Message

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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.

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

Postby Ben C. Smith » Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:31 pm

spin wrote:"Original" is always problematic with this stuff.


I know. Hence the quotation marks.

The form supported by the 1 Cor 11 variant. (I have been using the current Lucan material as a peg to date 1 Cor 11's last supper material.)


The first Lucan cup appears to contain wine ("the fruit of the vine"). The contents of the second Lucan cup are less clear; whatever they are, they must represent blood; I have defaulted to wine for this reason, but am open to reeducation.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
 
Posts: 3106
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA

Advertisements

by »

 

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

Postby spin » Sun Jan 08, 2017 7:25 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:The contents of the second Lucan cup are less clear; whatever they are, they must represent blood; I have defaulted to wine for this reason, but am open to reeducation.

The writer has gone full allegory for us, telling us the cup is the new accord (and I assume the metonymy applies here: it is the content that is the accord). The wine is now really of no consequence. At this stage, one only knows of the wine connection from the first cup. The accord—which is "in my blood"—is the focus. In the other synoptics the move is from wine to blood: here it is from the blood to the accord.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

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

Postby Bernard Muller » Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:03 pm

If it is the content of the cup which is poured out, then the author of Lk 22:20 would have in mind Jesus pouring out (spilling) the wine in the cup (on the floor or the table?). That would be rather odd and something that "Luke" could not have written.
More so when in gMark and gMatthew "Last Supper" and in:
Lk 11:50 "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed [ἐκχέω] from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;"
and
Act 22:20 "And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed [ἐκχέω], I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him"
what is shed is blood.

Also of note:
a) Justin Martyr testified of Lk 22:19b-20 (1 Apology LXVI):
"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone."

b) Marcion testified on part of Lk 22:19b-20, which Tertullian used as argument saying it goes against Marcion non-human Jesus (which suggests Marcion did not invent Lk 22:19b-20 because it goes against his theory).
From http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&start=20#p39330:
"He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed "in His blood," affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood." (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.40.3-4).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
 
Posts: 2463
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm

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

Postby JoeWallack » Mon Jan 09, 2017 8:15 am

JW:
Ehrman points out that:

17 And he took a cup and gave thanks, and he said: “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you that from now on I will not drink from the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God comes.” 19 And taking bread he gave thanks and broke it and gave it to them saying, “This is my body that is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 20 Likewise after supper (he took) the cup, saying, “This cup is the new coverant in my blood that is shed for you. 21 But see, the hand of the one who turns me over is with me at the table….”


The words that are in bold and underlined are missing from some manuscripts, and it seems more likely that a scribe would have *added* them to a text that did not have them than that he would have *omitted* them for a text that had them.


Luke’s View of Jesus’ Death

is likely interpolated/forged. Ehrman goes on to observe:

In fact, nowhere in all of Luke’s Gospel – or in the second volume of his work, the book of Acts – does he ever talk about Jesus’ death as having an atoning sacrifice. This can be seen most clearly, in fact, in the discussion of Jesus’ death in the missionary sermons delivered by the apostles in Acts, a topic I will consider in my next post. Before going there, let me stress one point: the words in bold and underlined in the passage cited above at the Last Supper do indeed seem to be highly acceptable and desirable for early Christian scribes. But they run counter to Luke’s own theological agenda as seen in how he changed his source – Mark – when referring to Jesus’ death. Luke does not portray Jesus’ death as an atonement. But these words, not found in some manuscripts, do. They appear to be words not written by Luke but inserted by scribes.


Christian Bible Scholarship (CBS) has always been in denial about this and it would be a good subject for our own Paul David'son Luke’s Surprising and Oft-Ignored Views on Marriage and Resurrection

Considering how important the theme of Jesus' supposed atoning sacrifice was to Paul, this observation is probably better evidence that the author of orthodox Luke had no connection to Paul than any supposed evidence that they did have a connection. Since the source of original "Luke" was GMark and GMark closely follows Paul's theme, the observation that GLuke appears to have been carefully scrubbed to remove all evidence of atoning sacrifice, as always, suggests that Marcion Luke was indeed original.


Joseph

Is The Palestinian Authority a Terrorist Organization Under International Law?
User avatar
JoeWallack
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm

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

Postby iskander » Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:10 am

Bernard Muller wrote:If it is the content of the cup which is poured out, then the author of Lk 22:20 would have in mind Jesus pouring out (spilling) the wine in the cup (on the floor or the table?). That would be rather odd and something that "Luke" could not have written.
More so when in gMark and gMatthew "Last Supper" and in:
Lk 11:50 "That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed [ἐκχέω] from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;"
and
Act 22:20 "And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed [ἐκχέω], I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him"
what is shed is blood.

Also of note:
a) Justin Martyr testified of Lk 22:19b-20 (1 Apology LXVI):
"For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone."

b) Marcion testified on part of Lk 22:19b-20, which Tertullian used as argument saying it goes against Marcion non-human Jesus (which suggests Marcion did not invent Lk 22:19b-20 because it goes against his theory).
From http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&start=20#p39330:
"He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed "in His blood," affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood." (Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.40.3-4).

Cordially, Bernard


The content of the cup is wine until it is changed into the blood of Jesus during the Latin Mass :

HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI:
MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM.

Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis.
iskander
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

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

Postby spin » Mon Jan 09, 2017 1:48 pm

Do you notice how the Lucan/1 Cor parallels no longer talk about drinking??
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

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

Postby iskander » Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:38 pm

No, I haven't noticed. What is it?
iskander
 
Posts: 1064
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

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

Postby spin » Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:57 pm

Mk has all the disciples drink. Mt has Jesus say "drink." Lk (along with 1 Cor) omits reference to drinking and gets straight to business: the new accord/covenant.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

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

Postby Bernard Muller » Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:32 pm

Lk (along with 1 Cor) omits reference to drinking and gets straight to business: the new accord/covenant.

The expression "new covenant/testament (diathēkē)" is only used here (Lk 22:20) in gLuke & Acts. And in these two books, there is no explanation about what this new covenant/testament means.
Furthermore, "Luke" wrote the (old) covenant/testament would be still in effect and not supplanted by a new covenant/testament:

Lk 1:68-75
"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people,
and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David,
as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old,
...
to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant,
the oath which he swore to our father Abraham,
...
in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life."


Acts 3:24-26
"And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came afterwards, also proclaimed these days.
You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God gave to your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your posterity shall all the families of the earth be blessed.'
God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you in turning every one of you from your wickedness."


Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
 
Posts: 2463
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm

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

Postby spin » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:45 pm

No takers?

The accord (or covenant) is present in the earlier layers of the ritual, eg Mk 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many" (cf Mt 26:28.) Lk has moved the focus away from the ritual—even omitting the drinking—and concentrated on the significance of the cup as the agreement. It is no longer "the blood of the covenant", but now "the covenant in my blood" and to stress that, it is "the new covenant in my blood". This is now theology rather than ritual. The Lucan version here is so not interested in the ritual that talk of drinking is omitted. 1 Cor 11:25, based on Lk 22:20 has had to reintroduce the notion, while repeating the end of v.24: "do this, as often as you drink, in remembrance of me."

We can follow the evolution of the ritual meal passage to its most theological in Lk and then its reworking in 1 Cor 11 esp 25 to make it work in its new context.

(I should also note that the idea of the "new covenant" was quite a winner as it was cross-fertilized in numerous later manuscripts both for Mt & Mk.)
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Advertisement

by »

 

PreviousNext

Return to Christian Texts and History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Charles Wilson, davidbrainerd, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], JoeWallack, lsayre, Michael BG, MrMacSon, MSNbot Media, outhouse and 49 guests