Didache chapter 9 the Eucharist

[Michael BG]

I think the text in Greek is:

1. Περὶ δὲ τῆς εὐχαριστίας, οὕτως εὐχαριστήσατε·
2. πρῶτον περὶ τοῦ ποτηρίον· Εὐχαριστοῦμεν σοι, πάτερ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας ἀμπέλον Δαυεὶδ τοῦ παιδός σου· σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
3. περὶ δὲ τοῦ κλάσμος· Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως, ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου. σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
4. ὥσπερ ἦν τοῦτο τὸ κλάσμα διεσκορπισμένον ἐπάνω τῶν ὀρέων καὶ συναχθὲν ἐγένετο ἕν, οὕτω συναχθήτω σου ἡ ἐκκλησία ἀπὸ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς εἰς τὴν σὴν βασιλείαν. ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα καὶ ἡ δύναμις διὰ Ἰησοῦ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
5. μηδεὶς δὲ φαγέτω μηδὲ πιέτω ἀπὸ τῆς εὐχαριστίας ὑμῶν, ἀλλ’ οἱ βαπτισθέντες εἰς ὄνομα κυρίου· καὶ γὰρ περὶ τούτου εἴρηκεν ὁ κύριος· Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί.

(http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/didache.htm)

My provisional translation is:

1. Now concerning the Eucharist, in this way give thanks.
2. First concerning the cup; we give thanks to you, our Father, for the holy vine David of your son; to you be glory forever.
3. Now concerning the broken pieces; we give thanks to you, our Father, for the life and wisdom, which you have made known to us on account of Jesus your son, to you be glory forever.
4. Just as if these broken pieces were scattered over the hills and gathered together becoming one, so gather together your assembly (church) from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. Since you are the glory and the power on account of Jesus forever.
5. Now no one to eat or to drink from your Eucharist, except the baptized into name of the Lord; and for concerning this said the Lord “Do not give the holy to the dogs”.

This seems to be a form of Christian liturgy regarding the Eucharist but it is not a remembrance of the Last Supper of Jesus, it is something to do with Messianic promises – with reference to David for the wine and the gathering of the assembly or church or congregation or people of God for the broken pieces (we assume of bread) from the ends of the earth into God’s kingdom. It is generally accepted that the ingathering of God’s people was an expectation included in the coming of the Messiah and the bringing in of the heavenly kingdom on earth. There are no clear links to this being a creation of the historical Jesus and even the saying at the end might not go back to Jesus but be a Christian justification for excluding those not baptised from taking part in the Eucharist. (Some churches today keep this rule about only those baptised or confirmed into their denomination can take part in the Eucharist.)

I have often considered the historicity of the Last Supper but until today I hadn’t reached any conclusions.

Ben C. Smith in another thread raised the issue of whether there are interpolations in Paul’s account of the Last Supper.

1 Cor 9 11:18-27
“[18] For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it,
[19] for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
[20] When you meet together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
[21] For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk.
[22] What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.

[23] For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
[26] For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
[27] Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”

The Corinthians seem to be doing something completely different from what Paul is talking about. They are gathering together to eat and drink. This I think is likely to have been the original model. This gathering together of the church to eat and drink together could be seen as symbolising the future Messianic Banquet to come and might go back to the historical Jesus.

What Paul should have done is told them that they should pool all the food and not eat what each has brought. But instead he tells them they are doing it all wrong!

If Paul is passing on something he has been told he might well have added the references to remembrance to change the purpose of the meal and to change its nature from a real meal to just a sharing of a cup of wine and some bread.

It then is possible that the tradition that Paul was told about only had:

that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was delivered took bread,
and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you.”
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”

It is possible to see something like this behind Mark’s version

Mk 14:22-25

[22]And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body."
[23] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it.
[24] And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.”

It seems unlikely that Mark’s version is based on Paul’s but it is possible that they go back to a common tradition which created the Last Supper of Jesus, giving it a special meaning and maybe they are doing it because of the problems their church was having with shared meals.

I think we can see different church leaders adapting the practice of a shared meal of Christians as their communities developed. The Didache community keeps its Messianic linkage but reduces it just wine and bread. The pre-Paul and pre-Mark tradition has also reduced it to just bread and wine but has linked it to a Last Supper of Jesus and removed its Messianic context.

[Stuart]

I think you mean 1 Corinthians chapter 11 not chapter 9.

Just a note, the Marcionite text is almost certainly missing 11:22-32 (eg, http://vridar.org/2012/03/11/christ-des ... continued/), interrupting what is a discussion on meal manners (11:20-22, 33-34) ... yeah kind of mundane. But this is not surprising as the Eucharist as ceremonial meal indicates later organized traditions have built up. That is the context of it.

The concept of Paul receiving a tradition παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου as opposed to revelation (Galatians 1:12 παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is impossible in Marcion, even coming from the Lord. The tradition which follows in verse 11:24-25 is lifted entirely verbatim from Luke 22:19-20. While this material in Luke is attested in Marcion’s Gospel (see AM 4.40.4) it is unique that the Gospel would be quoted in Paul. Note, it is even more strange that it include a common variant ⌐ ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον for καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως (all mss. except B p75 א U 579). The direction is far more likely Gospel to Paul than the other way around, as corrections would be made in Paul to conform to the Gospel by scribes and not the other way around.

So the original text is probably this

[18] For, in the first place, when you come together (συνερχομένων ὑμῶν) as an assembly (ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ),
I hear that there are divisions among you (σχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν); and I partly believe it,
[19] for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
[20] Therefore your coming together (Συνερχομένων οὗν ὑμῶν) in one place is it not to eat the Lord’s Supper;
[21] For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk.
[22] What! Do you not have houses (οἰκίας) to eat and drink in? ... and do you shame those without?
What should I say to you? Will I praise you? I don't praise you in this.
[33] So then my brothers, when you come together(συνερχόμενοι) to eat, wait for one another.
[34] If anyone hungers, let him eat in his home (οἴκῳ), lest you come together for judgment (κρίμα συνέρχησθε).

Note: verses 11:22b has several textual inconsistencies with the attested Marcionite texts - would take longer to explain than this post.

The last supper eating ritual indicates a more formal church structure than you would expect in the early frontier days of Paul's evangelism. The entire concept of traditions implies the first hand Apostles have left the scene and rituals now replace their authority. An example to consider is the American Thanksgiving meal. It took a rather long time to become the formal ritual we have today.

[Peter Kirby]

Just a note, the Marcionite text is almost certainly missing 11:22-32 (eg, http://vridar.org/2012/03/11/christ-des ... continued/), interrupting what is a discussion on meal manners (11:20-22, 33-34)

That may be, but when I read that page (and as I understand Couchoud), his position is that the passage was added by Marcion (thus forming part of the "Marcionite text" according to Couchoud by virtue of being added by Marcion... ?).

[Stuart]

Thanks for the correction on Couchoud's thoughts. I did not mean to say Couchoud thought they were added to Marcion - that was sloppy of me. I was mostly pointing out this as an example of somebody who marked the passage as an interpolation. His conclusion on who put the interpolation in is clearly incorrect, but that does not diminish the correctness of the observation. There are a few prominent critics who have marked it as an interpolation, but until I find again where they say so, I refrain from adding them to the list.

When I examine passages I do my own work first, and only after do I look up what others have done to avoid undue influence or bias. So my notes are not always complete. But this is an important passage so I will work on it and get back to you.
There are far too many theological problems with the interpolation to have been in Marcion's text.

[Michael BG]

I think you mean 1 Corinthians chapter 11 not chapter 9.

Yes. Thank you. I don’t know why I made the mistake.

Just a note, the Marcionite text is almost certainly missing 11:22-32 (eg, http://vridar.org/2012/03/11/christ-des ... continued/), interrupting what is a discussion on meal manners (11:20-22, 33-34) ... yeah kind of mundane. But this is not surprising as the Eucharist as ceremonial meal indicates later organized traditions have built up. That is the context of it.

That may be, but when I read that page (and as I understand Couchoud), his position is that the passage was added by Marcion (thus forming part of the "Marcionite text" according to Couchoud by virtue of being added by Marcion... ?).

Whenever anyone refer me to what is or isn’t in a Marcionite text I also look at Ben C Smith’s posts here (I wish they were in a sub-category and locked for easy reference). His Corinthian one is: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1838

1 Cor 11 is presented – viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1838&start=10#p40563

1 Be imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brothers, that you remember me in all things, and hold firm the traditions, even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know that the head of every [Marcion: a] man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her hair also be cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or be shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man; 9 for man wasn’t created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this cause the woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman independent of the man, nor the man independent of the woman, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, so a man also comes through a woman; but all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves. Is it appropriate that a woman pray to God unveiled? 14 Doesn’t even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither do God’s assemblies. 17 But in giving you this command, I don’t praise you, that you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when you come together in the assembly, I hear that divisions exist among you, and I partly believe it. 19 For there also must be factions among you, that those who are approved may be revealed among you. 20 When therefore you assemble yourselves together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in your eating each one takes his own supper first. One is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What, don’t you have houses to eat and to drink in? Or do you despise God’s assembly and put them to shame who don’t have enough? What shall I tell you? Shall I praise you? In this I don’t praise you. 23 For I received from the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread. 24 When he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “Take, eat. This is my body, which is broken for you. Do this in memory of me.” 25 In the same way he also took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink, in memory of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks the Lord’s cup in a way unworthy of the Lord will be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy way eats and drinks judgment to himself if he doesn’t discern the Lord’s body. 30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep. 31 For if we discerned ourselves, we wouldn’t be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are punished by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world. 33 Therefore, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest your coming together be for judgment. The rest I will set in order whenever I come.

The Greek text I am using is Nestle 1904, which is in the public domain; the English translation I am using is the World English Bible (WEB), which deliberately eschews its copyright. All references to page numbers in Jason BeDuhn are to his 2013 book, The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon.

The color coding represents the reconstruction by Jason BeDuhn on pages 229-259 of The First New Testament and the list of shorter Marcionite readings by Peter Kirby in a post on his weblog dated April 6, 2015 (that is, it does not represent my own research). In that same spirit, it also applies only to the English translation, since that is all that BeDuhn gives; it runs as follows:

• Words, phrases, or ideas attested to some degree as present in the Marcionite text, according to BeDuhn, are in green italics. BeDuhn is much less concerned about exact verbal reconstruction of the text than about representing the gist of what was extant. Note that he places some material in brackets which is not attested, but which he feels is required for the sense of what is attested; I have not included the bracketed material, leaving it to the reader
• Words or phrases which I have had to add or change in order to adequately reflect BeDuhn's reconstruction are both italicized and underlined. I use brackets when adding to or changing the text in this way would garble the grammar (the bracketed material, therefore, is meant to replace part of the text).
• Words or phrases which are not attested either as absent or as present, according to BeDuhn, are in plain black.
• Words or phrases attested as possibly absent from the Marcionite text, according to Kirby, are in red. Beduhn deals with textual omissions too, of course, but Kirby's list of omissions swallows BeDuhn's whole. The four criteria which Kirby uses are as follows: (1) Passages attested as absent from the Marcionite version by the patristic writers. (2) Unattested passages that have miscellaneous manuscript support and/or patristic support for omission. (3) Unattested passages that Tertullian is likely to have cited were they present in the Marcionite version. (4) Unattested passages that correspond to a scholarly conjecture for interpolation on grounds other than the alleged absence in the Marcionite version. The criteria applicable to each possible omission from the Marcionite text are enclosed in brackets next to the word, phrase, or passage in question. Please note that Kirby lists only those omissions involving more than four words.
• Words or phrases attested as absent from one part of the catholic Pauline text but present at another location in the Marcionite version, according to BeDuhn, are in orange.

It seems that Peter Kirby and Jason BeDuhn do not think that 1 Cor 11:23-32 was missing from the Marcionite version.

The concept of Paul receiving a tradition παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου as opposed to revelation (Galatians 1:12 παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is impossible in Marcion, even coming from the Lord. The tradition which follows in verse 11:24-25 is lifted entirely verbatim from Luke 22:19-20. While this material in Luke is attested in Marcion’s Gospel (see AM 4.40.4) it is unique that the Gospel would be quoted in Paul. Note, it is even more strange that it include a common variant ⌐ ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον for καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως (all mss. except B p75 א U 579). The direction is far more likely Gospel to Paul than the other way around, as corrections would be made in Paul to conform to the Gospel by scribes and not the other way around.

Referring again to Ben C Smith

14 When the hour had come, he sat down with the twelve apostles. 15 He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, 16 for I tell you, I will no longer by any means eat of it until it is fulfilled in God’s Kingdom.” 17 He received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, “Take this, and share it among yourselves, 18 for I tell you, I will not drink at all again from the fruit of the vine, until God’s Kingdom comes.” 19 He, after they had dined, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in memory of me.” 20 Likewise, he took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

• Words or phrases specifically attested to some degree as present in the Marcionite text, according to Roth, are in blue boldface. Roth specifies several degrees of probability for such verbatim attestation, but I do not replicate those degrees here, since to do so feels to me like a possible breach of intellectual property; instead, I offer the source texts, mainly from Tertullian and Epiphanius, below each section. Roth also specially marks words or phrases whose exact word order in the Marcionite text cannot be reconstructed, but I have ignored the matter of word order completely in this endeavor. Please note that the degrees of probability range from what Roth calls secure readings all the way down to merely possible readings; one may not, therefore, simply assume that boldfaced blue words and phrases are automatically present in the Marcionite text; they are merely the words and phrases for which Roth apparently feels there is enough evidence to at least debate.
• Words or phrases generically attested as present in the Marcionite text, according to Roth, but with no way of determining exact wording, are in blue italics.
• Words or phrases attested as present in Marcion but either absent from or rendered differently in canonical Luke, according to Roth, are underlined in blue boldface (being, virtually by definition, specifically attested as present in the Marcionite text). If the underlined words are replacing Lucan material (that is, if the underlined words are differently rendered in Luke and not merely absent), that replaced (or differently rendered) Lucan material is given first in blue italics, as described above, and then the Marcionite material is given in brackets immediately thereafter.
• Words or phrases which are not attested either as absent or as present, according to Roth, are in plain black.
• Words or phrases attested as absent from the Marcionite text, according to Roth, are in red.
• Words or phrases attested as absent from one part of the catholic Lucan text but present at another location in the Marcionite version, according to Roth, are in purple (= red + blue).
• Roth sometimes includes words or phrases in his reconstruction, but, instead of coding them in his usual manner, opts to remark that they "may not have been present". He seems to reserve these remarks for those occasions on which one finds evidence for the verse lacking the word or phrase in question, but no actual or direct attestation to that effect. Such words or phrases I have boldfaced in blue, since Roth does include them in his reconstruction, but I have also enclosed them in ~two tildes~ in order to mark them out as special. There are only about a dozen or so instances throughout the gospel.

Futhermore, I have included font coding based on pages 99-127 of The First New Testament, Jason DeBuhn, who offers a reconstruction of the text in English only. Overall, DeBuhn is far less concerned (in most cases) with exact verbal reconstruction than with getting the gist of the passage. Because his reconstruction is general and in translation, I have coded only the English translation for BeDuhn, and only those words or phrases which Roth has not already included in his own reconstruction. Therefore, while this present effort will mark those words and phrases which BeDuhn includes but Roth does not, it will not in any way mark those which BeDuhn excludes as compared with Roth. This seems to me to be appropriate, since Roth both argues the exact wording more closely than does BeDuhn and is more conservative about what gets marked. The coding is as follows:

• Words or phrases attested as present in the Marcionite text, according to BeDuhn, are italicized (but not colored). I feel the italics are fitting, compared to how I have used them for Roth, since BeDuhn is typically after the general, rather than the specific, sense of any given passage, and is thus more willing than Roth to hypothesize the presence of certain features of the text.
• Words or phrases which I have had to add or change in order to adequately reflect BeDuhn's reconstruction are both italicized and underlined. Again, the underlining means essentially the same thing for BeDuhn as for Roth. I use brackets when adding to or changing the text in this way would garble the grammar (the bracketed material, therefore, is meant to replace part of the text).

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.40.2-4
Again as presented by Ben C Smith –

[3] When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say, ) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: "I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread," which means, of course, the cross upon His body. [4] And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, 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

The relevant section is:

14 When the hour had come, he sat down with the twelve apostles. 15 He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, 16 for I tell you, I will no longer by any means eat of it until it is fulfilled in God’s Kingdom.” 17 He received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, “Take this, and share it among yourselves, 18 for I tell you, I will not drink at all again from the fruit of the vine, until God’s Kingdom comes.” 19 He, after they had dined, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in memory of me.” 20 Likewise, he took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

It is generally accepted that the original Luke didn’t include verse 20 because it is much more likely the second cup would be added where it is in Mark, rather than before the bread. It therefore seems likely that Luke has the order cup, bread because that was the order in his community.

1 Cor 11:24-25

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 ἐὰνπίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

Luke 22:19-20
19
καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴνἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
20
καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.

1 Cor 11
[24] and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[25] In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

Lk 22
[17] And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, "Take this, and divide it among yourselves;

[19] And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
[20] And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

The underlined words are in 1 Cor 11. If 1 Cor 11:24-25 was added then it must have been added once verse 20 was added to Luke.

So the original text is probably this

[18] For, in the first place, when you come together (συνερχομένων ὑμῶν) as an assembly (ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ),
I hear that there are divisions among you (σχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν); and I partly believe it,
[19] for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
[20] Therefore your coming together (Συνερχομένων οὗν ὑμῶν) in one place is it not to eat the Lord’s Supper;
[21] For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk.
[22] What! Do you not have houses (οἰκίας) to eat and drink in? ... and do you shame those without?
What should I say to you? Will I praise you? I don't praise you in this.
[33] So then my brothers, when you come together(συνερχόμενοι) to eat, wait for one another.
[34] If anyone hungers, let him eat in his home (οἴκῳ), lest you come together for judgment (κρίμα συνέρχησθε).

Note: verses 11:22b has several textual inconsistencies with the attested Marcionite texts - would take longer to explain than this post.

The last supper eating ritual indicates a more formal church structure than you would expect in the early frontier days of Paul's evangelism. The entire concept of traditions implies the first hand Apostles have left the scene and rituals now replace their authority. An example to consider is the American Thanksgiving meal. It took a rather long time to become the formal ritual we have today.

I like the idea that 1 Cor 11:23-32 is an interpolation but I am not sure you have made a strong enough case for it.

1 Cor 11:23a
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you,
Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν,

Gal 1:12
[12] For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτό, οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην, ἀλλὰ δι' ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

1 Cor 15:3
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφάς,

A case has been made that the wording of 1 Cor 15:3 is not normally that used by Paul. I can’t remember what it consists of, but I wonder if it can be applied to 1 Cor 11:23 as well.

[Michael BG]

Ben posted this in another thread and I think it is relevant here,

Finding layers in the texts/traditions can sometimes help us trace trajectories through early Christianity. This case, just as one example, makes me wonder about the relationship between 1 Corinthians 11.23-26 and Mark 14.22-25:

1 Corinthians 11.23-26

Mark 14.22-25

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Was the author of canonical Mark aware of this Pauline version of the eucharistic words of institution? There is no shortage of exegetes on this very forum who would affirm that s/he was. So my question is this: given that the Last Supper is a Passover meal in canonical Mark, and adding on the distinct possibility or probability explored on this thread that our author actually and deliberately made it a Passover meal, why did s/he simultaneously get rid of or avoid the appeal to memory, the clearest possible link to the Passover, which is specifically framed in the Hebrew scriptures as a memorial feast (Exodus 12.14)? I have to admit that I can more easily imagine canonical Mark making the link to the Passover first, and then the eucharistic passage (or its source) in Paul exploiting that link by adding the memorial words, fitting for a Passover setting. I have never regarded the case for interpolation in 1 Corinthians 11.23-26 as particularly strong, but this sort of question gives me pause.

This would be a very interesting discussion to have. Ben do you know of a forum thread already devoted to this subject?

This specific observation I do not recall seeing anywhere, but I know that spin has argued for an interpolation here before. A quick search on this forum turns up only this post by Peter: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1458&p=33206#p33206. So maybe all of spin's posts on the topic were on the FRDB.

The original Ben post here led me to start this thread.

[Ben C. Smith]

I like the idea that 1 Cor 11:23-32 is an interpolation but I am not sure you have made a strong enough case for it.

I am very much of the same judgment here, Michael. The passage (at least 11.23-26) seems suspicious to me, but I can never seem to put my finger on anything concrete that indicates it should not be there.

A first step would be to confirm (or disconfirm) the likelihood that BeDuhn is correct that the Marcionite text contained the passage. One slender reference in Tertullian is all we get of a direct nature, it would seem. But let us consider it in context:

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.8.1-3: [1] "The head of every man is Christ." What Christ, if He is not the author of man? The head he has here put for authority; now "authority" will accrue to none else than the "author." Of what man indeed is He the head? Surely of him concerning whom he adds soon afterwards: "The man ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image of God." Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness" ), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? [2] For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head. But wherefore "ought the woman to have power over her head, because of the angels? " If it is because "she was created for the man," and taken out of the man, according to the Creator's purpose, then in this way too has the apostle maintained the discipline of that God from whose institution he explains the reasons of His discipline. He adds: "Because of the angels." What angels? In other words, whose angels? If he means the fallen angels of the Creator, there is great propriety in his meaning. It is right that that face which was a snare to them should wear some mark of a humble guise and obscured beauty. If, however, the angels of the rival god are referred to, what fear is there for them? for not even Marcion's disciples (to say nothing of his angels) have any desire for women. [3] We have often shown before now, that the apostle classes heresies as evil among "works of the flesh," and that he would have those persons accounted estimable who shun heresies as an evil thing. In like manner, when treating of the gospel, we have proved from the sacrament of the bread and the cup the verity of the Lord's body and blood in opposition to Marcion's phantom; whilst throughout almost the whole of my work it has been contended that all mention of judicial attributes points conclusively to the Creator as to a God who judges.

It seems evident that Tertullian, after dealing with 1 Corinthians 11.1-16 (about women and veils), is now explaining why he will not be dealing in detail with 1 Corinthians 11.17-34: he has already dealt with the the sacrament (such as we find in 11.17-26) in discussing the gospel, and he has insisted all along that judicial attributes (such as we find in 11.27-34) support his view of God against Marcion's. This sounds like a claim that those bits are in the text that Tertullian has before him; why excuse oneself from discussing something that is not there, except on the grounds that it is not there? I think we have to conclude, at least provisionally, that the text Tertullian is responding to contains this passage.

Ben posted this in another thread and I think it is relevant here,

Finding layers in the texts/traditions can sometimes help us trace trajectories through early Christianity. This case, just as one example, makes me wonder about the relationship between 1 Corinthians 11.23-26 and Mark 14.22-25:

1 Corinthians 11.23-26

Mark 14.22-25

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

Was the author of canonical Mark aware of this Pauline version of the eucharistic words of institution? There is no shortage of exegetes on this very forum who would affirm that s/he was. So my question is this: given that the Last Supper is a Passover meal in canonical Mark, and adding on the distinct possibility or probability explored on this thread that our author actually and deliberately made it a Passover meal, why did s/he simultaneously get rid of or avoid the appeal to memory, the clearest possible link to the Passover, which is specifically framed in the Hebrew scriptures as a memorial feast (Exodus 12.14)? I have to admit that I can more easily imagine canonical Mark making the link to the Passover first, and then the eucharistic passage (or its source) in Paul exploiting that link by adding the memorial words, fitting for a Passover setting. I have never regarded the case for interpolation in 1 Corinthians 11.23-26 as particularly strong, but this sort of question gives me pause.

This specific observation I do not recall seeing anywhere, but I know that spin has argued for an interpolation here before. A quick search on this forum turns up only this post by Peter: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1458&p=33206#p33206. So maybe all of spin's posts on the topic were on the FRDB.

The original Ben post here led me to start this thread.

This passage is exactly the kind we might expect as an interpolation. I just wish the issues were clearer on it. I have not made up my mind on it at all, and sometimes it feels like I am not even close.

Ben.

[Solo]

I like the idea that 1 Cor 11:23-32 is an interpolation but I am not sure you have made a strong enough case for it.

I am very much of the same judgment here, Michael. The passage (at least 11.23-26) seems suspicious to me, but I can never seem to put my finger on anything concrete that indicates it should not be there.

This passage is exactly the kind we might expect as an interpolation. I just wish the issues were clearer on it. I have not made up my mind on it at all, and sometimes it feels like I am not even close.
Ben.

Just to help a little bit:

1) if this passage is genuine, it would be the single instance in the corpus where Paul refers to an actual, historical event from the life of Jesus. I find it absolutely curious that Paul did not receive more of this historical material, if the risen Lord was apparently indifferent here to exposing the apostle to accusations that his revelations were simply repeating what eyewitnesses related first hand and what he apparently heard from them.

2) curious also is the use of 'paradidomi' in the section. Paul's usage of the verb does not come close elsewhere to a possibility that Jesus was "betrayed". Compare with Rom 4:25, Rom 8:32 (where God himself delivers his Son), Gal 2:20 (where Jesus delivers himself up - idea echoed also in Eph 5:2). Yet almost all English translations of the passage accept Jerome's rendering of 1 Co 11:23 'paradidomi' in the Vulgate (Iesus in qua nocte tradebatur).

Best,
Jiri

[John2]

Just to add my Dead Sea Scrolls-centered two cents, in addition to concepts like a singular Messiah, the Way, the New Covenant in a place called Damascus, seeing God's salvation (yeshua) and the inclusion of gentiles (nilvim) in the Damascus Document, Eisenman argues that a wordplay pertaining to the Eucharist can be made of the word Damascus, or Dammeseq (דמשק), given that its first syllable (דמ) is the same as the Hebrew word for blood (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1818.htm), and the last two
(משק) are similar in spelling to mashqeh (מַשְׁקֶה), which means cup-bearer
(http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4945.htm) and has the root shaqah (שָׁקָה), or to give to drink
(http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8248.htm).

[Michael BG]

I like the idea that 1 Cor 11:23-32 is an interpolation but I am not sure you have made a strong enough case for it.

I am very much of the same judgment here, Michael. The passage (at least 11.23-26) seems suspicious to me, but I can never seem to put my finger on anything concrete that indicates it should not be there.

A first step would be to confirm (or disconfirm) the likelihood that BeDuhn is correct that the Marcionite text contained the passage. One slender reference in Tertullian is all we get of a direct nature, it would seem. But let us consider it in context:

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.8.1-3: [1] "The head of every man is Christ." What Christ, if He is not the author of man? The head he has here put for authority; now "authority" will accrue to none else than the "author." Of what man indeed is He the head? Surely of him concerning whom he adds soon afterwards: "The man ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image of God." Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who was to become man, said, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness" ), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? [2] For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another head. But wherefore "ought the woman to have power over her head, because of the angels? " If it is because "she was created for the man," and taken out of the man, according to the Creator's purpose, then in this way too has the apostle maintained the discipline of that God from whose institution he explains the reasons of His discipline. He adds: "Because of the angels." What angels? In other words, whose angels? If he means the fallen angels of the Creator, there is great propriety in his meaning. It is right that that face which was a snare to them should wear some mark of a humble guise and obscured beauty. If, however, the angels of the rival god are referred to, what fear is there for them? for not even Marcion's disciples (to say nothing of his angels) have any desire for women. [3] We have often shown before now, that the apostle classes heresies as evil among "works of the flesh," and that he would have those persons accounted estimable who shun heresies as an evil thing. In like manner, when treating of the gospel, we have proved from the sacrament of the bread and the cup the verity of the Lord's body and blood in opposition to Marcion's phantom; whilst throughout almost the whole of my work it has been contended that all mention of judicial attributes points conclusively to the Creator as to a God who judges.

It seems evident that Tertullian, after dealing with 1 Corinthians 11.1-16 (about women and veils), is now explaining why he will not be dealing in detail with 1 Corinthians 11.17-34: he has already dealt with the the sacrament (such as we find in 11.17-26) in discussing the gospel, and he has insisted all along that judicial attributes (such as we find in 11.27-34) support his view of God against Marcion's. This sounds like a claim that those bits are in the text that Tertullian has before him; why excuse oneself from discussing something that is not there, except on the grounds that it is not there? I think we have to conclude, at least provisionally, that the text Tertullian is responding to contains this passage.

This passage is exactly the kind we might expect as an interpolation. I just wish the issues were clearer on it. I have not made up my mind on it at all, and sometimes it feels like I am not even close.

Ben.

There is always a problem in trying to work out from the writings of Tertullian what was and wasn’t included in any Marcionite texts. If we look at Against Marcion 4.40.4 when Tertullian writes, “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,"”. Is he saying that the Marcionite text included Jesus saying “this is my body” and “this is my blood of the new testament”? Or is he saying this is what the “true meaning is”. Is it possible to conclude from Tertullian that the Marcionite text only had “this is my body” but no verse 20? I don’t know enough about the way Tertullian worked to make a case for either.

I think we can only conclude that the evidence of Tertullian here is useless in deciding what was in or not in Luke 22 regarding the body / bread, blood / wine saying of Jesus at the Last Supper. Likewise from Against Marcion 5.8.1-3 Tertullian does not tell us what is there. If there was only a reference to a shared mean as the Lords Supper in verse 20 and verses 23-28 were not there then maybe we would expect more from Tertullian and his talking of the bread and cup and body and blood makes less sense.

Just to help a little bit:

1) if this passage is genuine, it would be the single instance in the corpus where Paul refers to an actual, historical event from the life of Jesus. I find it absolutely curious that Paul did not receive more of this historical material, if the risen Lord was apparently indifferent here to exposing the apostle to accusations that his revelations were simply repeating what eyewitnesses related first hand and what he apparently heard from them.

The only other occasion I can think of his Paul’s teaching on divorce 1 Cor 7:10-11 (12, 25)

[10] To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband
[11] (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) -- and that the husband should not leave his wife.

([12] To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.)
([25]Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.)

Verses 10 and 11 agrees with what I think is the Roman idea of allowing women to divorce their husbands (Mark 10:11-12). However the Greek words are different. In Mark there is απολυση – dismiss or divorce, while in Paul there is χωρισθηναι – depart or separate and μη αφιεναι – not leave. Is it possible that all the bits about being from the Lord or not from the Lord are interpolations? I don’t think so. It is possible that “and that the husband should not leave his wife” is the interpolation.

2) curious also is the use of 'paradidomi' in the section. Paul's usage of the verb does not come close elsewhere to a possibility that Jesus was "betrayed". Compare with Rom 4:25, Rom 8:32 (where God himself delivers his Son), Gal 2:20 (where Jesus delivers himself up - idea echoed also in Eph 5:2). Yet almost all English translations of the passage accept Jerome's rendering of 1 Co 11:23 'paradidomi' in the Vulgate (Iesus in qua nocte tradebatur).

Best,
Jiri

I don’t think we should every translate 'paradidomi' in the sense of being betrayed but always as delivered, because it is often used as in delivered by God, which no one would translate as betrayed by God, but Paul does use the word and so it can’t be argued that the word is not Pauline. As I have said if used by Paul here it could just mean he was delivered by God rather than betrayed by Judas (the name Judas is not present here.).