Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Questions:
1) Could "I also delivered" (Aorist) in 1 Cor 11:23, be rendered in the English Present tense (as in the NLT)?
The same question for "I received" (second Aorist).
2) "when he was handed over" (same verse). The verb here is Imperfect. Would that mean the handing over being a repeated action, that is done more than once?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:Questions:
1) Could "I also delivered" (Aorist) in 1 Cor 11:23, be rendered in the English Present tense (as in the NLT)?

I cannot image why a present tense would be desirable as a translation of the aorist παρέδωκα in this verse. A word of advice: there are some versions which are called "translations", but which are really paraphrases. The NLT is one of those. It should not be consulted for translational issues.

The same question for "I received" (second Aorist).

Same basic answer. These are both indicative verbs; none of the usual reasons to translate a Greek aorist with an English present tense (the aorist being subjunctive, for example) is present.

2) "when he was handed over" (same verse). The verb here is Imperfect. Would that mean the handing over being a repeated action, that is done more than once?

The imperfect can be used of repeated actions (1 Corinthians 13.11: "I used to speak as a child"), of inceptive actions (John 5.9: he "began to walk" after being healed), of processes (Luke 22.1: the feast "was approaching"), and probably in other ways I am not immediately recalling offhand.

A long time ago, on the FRDB, Stephen Carlson pointed out that the imperfect tense here lines up nicely with the storyline of the synoptic gospels, in which Jesus is delivered up (handed over) in stages: to the Jewish authorities, to the Roman authorities, to the soldiers, and finally to death. This observation, if valid, meshes well with my other point about this event happening on a certain night: this passage, whether Pauline or interpolated, seems to assume a story of some kind into which either Paul or the interpolator is fitting this description of the so-called Last Supper. Even if Paul is not thinking of a storyline akin to what we find in the gospels, however, he seems to be thinking of this delivering up as either a process or a series of stages, not as a singular, punctilinear event. This would still imply, for me, a storyline of some kind.

Ben.

Thanks Ben for your reply,

I cannot image why a present tense would be desirable as a translation of the aorist παρέδωκα in this verse.

I do not know what you mean by "desirable". Can the English Present be legit for the translation?
It makes a lot of difference is the action has been done in the past (therefore the Corinthians would have heard already about the Last Supper from Paul) or that action is being achieved through the epistle (therefore the Corinthians would NOT have heard yet about Paul's Last Supper).

Another question:
"For I received" is second Aorist, "what I also delivered" is Aorist. Is there here any significance? Why would Paul used two different Aorist tenses (even if apparently they mean the same).

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:Thanks Ben for your reply,

I cannot image why a present tense would be desirable as a translation of the aorist παρέδωκα in this verse.

I do not know what you mean by "desirable".

I mean that I think the present tense as a translation of this Greek aorist verb is misleading at best. It should be a past tense.

Can the English Present be legit for the translation?

Not in my humble opinion, no.

It makes a lot of difference is the action has been done in the past (therefore the Corinthians would have heard already about the Last Supper from Paul) or that action is being achieved through the epistle (therefore the Corinthians would NOT have heard yet about Paul's Last Supper).

Yes, it does make a difference.

Another question:
"For I received" is second Aorist, "what I also delivered" is Aorist. Is there here any significance? Why would Paul used two different Aorist tenses (even if apparently they mean the same).

There is no difference at all in semantics or significance between the first aorist and the second aorist; it is a matter of form only. A verb has only one of them; it is not like you can choose which aorist you are going to use for any given verb.

A serviceable analogy in English would be forming the past tense by adding -ed (I learn, I learned) versus forming the past tense by changing the vowel (I sit, I sat). It is not as if you can ever legitimately choose to use the form "sitted" to make some kind of semantic point; no, the verb "sit" just happens to change the vowel in order to form the past tense.

Same basic thing in Greek, in which there are two principal ways to form the aorist; the way of doing it that uses a sigma is called the first aorist, while the way of doing it that more closely resembles the imperfect tense is called the second aorist.

Ben.

Hi Ben,
Don't you think, if Paul wanted to express a past action, he would have used the perfect tense?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aorist_(Ancient_Greek):
[Aorist] Indicative mood
The Aorist usually implies a past event in the indicative, but it does not assert pastness, and can be used of present or future events.

Maybe Paul did not want to commit on when he made known the Last Supper.

Cordially Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:Hi Ben,
Don't you think, if Paul wanted to express a past action, he would have used the perfect tense?

No. The perfect tense is comparatively rarely used (and usually for pretty specific reasons). By far the most common way to express simple action in the past is to use the aorist indicative.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aorist_(Ancient_Greek):
[Aorist] Indicative mood
The Aorist usually implies a past event in the indicative, but it does not assert pastness, and can be used of present or future events.

This is true. However, there are usually markers as to when the simple indicative aorist would imply a future or present event. One such marker is its use in a conditional statement, as the rest of that quote makes clearer:


Conditions are a study all to themselves. There are other markers, as well. But, as I said, none of the usual reasons to translate a Greek aorist with an English present tense seems to be present in this verse.

Ben.

andrewcriddle wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:
"Problem" in what sense?

If D.C.H.'s argument held water, would he not say that 1 Corinthians 11:23-27 is based on the interpolation into Luke, then?

If the passage in Luke is an interpolation then it is quite likely based on the passage in 1 Corinthians rather than the other way round.

I'm not saying it is a bad point; I just want to be sure that I understand the reasoning. I suppose there is the point that the Gospel of Luke interpolation (if it is one) has that manuscript evidence regarding it, while the 1 Cor 11:23-27 passage does not (on the contention that it is, also, an interpolation, which can be doubted of course)... but does this show (or tend to show) that it is a younger text (than 1 Cor 11:23-27), when we know that the epistles and the Gospels had separate transmission histories early on (and a difference regarding the amount of early manuscript evidence for each, as well)?

PS -- "God Jul" and "Merry Christmas" to all, from Norway!

Ben C. Smith wrote:

DCHindley wrote:Did you mean 11:23-25, rather than 11:19-20? I'm not seeing signs of a major variant or variants at work here, but I'll be looking closer. Could you please explain in a little more detail what you mean?

I believe Andrew is referring to the famous "Western non-interpolation" that is Luke 22.19b-20. Here is 22.17-20, with the dubious text underlined:

17 καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν· Λάβετε τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς· 18 λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. 19 καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 20 καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων· Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.

17 And having received a cup he gave thanks and said: Take this and divide it amongst yourselves. 18 For I say to you that I shall not drink from now on of the produce of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. 19 And he took bread, gave thanks, and broke it and gave it to them, saying: This is my body, given on your behalf. Do this in my memory. 20 And the cup likewise, after supper, saying: This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out on your behalf.

Most manuscripts (including Ƿ75 א A B C L W Δ Θ Ψ ƒ1 ƒ13 Byzantine) have verses 17-20, in that order. D, however, supported by a few Old Latin manuscripts, omits verses 19b-20 (το υπερ υμων... εκχυννομενον). The Syriac versions tend to both omit certain verses and mix their order. The Curetonian Syriac has verses 19, 17, 18, in that order; the Sinaitic Syriac has verses 19, 20a (και μετα του δειπνησαι only), 17, 20b (in the form τουτο εστιν το αιμα μου η διαθηκη η καινη), 18; the Peshitta has verses 19 and 20 only.

Synopsis with Matthew and Mark here: http://textexcavation.com/synbreadcup.html.

Despite the absence of 22.19b-20 only in Bezae and the Old Latin (as well as its scrambling in the Syriac), and its presence in virtually all other witnesses, various scholars have made a robust case for its original absence from the gospel of Luke.

Yeah, I figured that out. However, if my NA28 apparatus is correct, omitting vs 19b-20 of Luke chapter 22 it is only found in D (the "western text" ms.), while the fuller form as in NA28 (which brackets 19b-20 as a probable interpolation, assuming the shorter reading is more likely more authentic) is in mss. א, A, B, C, K, L, W, X, Δ, Θ, Π & Ψ. This is pretty weighty in its own right.

I spent the day yesterday looking up all the variants in the NA28 apparatus for all three gospel versions of the last supper where bread & cup are mentioned, and it appears that there are a LOT of variants, usually including words or phrases from 1 Cor 11:23-25. But granting that there were attempts to reconcile the gospel accounts with 1 Cor 11:23-25, that still doesn't change the fact that 23-25 seems to intrude.

If Paul (or whoever he really was) has noted that people are sick and died, I have to assume that there were Corinthians who were sick and had died. I am less likely to think that this illness/death was due to improper introspection before the performance of a ritual, which is exactly what 11:23-25 seems to me to be, and more likely to think of it as related to Corinthians who were eating their fill at a meal sponsored by their "lord" (which I had earlier suggested could be one or more household lords or the Lord/God), and gluttonously not allowing the poorer sorts, who are the ones most likely to be sick and die, to even get enough to stay healthy. This is famine condition, or at least a grain shortage, which all cities in the ANE had to deal with periodically.

Paul asks the rhetorical question: "If you (presumed to be clients of a wealthy patron) have enough food allotted to you (by your patron/lord), why do you need to supplement it at the expense of others who might have greater need?"

There is a lot of talk about "agape" meals being observed in the early Christian congregations, but I think it is based on perhaps a couple of sources. I am otherwise aware of Tertullian's mention of periodic memorial meals held in cemeteries, and the variety of private, and sometimes public, meals shared by members of voluntary associations in the Greco-Roman world. However, I've read a couple books on Voluntary Associations and some of the described practices are very similar to those said to be employed by early Christians

DCH (alas, a plate of cookies needs to be picked up at the Farm Market, so I go ...)

DCHindley wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:

DCHindley wrote:Did you mean 11:23-25, rather than 11:19-20? I'm not seeing signs of a major variant or variants at work here, but I'll be looking closer. Could you please explain in a little more detail what you mean?

I believe Andrew is referring to the famous "Western non-interpolation" that is Luke 22.19b-20. Here is 22.17-20, with the dubious text underlined:

17 καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν· Λάβετε τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς· 18 λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. 19 καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. 20 καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λέγων· Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.

17 And having received a cup he gave thanks and said: Take this and divide it amongst yourselves. 18 For I say to you that I shall not drink from now on of the produce of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. 19 And he took bread, gave thanks, and broke it and gave it to them, saying: This is my body, given on your behalf. Do this in my memory. 20 And the cup likewise, after supper, saying: This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out on your behalf.

Most manuscripts (including Ƿ75 א A B C L W Δ Θ Ψ ƒ1 ƒ13 Byzantine) have verses 17-20, in that order. D, however, supported by a few Old Latin manuscripts, omits verses 19b-20 (το υπερ υμων... εκχυννομενον). The Syriac versions tend to both omit certain verses and mix their order. The Curetonian Syriac has verses 19, 17, 18, in that order; the Sinaitic Syriac has verses 19, 20a (και μετα του δειπνησαι only), 17, 20b (in the form τουτο εστιν το αιμα μου η διαθηκη η καινη), 18; the Peshitta has verses 19 and 20 only.

Synopsis with Matthew and Mark here: http://textexcavation.com/synbreadcup.html.

Despite the absence of 22.19b-20 only in Bezae and the Old Latin (as well as its scrambling in the Syriac), and its presence in virtually all other witnesses, various scholars have made a robust case for its original absence from the gospel of Luke.

Yeah, I figured that out. However, if my NA28 apparatus is correct, omitting vs 19b-20 of Luke chapter 22 it is only found in D (the "western text" ms.), while the fuller form as in NA28 (which brackets 19b-20 as a probable interpolation, assuming the shorter reading is more likely more authentic) is in mss. א, A, B, C, K, L, W, X, Δ, Θ, Π & Ψ. This is pretty weighty in its own right.

The omission is found in D and in some Old Latin manuscripts.

The number of manuscripts including the longer reading does at first glance appear impressive. Those who argue that the shorter reading is original naturally are relying on internal evidence.

Ben.

Here is a long webpage about a debate on the authenticity of Lk 22:19b-20: http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/lack_ ... _luke_acts
Below are two of the main points in favor of interpolation in gLuke:

Prominent British scholar, Prof. James Dunn, explains (bold ours, italics by Dunn):

An important corollary to the Acts sermons' concentration on the resurrection is the absence of any theology of the death of Jesus. His death is mentioned, but only as a bare fact (usually highlighting Jewish responsibility). The historical fact is not interpreted (2.23, 36; 3.13-15; 4.10; 5.30; 7.52; 10.39; 13.27f.). It is never said, for example, that 'Jesus died on our behalf' or 'for our sins'; there are no suggestions that Jesus' death was a sacrifice. The few brief allusions to Jesus as the Servant (of Second Isaiah) pick up the theme of vindication following suffering, not of vicarious suffering as such (3.13, 26; 4.27, 30; so also 8.30-35). Similarly the allusion to Deut. 21.22f. in Acts 5.30 and 10.39 ('hanging him on a tree' - cf. 13.29) seem to be intended (by Luke) to highlight Jesus' shame and disgrace, and so to serve the same humiliation-vindication motif; to draw the theology of Gal. 3.13 from them is to read more into the text than sound exegesis permits . (James D. G. Dunn, Unity And Diversity In The New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity, 2006, Third Edition, SCM Press, pp. 17-18.)

Stephen Finlan in his recent book writes:

Another devastating fact is the likelihood that the gospel with the most teaching content (Luke) originally contained not a single hint of atonement. The institution passage in Luke appears to have been altered to conform to the Pauline version of the Eucharist, which was becoming prevalent in the church's liturgical practice in the generation after Luke's composition. There is a huge disagreement among the manuscripts of Luke as to the presence or absence, as well as the verse ordering, of the "longer version" of the eucharistic passage, which speaks of his body being "given for you ... the new covenant in my blood" (22:19b-20). These verses are absent altogether from the oldest manuscript in the "Western" Greek tradition (D) and from the oldest Latin, Syriac, and Bohairic versions but are present in most Greek manuscripts. Even when those verses are present, their location varies in different manuscripts, strongly suggesting editorial insertion rather than scribal error. Westcott's and Hort's argument for the authenticity of the "shorter version," which does not contain those verses at all, is still good.31 The saving power of "the blood" is not found anywhere else in Luke, and the verses contain substantial non-Lucan vocabulary.32 (Stephen Finlan, Options on Atonement in Christian Thought, 2007, Liturgical Press p. 38.)

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.

Cordially, Bernard