Why 1 Cor 11:23-26 is an interpolation

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stuart
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Why 1 Cor 11:23-26 is an interpolation

Post by Stuart » Sat May 23, 2020 1:27 pm

The entire section from 11:23-32 is considered by a number of critics as a later interpolation. 11:20-22, 33-34 deals with the immediate issue of table manners at the Christian feast. This was likely seen as a good place to insert the sacrament from Luke 22:19-20 verbatim, in order to show both that Paul endorses the gospel sacrament as accurate, and also that he was taught or received the tradition ("παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου") as opposed to revelation (ἀποκάλυψις, i.e., Galatians 1:11-12), in effect endorsing the twelve as higher authority than himself for at least these such matters.

IMO it's a rather late addition as reads from Luke the variant word transposition ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον for καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως not found in the earliest and best manuscripts (B p75 א, but also U 579). The Gospels were considered by scribes far more authoritative than the letters, even Paul; so it is highly unlikely this could be some special case that went the other way.

Verses 1:28-32 are about judgement via the cup of the sacrament, and discernment. This indicates concern about a different interpretation of the sacrament, an anti-heretical pastoral concern. This passage is itself dependent upon the sacrament passage immediately prior. So if that the sacrament is an interpolation, so must this passage be. Note, there are some technical problems with the language as well, but it's contextual dependence should be enough to recognize it's potential lateness. Hence the entire pair of passages from 11:23-32 can be seen as a digression from the subject at hand, an interpolation with later church concerns, and presenting Paul in a more compliant manner.

As to the OP, the cup as judgement does not seem to be part of certain sects paschal formula.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7467
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Why 1 Cor 11:23-26 is an interpolation

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat May 23, 2020 1:42 pm

Stuart wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 1:27 pm
The entire section from 11:23-32 is considered by a number of critics as a later interpolation. 11:20-22, 33-34 deals with the immediate issue of table manners at the Christian feast. This was likely seen as a good place to insert the sacrament from Luke 22:19-20 verbatim, in order to show both that Paul endorses the gospel sacrament as accurate, and also that he was taught or received the tradition ("παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου") as opposed to revelation (ἀποκάλυψις, i.e., Galatians 1:11-12), in effect endorsing the twelve as higher authority than himself for at least these such matters.

IMO it's a rather late addition as reads from Luke the variant word transposition ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον for καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως not found in the earliest and best manuscripts (B p75 א, but also U 579). The Gospels were considered by scribes far more authoritative than the letters, even Paul; so it is highly unlikely this could be some special case that went the other way.

Verses 1:28-32 are about judgement via the cup of the sacrament, and discernment. This indicates concern about a different interpretation of the sacrament, an anti-heretical pastoral concern. This passage is itself dependent upon the sacrament passage immediately prior. So if that the sacrament is an interpolation, so must this passage be. Note, there are some technical problems with the language as well, but it's contextual dependence should be enough to recognize it's potential lateness. Hence the entire pair of passages from 11:23-32 can be seen as a digression from the subject at hand, an interpolation with later church concerns, and presenting Paul in a more compliant manner.

As to the OP, the cup as judgement does not seem to be part of certain sects paschal formula.
It seems difficult to agree upon which verses are part of the interpolation and which (potentially) are not. I have argued for 11.23-28 having been interpolated; spin has argued for 11.23-27. Here you seem to be arguing for a double layer involving 11.23-26 and 11.23-32. At least we agree that the Last Supper and its immediate sequel is suspect. :confusedsmiley: :cheeky:
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Stuart
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Why 1 Cor 11:23-26 is an interpolation

Post by Stuart » Sat May 23, 2020 4:53 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 1:42 pm
Stuart wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 1:27 pm
The entire section from 11:23-32 is considered by a number of critics as a later interpolation. 11:20-22, 33-34 deals with the immediate issue of table manners at the Christian feast. This was likely seen as a good place to insert the sacrament from Luke 22:19-20 verbatim, in order to show both that Paul endorses the gospel sacrament as accurate, and also that he was taught or received the tradition ("παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου") as opposed to revelation (ἀποκάλυψις, i.e., Galatians 1:11-12), in effect endorsing the twelve as higher authority than himself for at least these such matters.

IMO it's a rather late addition as reads from Luke the variant word transposition ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον for καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως not found in the earliest and best manuscripts (B p75 א, but also U 579). The Gospels were considered by scribes far more authoritative than the letters, even Paul; so it is highly unlikely this could be some special case that went the other way.

Verses 1:28-32 are about judgement via the cup of the sacrament, and discernment. This indicates concern about a different interpretation of the sacrament, an anti-heretical pastoral concern. This passage is itself dependent upon the sacrament passage immediately prior. So if that the sacrament is an interpolation, so must this passage be. Note, there are some technical problems with the language as well, but it's contextual dependence should be enough to recognize it's potential lateness. Hence the entire pair of passages from 11:23-32 can be seen as a digression from the subject at hand, an interpolation with later church concerns, and presenting Paul in a more compliant manner.

As to the OP, the cup as judgement does not seem to be part of certain sects paschal formula.
It seems difficult to agree upon which verses are part of the interpolation and which (potentially) are not. I have argued for 11.23-28 having been interpolated; spin has argued for 11.23-27. Here you seem to be arguing for a double layer involving 11.23-26 and 11.23-32. At least we agree that the Last Supper and its immediate sequel is suspect. :confusedsmiley: :cheeky:
I know Price sees the entire sequence as an Interpolation(s) and I believe Doughty did as well (trying to remember which of his papers dealing with Paul covered that).

There are some pastoral words and themes in the 11:28-32 which just don't belong, such as "worthiness" as part of the discernment is a term associated with the later anti gnostic pastoral strata.

You have terms like διακρίνω (right distinction/discernment/separation) which show up in James, Jude, Acts, and a few spots in Paul definitely thought to be pastoral, and παιδεύω which besides Luke-Acts (likely not in Marcion), Hebrews and the Pastorals only shows up in this passage in Paul and one spot in 2 Corinthians (in a chapter not attested at all in Marcion). Words that deal with distinction, separation, right judgement, correct meaning of the cup and bread, are all later concerns about competing doctrines.

But the clincher for me was in removing these verse you regain the proximity of συνερχόμενοι in 11:33 which is tied to συνερχομένων in 11:18, 20 and συνέρχεσθε in 11:17 concerning table etiquette. These verses belong together, and the material between is a digression which intrudes.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7457
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why 1 Cor 11:23-26 is an interpolation

Post by Giuseppe » Sat May 23, 2020 9:19 pm

The prediction of his own death is implicit in the Last Supper. In this way, Jesus could be considered as the voluntary sacrificial victim and in such measure he could be accepted by the Jews, otherwise much reluctant to accept a Messiah-who-doesn't-save-from-Romans.

Hence, all the Gospel passages where Jesus predicts a lot of things are designed along the same lines.

THe apocalyptic origins of the words about the cup have left traces also in Mark 10.38-39:

“You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”
“We can,” they answered.

BUt originally it was only Jesus who had spoken the prediction about the cup only for himself.

it was only in a second moment, to make the cup similar to the Jewish fraction of bread, that it was necessary to invent the words connected with the sharing of the cup.

At any case, all that is not at the real Origins: the Emmaus episode is the key to realize what the Eucharist had to eclipse definitely.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply