul and Mark) and created an error.
Actually, we're dealing with an added layer of sophistication here in the Lucan strand. The cup is the new covenant: it is not the blood of the covenant, which is the basic idea from Mark and used as found by Matt. It's as though the new covenant has been written/sealed "in my blood" (hence dative). Ultimately Ben C is right regarding the metonymy, but the Lucan redactor has eked out a little extra in his presentation.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
