spin wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:52 am
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.
Brilliant
1. Look at ευλογησας versus ευχαριστησας, and observe that the former is used by Matthew and Mark before they use the latter, whereas Luke only uses the latter - I haven't checked that last bit for verses other than what you have here, by the way
2. Look at λεγων versus ειπεν, and check
https://biblehub.com/greek/3004.htm
In that light it is telling that both Luke and Paul have
λεγων τουτο το ποτηριον η καινη διαθηκη
3. καινή? The parable of the wineskins introduces that word, it only occurs 41 times in the entire NT - and it really originates from the patch on the garment (yet they reverse the order), but it is decidedly Lukan. It is marvelous how that parable contains two words for 'new', in Thomas a well as the canonicals, and even in the Coptic NT, and of course Thomas uses it only once, explicitly for the garment, and it is unattested in all dictionaries in the exact form that it occurs there
4. ποτήριον? 24 occurrences in the NT, only 6 of which in Paul, starting with 1 Cor. It's the same word in Thomas where it occurs only once (inside of / outside of etc)
5. δεῖπνον? Only 13 times in the entire NT, 3 times of which in Paul, starting exactly here in 1 Cor 11
Last but not least, observe the refinement and perfection in Luke->Mark->Matthew
Luke υπερ υμων εκχυννομενον
Mark
το εκχυννομενον υπερ
πολλων
Matthew
το περι πολλων εκχυννομενον
That's a classic case of elaboration and expansion right there.
Now the question is whether this is Luke first and Paul second or vice versa, but the other order is a done deal
Slam dunk:
Luke λεγων
τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου
Paul και
ειπεν τουτο
μου εστιν το σωμα
Mark και
ειπεν λαβετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου
Matthew και
ειπεν λαβετε φαγετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου
One needs to remember that there are multiple sources and revisions to the NT. For some Mark is the first, for others Luke (which is Marcion and originally Thomas), and other elements were introduced by Matthew who inserted them into Luke while he was copying Marcion and expanding it to what we know as Luke.
Right here we have a Lukan source - and the interesting question is how Paul got to it. Was this in Marcion already? I should consult Klinghardt and verify it
[EDIT: and now to the point:
το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν
is the excruciatingly verbatim link between Luke and Paul alone, and so is το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν.
From
και το ποτηριον
ωσαυτως μετα το δειπνησαι to
ωσαυτως και το ποτηριον μετα το δειπνησαι is definitely a deterioration on the grammatical level, and the order highly likely is the other way round
λαβων versus ελαβεν is an evolution where the direction usually goes from left to right, although the Gospels contain way too many participles to start with
και εδωκεν αυτοις would definitely point to an expansion of Paul in Luke unless Paul wants to leave out the disciples / iconise the scene and put all the focus on Jesus.
εν τω αιματι μου υπερ υμων εκχυννομενον evolving into εστιν εν τω εμω αιματι would be inevitable in that scenario
So, this undeniably is between Luke and Paul alone. Without looking at anything else it could be that Paul copied Luke, it could be that Luke copied Paul. And the case for an interpolation in Paul is easily made, although the crooked ωσαυτως και is not helping there