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

[DCHindley]

- 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

I don't really see these two phrases as being "different". They just arrange the exact same words differently, as Greek grammar, where each word's ending carries the grammatical information, does not rely on word order to convey meaning anywhere near much as English or other German based languages do. This seems to be simply a difference in authorial style.

Besides, why should this have to be taken metaphorically? That becomes a matter of interpretive style.

DCH

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter,

Sometimes, but not when used in the way that Ben used it.

Yes, but how would I have known Ben was not using "dominical" as meaning "Sunday"?

Should we blame French? Do you know any French? The French for Sunday would explain your insistence here

Yes, I am from French origin. That's no secret. It is stated on my website.
Yes "dominical" in French means always "Sunday", but in English, it can also mean the same.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

to Peter,

Sometimes, but not when used in the way that Ben used it.

Yes, but how would I have known Ben was not using "dominical" as meaning "Sunday"?

Should we blame French? Do you know any French? The French for Sunday would explain your insistence here

Yes, I am from French origin. That's no secret. It is stated on my website.
Yes "dominical" in French means always "Sunday", but in English, it can also mean the same.

The mistake is understandable, especially for someone of French origin.

There's no simple way to explain an answer to your question as to how someone knows (and it's a tedious sort of argument, which I am not interested in pursuing), apart from mentioning context and the primary meaning of the word, especially in NT scholarship,* but a native English speaker would not make the same mistake.

I just found it a little weird how you insisted on pressing the point against the writer, even after the initial explanation, instead of just acknowledging that you read something that wasn't there, by mistake... an understandable mistake, all considered.

Personally I would never want to push my interpretation of French over against a native French speaker, let alone the French writer himself explaining his own meaning! No matter how much I might have studied and worked with the language.

* I have seen Ben C. Smith's usage in NT scholarship in English hundreds or even thousands of times. I have never seen the usage to which you appeal in English NT scholarship, and I would be unaware of its presence in English apart from referring to some English dictionaries or thinking about some relatively rare usage in reference to the Roman Catholic calendar. ... It also is just obvious in context, to a native speaker anyway, that "dominical ..." is being used as a way to provide variety of language to the references to the "Lord's supper."

[DCHindley]

to Ben,

I replied that the bread and cup were clear in 1 Corinthians 11.28 because of the mention of the Lord's supper in 1 Corinthians 11.20:

But the Lord's supper was a common ordinary meal between Christians and 11:20 makes no mention of "the bread" and "the cup". And I do not see why, for a regular meal attended by people, one cup would be singularized (however 11:23-27 explains that).

What is the connection, on your view, [Bernard,] between this "ordinary meal" amongst Christians and the bread and cup that Paul talks about in the same context?

Bear in mind that he introduces the Last Supper with "for" (γάρ) in verse 23 and then caps off the discussion with a reference back to waiting for each other to eat in verses 33-34.

What does the bread and cup have to do with anything if the Lord's supper is a distinct meal that does not include the bread and cup?

Not that I would attempt to speak for Barnard, but I think this phenomenon could be interpreted as a sign of an interpolation:

20 Συνερχομένων οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν·
20 When you meet together, it is not (the) Lord's supper that you eat.
21 ἕκαστος γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον προλαμβάνει ἐν τῷ φαγεῖν, καὶ ὃς μὲν πεινᾷ ὃς δὲ μεθύει.	21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk.
22 μὴ γὰρ οἰκίας οὐκ ἔχετε εἰς τὸ ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν; ἢ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ καταφρονεῖτε, καὶ καταισχύνετε τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας; τί εἴπω ὑμῖν; ἐπαινέσω ὑμᾶς; ἐν τούτῳ οὐκ ἐπαινῶ.	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.
23 Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον	23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν· τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ *ὑμῶν*· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.	24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for *you*. Do this in remembrance of me."
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.	25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26 ὁσάκις γὰρ ἐὰν ἐσθίητε τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον πίνητε, τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου καταγγέλλετε ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ.	26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Ὥστε ὃς ἂν ἐσθίῃ τὸν ἄρτον ἢ πίνῃ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦ κυρίου ἀναξίως, ἔνοχος ἔσται τοῦ σώματος καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ κυρίου.	27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28 δοκιμαζέτω δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἑαυτὸν καὶ οὕτως ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ἐσθιέτω καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου πινέτω·	28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ *πίνων* κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει μὴ διακρίνων τὸ *σῶμα*.	29 For any one who eats and *drinks* without discerning the *body* eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
30 διὰ τοῦτο ἐν ὑμῖν πολλοὶ ἀσθενεῖς καὶ ἄρρωστοι καὶ κοιμῶνται ἱκανοί.	30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

To me, the whole section 11:23-29 is an intrusion into a warning that the Corinthians were not looking after one another in the practice of a "κυριακὸν δεῖπνον" [pertaining to lord meal]. Is this not really a meal for the sake of the brethren, perhaps periodic but not necessarily weekly, with the "lord" being referenced being the lord of the household who sponsored their assemblies, or to the Lord God himself? Ignore what has been bolded and Paul (or the original author whoever it may have been) would have been calling them selfish? The charge that folks were sickly and some even died would suggest this was during a period of famine in Corinth.

Verses 23-25, which seems to draw on one or more gospel accounts (Mt 26:26-28/Mk 14:22-24/Lk 22:19-20*), and the moral musings of 26-29, on the other hand, has cultic meaning, as in "you are violating cultic rules to your peril", and suggests the imposition of a cultic interpretation OVER a rebuke over greediness, in the usual choppy manner that all Pauline letters seem to exhibit.

DCH

I haven't exactly looked closely at which synoptic gospel or gospels may have been alluded to in 23-25, but these passages, in Greek, are below: I have a wake to go to, so cannot do it myself at this time. Perhaps we could find a volunteer? Bernard?

English	Greek
(RSV Mat 26:26-28) 26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body."	(BGT Mat 26:26-28) 26 Ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον καὶ εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ δοὺς τοῖς μαθηταῖς εἶπεν· λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου.
27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you;	27 καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες,
28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.	28 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
(RSV Mar 14:22-24) 22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body."	(BGT Mar 14:22-24) 22 Καὶ ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ εἶπεν· λάβετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου.
23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.	23 καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἔπιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες.
24 And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.	24 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν.
(RSV Luk 22:19-20) 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."	(BGT Luk 22:19-20) 19 καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."	20 καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων· τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.

[DCHindley]

I haven't exactly looked closely at which synoptic gospel or gospels may have been alluded to in 23-25, but these passages, in Greek, are below: I have a wake to go to, so cannot do it myself at this time. Perhaps we could find a volunteer? Bernard?

Now that I have had the chance to look over all the versions, IMHO 1 Cor 11:23-25 most definitely was based on the Gospel of Luke:

RSV	NA28 (from BibleWorks 8)
1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread [all versions],	1 Cor 11:23 Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον
24 and when he had given thanks [Luk 22:19], he broke it [all versions], and said, "This is my body [all versions] which is for you [Luk 22:19, for his body, but also 22:20 for his blood]. Do this in remembrance of me." [Luk 22:19]	24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν· τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup [all versions] is the new covenant [Luk 22:20] in my blood [Luk 22:20]. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." [not in any version with regard to the wine]	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.

DCH

[spin]

- 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.

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?

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.

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.)

- 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?

[DCHindley]

to Peter,

Sometimes, but not when used in the way that Ben used it.

Yes, but how would I have known Ben was not using "dominical" as meaning "Sunday"?

Should we blame French? Do you know any French? The French for Sunday would explain your insistence here

Yes, I am from French origin. That's no secret. It is stated on my website.
Yes "dominical" in French means always "Sunday", but in English, it can also mean the same.

Cordially, Bernard

As you know, Latin is an ecclesiastical language, at least in Europe, and the entire Reformation versus Catholic debate was argued in Latin by folks like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.

The Latin word "dominus" (lord/master) was usually employed to translate the Greek "κύριος" (same meaning), and almost always intended to refer, if not to God himself, then to Jesus Christ (the most common). In all the fun, the Latin word has become a loan-word in all European languages. Until the mid 19th century, almost all educated discussion about everything and anything (science, philosophy, law, art, etc.) was still conducted in Latin, so as to exclude ignoramuses (I.e., people like us, or "ignorami", if one wants to be an ignoramus).

I have to admit I was surprised that Ben used that terminology, as I believe he was raised in a US "evangelical" tradition (his parents were missionaries) where the use of Latin, while it does happen, is not nearly as common as, say, it might be in Lutheran or European Calvinist traditions. But, a lot of Christian denominations are still fighting the Reformation (either for it or against it).

DCH

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I should stay away from discussions in which I do not have sufficient knowledge.

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.

Correct. But one should carefully measure the risk to make up his own text with wishful thinking.

It seems to me that one of your arguments is not valid.

Verses 23-27 add nothing to the discourse and do not follow from the context.

1 Cor 11:1-2
1 Be imitators (μιμηταί) of me, as I am of Christ. 2 Now I commend you because you remember (μέμνησθε) me in everything and maintain the traditions (παραδόσεις) even as I delivered (παρέδωκα) them to you.

1 Cor 11:23-24
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered (παρέδωκα) to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed (παρεδίδετο) took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance (ἀνάμνησιν) of me.”

Paul's argument is mimesis and remembering. Do it in the way the Lord did it.

[Peter Kirby]

Split from discussion of Doherty's reading of Paul:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2005

[iskander]

deleted, posted in the wrong place