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

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

Here is where I think I disagree. Paul may very well be arguing from the known to the unknown: "You (Corinthians) already know that the bread and cup are the body and blood (somehow) of the Lord; hence my rhetorical questions; what you apparently do not know is that this means that participating in other cult meals is, by that token, forbidden."

If Paul was referring to the Last Supper in 1 Cor 10:16, then why would Paul make next the following argument:
10:18 "Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?"

I am not sure what you are asking. Paul can write about more than 1-2 things. Paul can give more than 1-2 reasons to support his view. To turn your question around on you: "If Paul was referring to ordinary meals in 1 Corinthians 10.16, then why would Paul make argument about an Israel?" Paul is talking about 3 different things (a pagan meal, a Christian meal, and Israel), no matter what.

I basically agree in this respect with Peter D. Gooch, Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8-10 in Its Context, page 47:

The section 10:14-22 rests on an extended comparison between the Lord's meal, the sacrifices of Israel and the eating of food sacred to daimonia. The explicit analogy between the cup of daimonia and the cup of the Lord, and the table of daimonia and the table of the Lord (10:21), together with the other clear allusion to the Lord's meal (10:16), make it clear that Paul is thinking of eating that is consciously sacred to the daimonia or Lord it honours. He insists in 1 Corinthians 11 that the Lord's meal be eaten in the correct way (11:27)—that Christ's body be recognized and his death proclaimed by those acts of conscious commemoration (11:24-26,29).

Sure. The textual connection is close, especially between Paul and the longer version of Luke; somebody is copying somebody else (or both are copying another); these are not independent texts.

Just a few days ago, you thought Lk 22:19a-20 was interpolated from 1 Corinthians: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2019&start=70#p44903

Nothing has changed. And nothing I wrote even implied that something had changed. Are you mistaking circumspection and caution for something else?

Ben.

[andrewcriddle]

"Problem" in what sense?

If D.C.H.'s argument held water, would he not say that 1 Corinthians 11:23-27 is based on the interpolation into Luke, then?

If the passage in Luke is an interpolation then it is quite likely based on the passage in 1 Corinthians rather than the other way round.

I'm not saying it is a bad point; I just want to be sure that I understand the reasoning. I suppose there is the point that the Gospel of Luke interpolation (if it is one) has that manuscript evidence regarding it, while the 1 Cor 11:23-27 passage does not (on the contention that it is, also, an interpolation, which can be doubted of course)... but does this show (or tend to show) that it is a younger text (than 1 Cor 11:23-27), when we know that the epistles and the Gospels had separate transmission histories early on (and a difference regarding the amount of early manuscript evidence for each, as well)?

PS -- "God Jul" and "Merry Christmas" to all, from Norway!

Hi Peter

Merry Christmas.

My argument is that both the longer version of Luke 22 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-27 are early and widespread. (Marcion probably witnesses to both.) Therefore we have a rather narrow time scale if both passages are interpolations.
a/ Luke and 1 Corinthians both originally written without the Eucharistic passage.
b/ Eucharistic passage added to Luke
c/ 1 Corinthians 11:23-237 added under the influence of interpolated Luke.
d/ 1 Corinthians 11:23-27 is found in all known manuscripts and relevant citations of 1 Corinthians.

I'm not saying this is impossible but IMO it is unlikely.

Andrew Criddle

[theterminator]

this is a very difficult to understand discussion

[spin]

this is a very difficult to understand discussion

Think about it this way: I proposed that 1 Cor 11:23-27 is an Interpolation, giving some arguments at the beginning of this thread. A brief way to look at the issue is that the conclusion of the passage that started in 1 Cor 11:17, ie 11:33-34, shows not one clue that the eucharist (the setup of which is the material in 11:24-25) was ever mentioned in the passage, though it gathers together all the (other) strands of Paul's discourse (11:17-22, 28-32). This is one of the moments that Paul must have said, "oops, I should have talked about this nugget of theological significance I dropped in here to benefit the church establishment of the late 2nd century, but I couldn't be bothered."

[Secret Alias]

FWIW the references in Adv Marc Books 4 and 5 to these two sections (Lk and 1Cor) are very strange. Book 5 says nothing of note about the passage in 1 Corinthians but says basically I tackled this in the parallel section in Book 4 on Luke. This might suggest that the author thought the two passages were quite similar - similar enough not to warrant a repetition in back to back books. But when you actually turn to 4.40 there is the barest of allusions to the gospel passage "thus is my body" which could be from any gospel and an extended discussion of how the mention of body and blood necessarily mean Jesus had to have a real body ... except for the fact the gospel is not talking about ACTUAL human flesh and blood so the argument is essentially a stupid attack against the Marcion tell claim Jesus didn't have a human body.

So why include a stupid argument in Book 4 about Jesus's body and blood being bread and a cup proving he really had a human body and blood and then in Book 5's treatment of 1 Corinthians say at the point you'd expect something intelligent about the eucharist we read "if you're expecting me to say something about 1 Cor 11:23 - 27 I can't because I just made an extended stupid discussion in Book 4 which barely even referenced Luke 22's Eucharist passage"?

The answer must be (a) Tertullian or Irenaeus saw no reference to anything related to 1 Cor 11:23 - 27 in the original commentary on the Pauling canon and felt obliged to say something and (b) the gospel used by the same "original author" (=Justin) had only the barest of Eucharist references.

The material in 4.40 is very, very much like something Justin would have written - almost stripped word for word from the Dialogue. The original argument (as with other Justinian passages) doesn't seem to have anything to do with Marcion). It comes rather from an attempt to prove to a Jew that the things in the gospel have precedents in the OT which was then adapted to a specifically anti-Marcionite polemic.

IMO a critical understanding of Adv Marc supports 1 Cor 11:23 - 27 was an interpolation and the greater likelihood of the originality of the short Lukan eucharist passage.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

So why do you believe it's an interpolation?

The payload of the last supper is the commission, "Do this, as often as you drink from it, in memory of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." That's what the last supper is doing there, allowing the scribe to make clear to readers what the last supper is really about in the eyes of the church. For the Corinthians, Paul has already established his meal, so they don't need the commission presented to them.

Now for the Lukan source:

Mt 26	Mk 14	Lk 22	1 Cor 11
26 ...Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, λαβων ο ιησους αρτον ευλογησας εκλασεν	22 ...he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, λαβων αρτον ευλογησας εκλασεν	19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it και λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας εκλασεν	23 ...[he] took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it ελαβεν αρτον και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν
and gave it to the disciples, και δους τοις μαθηταις	and gave it to them, και εδωκεν αυτοις	and gave it to them, και εδωκεν αυτοις
and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." και ειπεν λαβετε φαγετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου	and said, "Take; this is my body." και ειπεν λαβετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου	saying, "This is my body, λεγων τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου	and said, "This is my body και ειπεν τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα
		which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν	that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." το υπερ υμων τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
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

Luke is working from Mark and improving his source. The specific agreements between Luke & the other synoptics against 1 Cor are in azure. Those between Luke & 1 Cor against the other synoptics are in yellow. The one example between 1 Cor and the other synoptics against Luke is in green (and I put that one occasion down as cross fertilization by a copyist). The relationship between Luke & 1 Cor should be evident from the above, so the simplest conclusion from the data is that 1 Cor used Luke as its source for the last supper. One could try the approach of those who deny the existence of Q (by claiming Luke used Mark & Matt) and posit that Luke used both Mark and 1 Cor, though that has nothing to support it, so we are left which a chronological order for the development we see in the text of the last supper of Mark to Luke to 1 Cor. This doesn't make sense, as 1 Cor was written before Mark, so it strengthens the case for the last supper material in 1 Cor being a later inclusion.

In Greek there are a few nouns and verbs for “remembrance”, “memory” or “remember”. I would say the simple and “classical” nouns are "μνήμη" or "μνεία". In the Septuagint are 17 occurrences of "μνήμη", 14 occurrences of "μνεία", but only 5 occurrences of “ἀνάμνησις“.

The Greek noun “ana-mnesis” (ἀνάμνησις) is a word with the prefix “ana“ and describes an intensified form of “remembrance”. “ana-mnesis” occurs only 4 times in the NT (Lk 22:19, 1Cor 11:24, 1Cor 11:25, Heb 10:3).

There could be the question whether this word is rather a Pauline word or rather a Lukan word.

Additionally there are three verbs:

the simple form - μιμνήσκω (mimnéskó)
an intensified form with the prefix “ana” - ἀνα-μιμνήσκω (ana-mimnéskó)
a “super”-intensified form with the prefixes “epi” and “ana” - ἐπ-ανα-μιμνήσκω (ep-ana-mimnéskó)

The simple form “mimnéskó” occurred 23 times in the NT,
- in Luke 6 times (Luke 1:54, Luke 1:72, Luke 16:25, Luke 23:42, Luke 24:6, Luke 24:8),
- but in Paul only 1 time (1 Cor 11:2).

The intensified form “ana-mimnéskó”, which is the root of the noun “ana-mnesis” (ἀνάμνησις) occurred 6 times in the NT,
- in Paul 2 times (1 Cor 4:17, 2 Cor 7:15),
- but not in Luke.

The “super”-intensified form “ep-ana-mimnéskó” is hapax legomenon in the NT,
- only in Romans 15:15.

I would say the use of the noun in the intensified form “ana-mnesis” (ἀνάμνησις) is rather Pauline, because Luke prefers the simple form of the verb, but Paul the intensified forms of the verb.

[Ben C. Smith]

So why do you believe it's an interpolation?

The payload of the last supper is the commission, "Do this, as often as you drink from it, in memory of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink from this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." That's what the last supper is doing there, allowing the scribe to make clear to readers what the last supper is really about in the eyes of the church. For the Corinthians, Paul has already established his meal, so they don't need the commission presented to them.

Now for the Lukan source:

Mt 26	Mk 14	Lk 22	1 Cor 11
26 ...Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, λαβων ο ιησους αρτον ευλογησας εκλασεν	22 ...he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, λαβων αρτον ευλογησας εκλασεν	19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it και λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας εκλασεν	23 ...[he] took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it ελαβεν αρτον και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν
and gave it to the disciples, και δους τοις μαθηταις	and gave it to them, και εδωκεν αυτοις	and gave it to them, και εδωκεν αυτοις
and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." και ειπεν λαβετε φαγετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου	and said, "Take; this is my body." και ειπεν λαβετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου	saying, "This is my body, λεγων τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου	and said, "This is my body και ειπεν τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα
		which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν	that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." το υπερ υμων τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
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

Luke is working from Mark and improving his source. The specific agreements between Luke & the other synoptics against 1 Cor are in azure. Those between Luke & 1 Cor against the other synoptics are in yellow. The one example between 1 Cor and the other synoptics against Luke is in green (and I put that one occasion down as cross fertilization by a copyist). The relationship between Luke & 1 Cor should be evident from the above, so the simplest conclusion from the data is that 1 Cor used Luke as its source for the last supper. One could try the approach of those who deny the existence of Q (by claiming Luke used Mark & Matt) and posit that Luke used both Mark and 1 Cor, though that has nothing to support it, so we are left which a chronological order for the development we see in the text of the last supper of Mark to Luke to 1 Cor. This doesn't make sense, as 1 Cor was written before Mark, so it strengthens the case for the last supper material in 1 Cor being a later inclusion.

In Greek there are a few nouns and verbs for “remembrance”, “memory” or “remember”. I would say the simple and “classical” nouns are "μνήμη" or "μνεία". In the Septuagint are 17 occurrences of "μνήμη", 14 occurrences of "μνεία", but only 5 occurrences of “ἀνάμνησις“.

The Greek noun “ana-mnesis” (ἀνάμνησις) is a word with the prefix “ana“ and describes an intensified form of “remembrance”. “ana-mnesis” occurs only 4 times in the NT (Lk 22:19, 1Cor 11:24, 1Cor 11:25, Heb 10:3).

There could be the question whether this word is rather a Pauline word or rather a Lukan word.

Additionally there are three verbs:

the simple form - μιμνήσκω (mimnéskó)
an intensified form with the prefix “ana” - ἀνα-μιμνήσκω (ana-mimnéskó)
a “super”-intensified form with the prefixes “epi” and “ana” - ἐπ-ανα-μιμνήσκω (ep-ana-mimnéskó)

The simple form “mimnéskó” occurred 23 times in the NT,
- in Luke 6 times (Luke 1:54, Luke 1:72, Luke 16:25, Luke 23:42, Luke 24:6, Luke 24:8),
- but in Paul only 1 time (1 Cor 11:2).

The intensified form “ana-mimnéskó”, which is the root of the noun “ana-mnesis” (ἀνάμνησις) occurred 6 times in the NT,
- in Paul 2 times (1 Cor 4:17, 2 Cor 7:15),
- but not in Luke.

The “super”-intensified form “ep-ana-mimnéskó” is hapax legomenon in the NT,
- only in Romans 15:15.

I would say the use of the noun in the intensified form “ana-mnesis” (ἀνάμνησις) is rather Pauline, because Luke prefers the simple form of the verb, but Paul the intensified forms of the verb.

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, 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?

Also, would not the very solemn eucharistic tone of the context tend naturally to call for an intensified form of the term?

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

a/ Luke and 1 Corinthians both originally written without the Eucharistic passage.
b/ Eucharistic passage added to Luke
c/ 1 Corinthians 11:23-237 added under the influence of interpolated Luke.
d/ 1 Corinthians 11:23-27 is found in all known manuscripts and relevant citations of 1 Corinthians.

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).

Cordially, Bernard

[Charles Wilson]

a/ Luke and 1 Corinthians both originally written without the Eucharistic passage.
b/ Eucharistic passage added to Luke
c/ 1 Corinthians 11:23-237 added under the influence of interpolated Luke.
d/ 1 Corinthians 11:23-27 is found in all known manuscripts and relevant citations of 1 Corinthians.

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).

Cordially, Bernard

John 6: 50 - 58 (RSV):

[50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die.
[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
[52] The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
[53] So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

Something strange is apparent here, if Mark and GJohn are written from a common document (See Raskin, Christs and Christianity, ISBN-13: 978-1413497915). The Eucharist has been invented, manipulated and inserted in the Synoptics. That it was NOT rewritten in GJohn is a puzzle.

Dio, Epitome 64:

"Now they would all shout together on one side the name of Vespasian and on the other side that of Vitellius, and they would challenge each other in turn, indulging in abuse or in praise of the one leader or the other. Again one soldier would have a private conversation with an opponent: "Comrade, fellow-citizen, what are we doing? Why are we fighting? Come over to my side." "No, indeed! You come to my side." But what is there surprising about this, considering that when the women of the city in the course of the night brought food and drink to give to the soldiers of Vitellius, the latter, after eating and drinking themselves, passed the supplies on to their antagonists? One of them would call out the name of his adversary (for they practically all knew one another and were well acquainted) and would say: "Comrade, take and eat this; I give you, not a sword, but bread. Take and drink this; I hold out to you, not a shield, but a cup. Thus, whether you kill me or I you, we shall quit life more comfortably, and the hand that slays will not be feeble and nerveless, whether it be yours that smites me or mine that smites you. For these are the meats of consecration that Vitellius and Vespasian give us while we are yet alive, in order that they may offer us as a sacrifice to the dead slain long since."
..."

Bread first, drink second.

CW

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

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.

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.

... 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.