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

[Ben C. Smith]

I figure, without 22:19b-20, the order in gLuke (cup then bread), being opposite of the one in 1 Corinthians, gMark, gMatthew, was asking for a fix, which started to be done by an interpolator early on, and was very successful because copied in most early manuscripts. It was also an opportunity, by copying a part of 1 Corinthians, to introduce the concept of death of Christ for atonement, a very important Christian concept, otherwise lacking in gLuke/Acts.

For whatever it may be worth, Bernard, I completely agree. I believe it was a combination of Westcott & Hort and Bart Ehrman that first convinced me that the shorter version was the more original, and your own arguments either match theirs or are complementary in addition to theirs.

[Bernard Muller]

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you. That the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread,

Could "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you", be understood as a general statement of Paul's policy regarding his revelations. After all, "what I also passed on to you" (not necessarily including yet the Last Supper) is what Paul "received from the Lord". But by describing the Last Supper next, Paul would conform with his previously stated policy.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you. That the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread,

Could "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you", be understood as a general statement of Paul's policy regarding his revelations. After all, "what I also passed on to you" is what Paul "received from the Lord", not necessarily including yet the Last Supper. But by describing the Last Supper next, Paul would conform with his previously stated policy.

One would have to explain the ὅτι ("that"), which ordinarily fills out the content of the previous verb of saying, hearing, knowing, or transmitting. The most straightforward way to read the sentence is that Paul received something from the Lord (in the past) and passed it on to the Corinthians (in the past), namely that Jesus did something at the Last Supper. To read it otherwise seems forced.

1 Corinthians 15.3 is a very close parallel:

3 παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς....

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures....

1 Corinthians 11.23-25:

23 Εγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον 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 ἐὰν πίνητε, εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

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."

In fact, should we not be discussing this parallel? It is extremely close. 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 (or parts of it) has been argued to be an interpolation, as well. Specifically, too, the line about receiving may have been missing from Marcion (http://peterkirby.com/marcions-shorter- ... -paul.html).

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

Hi Ben,

To read it otherwise seems forced.

I agree. But is my interpretation possible, even if forced?
If it is possible to be understood as such by Paul's Corinthians, Paul could have used that as an escape route if these Corinthians would tell him: "but you never tell us about the Last Supper before that epistle you sent us". Paul then would say "this is not what I meant when I wrote ...".

1 Corinthians 15.3-11 (or parts of it) has been argued to be an interpolation, as well.

I firmly think 1 Cor 15:3-11 is an interpolation (http://historical-jesus.info/9.html), so it is of any use regarding 1 Cor 11.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Hi Ben,

To read it otherwise seems forced.

I agree. But is my interpretation possible, even if forced?

It just does not appear so to me, no. "I received X from the Lord. I passed X on to you. X = the Last Supper." How would Paul have expected anyone not to object to this?

1 Corinthians 15.3-11 (or parts of it) has been argued to be an interpolation, as well.

I firmly think 1 Cor 15:3-11 is an interpolation (http://historical-jesus.info/9.html), so it is of any use regarding 1 Cor 11.

So you think that whoever forged 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 simply picked up and reused the "received and delivered" phrase, slightly modified, from 1 Corinthians 11.23-25 as an authenticating touch?

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

So you think that whoever forged 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 simply picked up and reused the "received and delivered" phrase, slightly modified, from 1 Corinthians 11.23-25 as an authenticating touch?

Yes

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,
Don't you think the following would indicate Paul never said anything yet about a Last Supper:
1 Cor 10:15-16 "I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.
[these words indicate the following intellectual proposition was new for the Corinthians]
` Is not the cup of Thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
[how could Paul propose such a concept if he knew Jesus originated the Eucharist and the Christians were already told about it (1 Cor 11:23)?]"

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,
Don't you think the following would indicate Paul never said anything yet about a Last Supper:
1 Cor 10:15-16 "I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.
[these words indicate the following intellectual proposition was new for the Corinthians]

Does it have to go with what follows? Can it not go with what precedes it? (The examples from Jewish scripture against idolatry.)

Is not the cup of Thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
[how could Paul propose such a concept if he knew Jesus originated the Eucharist and the Christians were already told about it (1 Cor 11:23)?]"

What if the thing that was new to the Corinthians was simply the implication of participating in the Lord's Supper? It is not necessarily immediately obvious to a pagan mindset that, just because one partakes of the body and blood of Christ, one should by that same token not participate in the mystery meals of other cults. In this case, Paul would be starting with something already agreed upon (that the Lord's Supper is all about the body and the blood) in order to introduce something new or controversial (that one should therefore be careful of meat sacrificed to idols).

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Does it have to go with what follows? Can it not go with what precedes it? (The examples from Jewish scripture against idolatry.)

1 Cor 10:15 fits much better with what follows because next Paul invited his followers to ponder his two questions.
Furthermore, Paul concluded his section about the worship of idols at 10:13. I do not think Paul would be inviting his Christians to judge what he already said in very authoritative manner in 1-13.

What if the thing that was new to the Corinthians was simply the implication of participating in the Lord's Supper? It is not necessarily immediately obvious to a pagan mindset that, just because one partakes of the body and blood of Christ, one should by that same token not participate in the mystery meals of other cults. In this case, Paul would be starting with something already agreed upon (that the Lord's Supper is all about the body and the blood) in order to introduce something new or controversial (that one should therefore be careful of meat sacrificed to idols).

Paul made no allusion to the Last Supper, or even to any Lord's supper. Yes he said the cup of blessing (and only that one) and the broken bread is a connection to Christ's body and also sacrifice (with 10:18).
Paul would have been a lot more effective here if he had narrated his Last Supper (or at least invoked it). But he did not.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

Does it have to go with what follows? Can it not go with what precedes it? (The examples from Jewish scripture against idolatry.)

! Cor 10:15 fits much better with what follows because next Paul invited his followers to ponder his two questions.
Furthermore, Paul concluded his section about the worship of idols at 10:13. I do not think Paul would be inviting his Christians to judge what he already said in very authoritative manner in 1-113.

What if the thing that was new to the Corinthians was simply the implication of participating in the Lord's Supper? It is not necessarily immediately obvious to a pagan mindset that, just because one partakes of the body and blood of Christ, one should by that same token not participate in the mystery meals of other cults. In this case, Paul would be starting with something already agreed upon (that the Lord's Supper is all about the body and the blood) in order to introduce something new or controversial (that one should therefore be careful of meat sacrificed to idols).

Paul made no allusion to the Last Supper, or even to any Lord's supper. Yes he said the cup of blessing (and only that one) and the broken bread is a connection to Christ's body and also sacrifice (with 10:18).
Paul would have been a lot more effective here if he had narrated his Last Supper (or at least invoked it). But he did not.

How many separate meals do you think Paul alludes to in 1 Corinthians?