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.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

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

Post by iskander »

Is it possible to understand the beginning of Christianity without accepting the existence of a man as the "mustard seed" of the process of formation?

There are people trying to explain the beginning of Christianity as the mythical transplant of some god on to earth , an explanation attributed to Euhemerus, but even the greatest intelligence and expertise of a mighty biblical scholar has failed to explain much.
I prefer a religion based on a reformer of an already existing religion, who was perceived to offer a desirable change to some people, and whose basic ideas were developed into a new system by later generations. Or something along these lines.
The mania about interpolations, frauds, offending verses etc indicate the process of formation; those are amendments modifying the founding constitution of a new state.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Drive by

Post by schillingklaus »

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.
No, Luke is not dependant on Mark here, but both of them depend on a skeletal cena and on the interpolation 1 Cor 11:23-26.

The table is eclatantly incomplete, missing the paschal lamb (in the case of Luke) and the eschatological words in all gospel accounts.and missing in particular a fairly huge amount of variants of the Lukan cena (Cureton, Syr Sinaiticus, Syr. Peshitta, Old Latin, Beza, marcion according to Tertullian et al.) . Without these variants, a critical synopsis is impossible.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Drive by

Post by spin »

schillingklaus wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:15 am
spin wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:52 amNow for the Lukan source: (table omitted)

Luke is working from Mark and improving his source.
No, Luke is not dependant on Mark here, but both of them depend on a skeletal cena and on the interpolation 1 Cor 11:23-26.
The highllighted verbal allusions suggest otherwise.
schillingklaus wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:15 amThe table is eclatantly incomplete, missing the paschal lamb (in the case of Luke) and the eschatological words in all gospel accounts.and missing in particular a fairly huge amount of variants of the Lukan cena (Cureton, Syr Sinaiticus, Syr. Peshitta, Old Latin, Beza, marcion according to Tertullian et al.) . Without these variants, a critical synopsis is impossible.
The topic of the table comparison is with what is found of the last supper in 1 Cor 11. Obviously it is complete. You are not focussing on the topic.
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

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

Post by schillingklaus »

No, the highlighted stuff does not suggest otherwise, it only suggest a common ancestry, however remote..

It is only wishful thinking of Markan priorists to do so.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

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

Post by spin »

schillingklaus wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:13 am No, the highlighted stuff does not suggest otherwise, it only suggest a common ancestry, however remote..

It is only wishful thinking of Markan priorists to do so.
Very telling.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

The last supper; it is between Luke and Paul

Post by mlinssen »

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
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

So we need to look at the preceding verses

1 Cor 20 Συνερχομένων (Coming) οὖν (therefore) ὑμῶν (of you) ἐπὶ (together) τὸ (in one) αὐτὸ (place), οὐκ (not) ἔστιν (it is) κυριακὸν (the Lord’s) δεῖπνον (supper) φαγεῖν (to eat).
21 ἕκαστος (One) γὰρ (for) τὸ (the) ἴδιον (own) δεῖπνον (supper) προλαμβάνει (takes first) ἐν (in) τῷ (-) φαγεῖν (eating); καὶ (and) ὃς (this one) μὲν (indeed) πεινᾷ (is hungry), ὃς (that one) δὲ (however) μεθύει (is drunken).
22 μὴ (No) γὰρ (indeed) οἰκίας (houses) οὐκ (not) ἔχετε (have you) εἰς (in) τὸ (which) ἐσθίειν (to eat) καὶ (and) πίνειν (to drink)? ἢ (Or) τῆς (the) ἐκκλησίας (church) τοῦ (-) Θεοῦ (of God) καταφρονεῖτε (do you despise) καὶ (and) καταισχύνετε (put to shame) τοὺς (those) μὴ (nothing) ἔχοντας (having)? τί (What) εἴπω (shall I say) ὑμῖν (to you)? ἐπαινέσω (Shall I praise) ὑμᾶς (you) ἐν (in) τούτῳ (this)? οὐκ (Not) ἐπαινῶ (I praise you)!

An obscure translation again, the bold is wrong. I'm going to have to mull a bit on what it is supposed to say, Paul's rhetoric is terrible

τὸ αὐτὸ = the self
ἕκαστος = each
προλαμβάνει = take before, anticipate
εἴπω = mere infinitive; I say

What it merely seems to be saying is that, when congregated, it is not κυριακός to eat each to his own:

1 Cor 20 Συνερχομένων (Coming-together) οὖν (therefore) ὑμῶν (you), ἐπὶ (to) τὸ (his) αὐτὸ (own) οὐκ (not) ἔστιν (it is) κυριακὸν (lordly) δεῖπνον (supper) φαγεῖν (to eat) 21 ἕκαστος (each) γὰρ (indeed) τὸ (his) ἴδιον (own) δεῖπνον (supper)

It's difficult really
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The last supper; it is between Luke and Paul

Post by spin »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 12:17 pm 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.
The author of Mark tends to write more simply than the other gospels, which add ideas, synthesize the source, get rid of information extraneous to the discourse.

which poured out for (the) many
το εκχυννομενον υπερ πολλων

Luke renders this with better syntax and more direct to the reader:

for us poured out
υπερ υμων εκχυννομενον

It doesn't indicate the dependence you want it to.
mlinssen wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 12:17 pm 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
You left out important stuff from the analysis. Luke writes:

Saying "This is my body which is given for you
λεγων τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον

This is actually an elaboration on Mk

and said, "Take; this is my body."
και ειπεν λαβετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου

That λαβετε ("take") has been replaced with το υπερ υμων διδομενον ("which is given to you"). The "take" implies Jesus is giving it to them. You don't get a logic for the contrary trajectory, given that the Lucan statement is recognisably better. The difference between passive and active language is that you may produce poor communication by yourself (active language), but you'll recognise better communication in others (passive language), so you'll tend to copy the better language rather than starting from scratch to say something recognisably worse.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

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

Post by spin »


Mt 26Mk 14Lk 221 Cor 11
27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them,
και λαβων ποτηριον ευχαριστησας εδωκεν αυτοις
23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them,
και λαβων ποτηριον ευχαριστησας εδωκεν αυτοις
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
saying, "Drink from it, all of you;
λεγων πιετε εξ αυτου παντες
and all of them drank from it.
και επιον εξ αυτου παντες

Here's a good example of Lk reworking Mk. Instead of repeating the process already outlined with the bread—taking and consuming—, the Lucan redactor says Jesus did the same thing with the cup, adding extra information that it happened after dinner, so the actual idea of drinking is no longer necessary. It would be far more difficult for someone working with Lk to derive the Marcan version, not seeing the benefit of avoiding the repetition and omitting the after dinner note.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

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

Post by Secret Alias »

There seems to be a nexus of references in the Pauline letters which would suggest that by 2 Timothy (a forgery) Luke was with Paul when writings were copied out (the Pauline corpus).
Post Reply