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

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

Latin dominus = Greek κύριος.
Latin dominicus = Greek κυριακός (1 Corinthians 11.20).
Latin dominicus > English "dominical".

I can see the progression here, but κυριακός means "of the Lord" in the times of Paul and not yet "Sunday". If for you κυριακός means "dominical" as "of the Lord" I would agree, but not if you think it meant "Sunday". That will come much later.

Bernard, there is no progression here. This entire etymological enterprise is static. The English term "dominical" does not, at root, mean Sunday. When applied to a day of the week, it means (at best) "pertaining to the Lord's day" (since dominus means "Lord"). The Lord's day happens to be Sunday in Christian tradition, but there is no etymological connection between Sunday (= day of the Sun) and "dominical" (= "pertaining to a Lord").

"Dominical" is simply a straight, literalistic rendering of κυριακός here. It is based on exactly the same Latin word that the Vulgate uses for κυριακός in this verse. There is nothing confusing, weird, or off kilter about it. I went with a Latin root because there is no corresponding English word derived from the Greek word κυριακός. spin used a word derived from an Old English root ("lordly"), presumably for the same reason. But "lordly" and "dominical" mean exactly the same thing. Both spin and I were simply preserving the fact that the Greek word in question is an adjective.

Do you acknowledge that the Corinthian readers could easily grasp what the bread and the cup were based on the mention of the dominical supper in 1 Corinthians 11.20, just like the readers of the Didache could easily grasp what the cup and the bread were based on the mention of the Eucharist?

NO, for reasons already explained.

The last thing I said on the topic was that, if the Didache's cup and bread are clear because the Eucharist has already been mentioned, then surely Paul's bread and cup are clear because the dominical (Lord's) supper has already been mentioned. You did not respond to this argument of mine. Instead, you introduced a new line of reasoning. I am still waiting for your response to this before moving on to that.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

The last thing I said on the topic was that, if the Didache's cup and bread are clear because the Eucharist has already been mentioned, then surely Paul's bread and cup are clear because the dominical (Lord's) supper has already been mentioned. You did not respond to this argument of mine. Instead, you introduced a new line of reasoning. I am still waiting for your response to this before moving on to that.

I already answered that:

"Bread and cup in 11:28 referring to 10:16? In between 10:16 and 11:28, there are no less than 41 verses and one different topic (women covering their hair). So I am very doubtful Paul would expect his readers/listeners to figure out the bread and the cup are related to the ones in 10:16."
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2005&start=50#p44645
Comparing to the Didache:
"The Eucharist is mentioned first (a few words earlier), so the readers would know the cup refers to the one used for the Eucharist ritual."
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2005&start=50#p44652

and
"Also, the order of bread then cup in 1 Cor 11:28, and "eats" then "drinks" in the next verse is consistent with the sequence in 11:23-27 but against the one in 10:16"
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2005&start=50#p44648

and related,
"And then we have in this verse "so" ('οὕτως'), which could mean also:
"likewise" or "after this manner".
The "so' seems to be a reference to what precedes, 11:23-27 (RSV):
Let a man examine himself, and so [likewise, after this manner] eat of the bread and drink of the cup."
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2005&start=50#p44655

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

"Dominical" is simply a straight, literalistic rendering of κυριακός here

I had to ask, because "dominical" can mean "of Sunday".
I do not know why you used that confusing word with two very different meanings when no English translation of 1 Cor 11:20 has that word.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

I already answered that:

"Bread and cup in 11:28 referring to 10:16? In between 10:16 and 11:28, there are no less than 41 verses and one different topic (women covering their hair). So I am very doubtful Paul would expect his readers/listeners to figure out the bread and the cup are related to the ones in 10:16."
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2005&start=50#p44645
Comparing to the Didache:
"The Eucharist is mentioned first (a few words earlier), so the readers would know the cup refers to the one used for the Eucharist ritual."
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2005&start=50#p44652

All of that is about the distance between 10.16 and 11.28, right? But, when you said that the cup and bread were clear in the Didache from its mention of the Eucharist, 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:

In the Didache, the cup and the bread are introduced just as suddenly. "First, concerning the cup." What cup? No cup has been mentioned yet. "And concerning the broken bread." What broken bread? The readers are assumed to know what these things mean, not from previous passages, but from their own practice.

The Eucharist is mentioned first (a few words earlier), so the readers would know the cup refers to the one used for the Eucharist ritual.

And in 1 Corinthians 11.20, the dominical supper is mentioned, so the readers would know the cup refers to the one used for the dominical supper.

11.20, which is squarely in context. (10.16 does not even mention the dominical meal by name.)

I have not been talking about 10.16 for some time now. You evidently did not notice the verse reference in my post.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

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).

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

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, 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?

[Peter Kirby]

to Ben,

"Dominical" is simply a straight, literalistic rendering of κυριακός here

I had to ask, because "dominical" can mean "of Sunday".

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

I do not know why you used that confusing word with two very different meanings when no English translation of 1 Cor 11:20 has that word.

Because he did not expect people to be confused due to their own misunderstanding? And certainly did not expect them to persist in blaming the writer for their own misunderstanding?

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

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictio ... /dominical

l'ouverture dominicale des commerces Sunday opening
l'édition dominicale de ... the Sunday edition of ...
la messe dominicale Sunday mass
la presse dominicale the Sunday papers pl
le repos dominical Sunday as a day of rest
le travail dominical working on Sundays

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
I think 1 Cor 11:23-25 is clearly original

external argument

- early attestion: Papyrus 46, not omitted in a mss


internal arguments

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
24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν• τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν• τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
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.

- 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

- 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


type of metaphor
typical Pauline: mystic in Christ (bread – body, cup – new covenant)
completely untypical for Mark (and the other synoptics + Marcion); but Mark mentioned most of the Jesus sayings in the Pauline letters

[Peter Kirby]

.
I think 1 Cor 11:23-25 is clearly original

external argument

- early attestion: Papyrus 46, not omitted in a mss


internal arguments

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
24 καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ εἶπεν• τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν• τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
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.

- 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

- 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


type of metaphor
typical Pauline: mystic in Christ (bread – body, cup – new covenant)
completely untypical for Mark (and the other synoptics + Marcion); but Mark mentioned most of the Jesus sayings in the Pauline letters

Important arguments. Thank you for this.

I am most intrigued about the argument regarding 'type of metaphor,' but how would we demonstrate that the type of metaphor is foreign to other authors?

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

What is the connection, on your view, 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?

Well, Paul, as usual, is not systematic in his train of thought and wandering a bit.

Here is my analysis of 1 Cor 11:17-34:

From 11-17 to 22, Paul exposed his displeasure about some Christian gatherings (11:17-19) and then focused on what went on before and during these Lord's suppers.

In 11: 23-27, Paul described the alleged Last Supper of Jesus. But not all of it. Only what Jesus did and said at the beginning (or and during) the meal (for the bread) and at the end (for the cup), inviting (the later followers) to do the same (eat bread and drink in remembrance of him).

11:25b-27 is particularly interesting: "Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."
Paul suggested (allegedly through Jesus) that every time his Christians eat bread and drink (wine), that becomes a religious act connected to the death (sacrifice of his body) of Jesus. Paul is now thinking beyond the Lord's supper, for any meals or drinks Christians would take. In other words, Paul is cunningly preaching temperance (for eating & drinking) to his Christians: confirmation later
"the new covenant of my blood" (11:25a), connected to Jesus' death, is obviously inspired by 'Hebrews' (7:22, 8:6, 8:8,10, 9:15,16,17,20, 12:24, 13:20).

For 11:27-28, Paul is reminding his Christians that every time they eat bread and drink (wine), it is in remembrance of the bread and the cup of the Last Supper, and therefore these actions should be considered somewhat sacred (no excess!).

In 11:30-32, Paul generalized about the consequences of excess eating and drinking (illness, early death, Judgment).

In 11:33-34, Paul goes back to the more limited Lord's supper, as he started in 11:20.

To answer your concerns, I can say Paul is not proposing a distinct meal, but just an orderly Lord's supper (with no excess eating and drinking before or during the meal), of course with bread and wine. He is not proposing a ritual to be done during that meal. He is using that alleged Last Supper to induce temperance (eating and drinking) to his Christians, not only for Lord's suppers, but also for any meals (& drinking) anywhere.

Cordially, Bernard