Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

neilgodfrey wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:But as for the original question about form criticism -- it seems to me that there is a conflict between viewing the gospels as consisting of "pearls on a string" as distinct from narrative units. The former would deny the latter, I think.

What if some parts of Mark originated as pearls on a string, while other parts originated as larger narrative units? Is there a rule that the entire gospel must share only one kind of origin?

No one has said anything about a rule. The answer comes down to how authors work, the character of the text, its unity or otherwise, and what evidence it is that we are left with. If we lack evidence for X then we are quite free to speculate in that direction but nothing more. But there are no rules as you put it. Everything is always tentative and open to new questions and lines of inquiry. I take that as a given.

Then why does it seem like you and I are equally comfortable affirming things to do with Marcan redaction and literary criticism, but I seem considerably more comfortable affirming things to do with lost sources and the possibility of oral transmission? Why is that most of my statements take the form of both/and, whereas a lot of yours seem to take the form of either/or ("there is a conflict'; "the former would deny the latter")?

neilgodfrey wrote:it also comes down to the sources and external circumstances surrounding the composition of the text ..... these sorts of questions are all useful for understanding the text's origins. It's not a black and white either it's a literary unity or a string of pearls. There is much more to literary criticism than that for a start -- and as I've pointed out, literary critics by no means toss out redaction criticism. That would be madness -- unless they are wanting to work exclusively on the finished product for aesthetic as distinct from historical reasons.

I've posted many times on situations were "redacation criticism" works hand in glove with "literary criticism" -- in both the gospels (especially in relation to Luke-Acts) and letters of Paul.

Okay, I am on board with this.

Do you have any examples of instances where you think form criticism might be accommodated with literary criticism?

Well, I tend to agree with those critics who view Mark 9.33-50 as a collection of sayings arranged by "pearls on a string" by catchwords. And I also tend to agree with those critics who can see Marcan redaction amongst those sayings, too. In other words, I suspect from the form of the sayings (their organization by catchwords), and from the fact that they do not always logically cohere (either with each other or with their Marcan context), that Mark (or his source) has collected sayings from different sources, whether oral or written; but I also suspect from certain key Marcan phrases, words, and emphases that redaction has taken place as this collection has been integrated into the rest of the chapter.

James Edwards writes in his Commentary, "The sayings in this unit are grouped around a sequence of catchwords: 'causes of sin' (vv. 42–47), 'fire' (vv. 48–49), and 'salt' (vv. 49–50). The catchwords function as mnemonic devices, which suggests that this unit of material may have come to Mark as a unit of oral tradition, all of which is loosely ordered around the theme of discipleship."

Mary Ann Beavis writes in hers, "The last three sayings in this chapter (9:49–50) are linked by the catchwords 'fire' and 'salt' but seem otherwise to bear little relationship to the material that precedes or follows them...."

Finally, Robert H. Stein writes in his, "Whether 9:33–50 came to Mark as a unit (V. Taylor 1952: 408–9; Bultmann 1968: 149; Best 1981: 75; Hooker 1991: 230–31) or was brought together by the evangelist himself (Kuhn 1971: 32–36; Pesch 1980b: 101–2) is uncertain. In favor of the former is that the sayings in 9:35–50 do not fit well the Markan emphasis of this section. This might be an example of Mark using a pre-Markan collection of sayings whose beginning relates well to his purpose and theme, whereas the final sayings do not. On the other hand, that these sayings are found scattered in Matthew (18:1–5; 10:42; 18:6–9; 5:13; 5:29–30) and Luke (9:46–50; 17:1–2; 14:34–35) argues in favor of the latter. The difficulty in understanding how Mark 9:35–50 originated and that much of it was brought together by catchword association rather than logical reasoning helps make this section 'the most obscure part of Mark' (McDonald 1980: 171)." He continues, "Regardless of who was responsible for the present arrangement of the material, its present order is due less to chronological or logical reasons than to catchword linkage. Compare 'in (my) name' (ἐπί/ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, epi/en tō onomati; 37, 38, 39, 41); 'cause to stumble' (σκανδαλίζω, skandalizō; 42, 43, 45, 47); 'child/little one' (παιδίον, paidion + μικρῶν, mikrōn; 36, 37, 42); 'hell' (γέεννα, geenna; 43, 45, 47); 'salt' (ἁλισθήσεται, halisthēsetai + ἅλας, halas; 49, 50); 'whoever' (ὃς ἄν, hos an + ὅς, hos; 37 [2×], 39, 40, 41, 42); 'if' (εἰ, ei + ἐάν, ean; 35, 42, 43, 45, 47); 'one of' (ἕν, hen + ἕνα, hena; 37, 42); 'it is better' (καλόν ἐστιν, kalon estin; 42, 43, 45, 47, 50); 'be thrown into' (βέβληται, beblētai + βληθῆναι, blēthēnai; 42, 45, 47); and 'fire' (πῦρ, pyr; 43, 48, 49)."

If we assume oral tradition we have a very different model for how the gospels came about than when we work with literary criticism.

I have no proof that Mark 9.33-50 came from oral tradition, but the catchword linking and the mnemonics of it all make me lean in that direction. However, that does not in any way mean that I approach the rest of the gospel in the same manner. When the connections are more logical than by catchword, for example, and the Marcan nature of the piece is more thorough and complete, I tend to suspect Marcan invention. I hope I do not assume oral tradition anywhere, just as I hope I do not assume Marcan invention anywhere. As you say, it is all down to the evidence; as I add, it takes a gentle hand to interpret it profitably.

So, when you write of one assumption giving us a very different model of gospel origins than another assumption, I do not follow you, because I am testing those assumptions pericope by pericope, passage by passage, verse by verse, as well as across the entire gospel. One assumption may prove useful here, another there.

(By the way, I am keenly aware that several of the sayings seem to be based on Hebrew scriptural passages; the account of the strange exorcist, for example, seems crafted upon the story of Eldad and Medad in Numbers 11.26-29. Such observations highlight the possible origins of each separate saying, but do not in any way conflict with the view that many of the sayings were gathered together. I am also aware that some sayings may have originated with Mark himself, who added them to the collection.)

I suspect the main strength of the oral trad assumption is that it is the key to the solution of how we got the gospels such as they are given their distance from the historical events they supposedly narrated and that were passed down. That is, it is a model that is necessary as a result of a problem that is raised by what is essentially a circular argument.

And yet one of form criticism's staunchest proponents, Bultmann, found the origins for pericope after pericope, not in the life of Jesus, but in the life of the early church!

In my example above of Mark 9.33-50, I do not even begin to think that any of the sayings necessarily stem from Jesus. They may well stem from the church, or even from more secular traditions turned sacred.

Could this perceived connection between oral tradition and historicism gone wild be one reason you are reluctant to countenance lost sources and oral transmission, both of which could be leveraged as ways to bridge the gap between Jesus and the gospels?

Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

I suspect the main strength of the oral trad assumption is that it is the key to the solution of how we got the gospels such as they are given their distance from the historical events they supposedly narrated and that were passed down. That is, it is a model that is necessary as a result of a problem that is raised by what is essentially a circular argument.

And yet one of form criticism's staunchest proponents, Bultmann, found the origins for pericope after pericope, not in the life of Jesus, but in the life of the early church!

In fact, the longer I think about your statement, the stranger our two different sets of sensibilities seems to me. When I was still in the church, Bultmann and the form critics were seen as the enemy. The "proper" way to view the gospels was as eyewitness testimony, or at least based on it: Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark recorded Petrine preaching, Luke researched amongst the apostles and their followers, and John wrote John. To view the various units as sourced in anonymous tradition, and likely originating within the church itself instead of from Jesus, was anathema.

To try to use form criticism to bridge the gap between Jesus and the gospels, then, has always felt weird to me. The only way to bridge that gap, as the evangelicals quite correctly see, is eyewitness testimony.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:But as for the original question about form criticism -- it seems to me that there is a conflict between viewing the gospels as consisting of "pearls on a string" as distinct from narrative units. The former would deny the latter, I think.

What if some parts of Mark originated as pearls on a string, while other parts originated as larger narrative units? Is there a rule that the entire gospel must share only one kind of origin?

neilgodfrey wrote:No one has said anything about a rule. The answer comes down to how authors work, the character of the text, its unity or otherwise, and what evidence it is that we are left with. If we lack evidence for X then we are quite free to speculate in that direction but nothing more. But there are no rules as you put it. Everything is always tentative and open to new questions and lines of inquiry. I take that as a given.

Then why does it seem like you and I are equally comfortable affirming things to do with Marcan redaction and literary criticism, but I seem considerably more comfortable affirming things to do with lost sources and the possibility of oral transmission? Why is that most of my statements take the form of both/and, whereas a lot of yours seem to take the form of either/or ("there is a conflict'; "the former would deny the latter")?

I have tried to explain my concerns but obviously not clearly because the same inferences about my reasons keep recurring. I have no ideological or presumptive opposition to lost sources or oral transmission and I am at some loss to understand why you keep implying that I do. I certainly don't assume we have access to all the parts (sources) the author of the gospel used. (Don't tell too many others this, but I am even more open to Q than many of the current Goodacre fans are.) As for oral sources I have no doubt there were some involved, but that is not the same as "form criticism". And when you talk of "tradition" as in "oral tradition" I am simply asking that we be clear about what we mean by "tradition".

My opposition is to building cases on speculation. As I see it we agree on that.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:Do you have any examples of instances where you think form criticism might be accommodated with literary criticism?

Well, I tend to agree with those critics who view Mark 9.33-50 as a collection of sayings arranged by "pearls on a string" by catchwords. And I also tend to agree with those critics who can see Marcan redaction amongst those sayings, too. In other words, I suspect from the form of the sayings (their organization by catchwords), and from the fact that they do not always logically cohere (either with each other or with their Marcan context), that Mark (or his source) has collected sayings from different sources, whether oral or written; but I also suspect from certain key Marcan phrases, words, and emphases that redaction has taken place as this collection has been integrated into the rest of the chapter.

Ah, perhaps we have different ideas about what we each mean by form criticism. Joining passages by catch words is not something I would consider part of the form of a unit (forms such as healing stories, ...). They are units that are used to unite a narrative -- as you yourself say, they are ways of organizing the sayings.

But we can't just assume that because there are a series of small units joined together that those units derived from any particular source, let alone "a tradition". I happen to think we have evidence for arguing those units were derived from literary sources on the whole (not all of them).

If those units did indeed derive from oral traditions then I would like to see some argument that supports that view. There are several arguments against that view that I believe have evidence-based foundations. I am certainly not opposed to opposing arguments. I am not being either-or on some pig-headed "principle" that I like one idea better than the other.

I have never opposed redaction criticism. And catch words joining small units is something anyone familiar with the wide range of literature of the age is familiar with.

I thought for a while we may have been confusing redaction criticism with form criticism. Perhaps we are?

Ben C. Smith wrote:James Edwards writes in his Commentary, "The sayings in this unit are grouped around a sequence of catchwords: 'causes of sin' (vv. 42–47), 'fire' (vv. 48–49), and 'salt' (vv. 49–50). The catchwords function as mnemonic devices, which suggests that this unit of material may have come to Mark as a unit of oral tradition, all of which is loosely ordered around the theme of discipleship."

Mary Ann Beavis writes in hers, "The last three sayings in this chapter (9:49–50) are linked by the catchwords 'fire' and 'salt' but seem otherwise to bear little relationship to the material that precedes or follows them...."

Finally, Robert H. Stein writes in his, "Whether 9:33–50 came to Mark as a unit (V. Taylor 1952: 408–9; Bultmann 1968: 149; Best 1981: 75; Hooker 1991: 230–31) or was brought together by the evangelist himself (Kuhn 1971: 32–36; Pesch 1980b: 101–2) is uncertain. In favor of the former is that the sayings in 9:35–50 do not fit well the Markan emphasis of this section. This might be an example of Mark using a pre-Markan collection of sayings whose beginning relates well to his purpose and theme, whereas the final sayings do not.1 On the other hand, that these sayings are found scattered in Matthew (18:1–5; 10:42; 18:6–9; 5:13; 5:29–30) and Luke (9:46–50; 17:1–2; 14:34–35) argues in favor of the latter. The difficulty in understanding how Mark 9:35–50 originated and that much of it was brought together by catchword association rather than logical reasoning helps make this section 'the most obscure part of Mark' (McDonald 1980: 171)." He continues, "Regardless of who was responsible for the present arrangement of the material, its present order is due less to chronological or logical reasons than to catchword linkage. Compare 'in (my) name' (ἐπί/ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, epi/en tō onomati; 37, 38, 39, 41); 'cause to stumble' (σκανδαλίζω, skandalizō; 42, 43, 45, 47); 'child/little one' (παιδίον, paidion + μικρῶν, mikrōn; 36, 37, 42); 'hell' (γέεννα, geenna; 43, 45, 47); 'salt' (ἁλισθήσεται, halisthēsetai + ἅλας, halas; 49, 50); 'whoever' (ὃς ἄν, hos an + ὅς, hos; 37 [2×], 39, 40, 41, 42); 'if' (εἰ, ei + ἐάν, ean; 35, 42, 43, 45, 47); 'one of' (ἕν, hen + ἕνα, hena; 37, 42); 'it is better' (καλόν ἐστιν, kalon estin; 42, 43, 45, 47, 50); 'be thrown into' (βέβληται, beblētai + βληθῆναι, blēthēnai; 42, 45, 47); and 'fire' (πῦρ, pyr; 43, 48, 49)."

Yes, I am aware of the character of catch-words. They are a common device in the literature of the day. And there are a number indications throughout the canonical gospel of Mark that we are not reading a "pure text" as the original author intended. But none of this is of itself form criticism.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:If we assume oral tradition we have a very different model for how the gospels came about than when we work with literary criticism.

I have no proof that Mark 9.33-50 came from oral tradition, but the catchword linking and the mnemonics of it all make me lean in that direction. However, that does not in any way mean that I approach the rest of the gospel in the same manner. When the connections are more logical than by catchword, for example, and the Marcan nature of the piece is more thorough and complete, I tend to suspect Marcan invention. I hope I do not assume oral tradition anywhere, just as I hope I do not assume Marcan invention anywhere. As you say, it is all down to the evidence; as I add, it takes a gentle hand to interpret it profitably.

Catchwords are also a feature of the literary works of the day. So catchwords alone don't necessarily point us in either direction.

Ben C. Smith wrote:So, when you write of one assumption giving us a very different model of gospel origins than another assumption, I do not follow you, because I am testing those assumptions pericope by pericope, passage by passage, verse by verse, as well as across the entire gospel. One assumption may prove useful here, another there.

I was originally asked about form criticism. Form criticism and even "oral traditions" cannot be equated with an acknowledgment of oral sources. No doubt our author talked with and listened to people and was part of communities of sorts so no doubt he had oral sources of various kinds that fueled what he wrote.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

I suspect the main strength of the oral trad assumption is that it is the key to the solution of how we got the gospels such as they are given their distance from the historical events they supposedly narrated and that were passed down. That is, it is a model that is necessary as a result of a problem that is raised by what is essentially a circular argument.

And yet one of form criticism's staunchest proponents, Bultmann, found the origins for pericope after pericope, not in the life of Jesus, but in the life of the early church!

Yes, he did, which is why I tried to say only that stories and sayings were "passed down" from those times, that is, from the beginnings of "the church" (whatever that was). Form criticism does attempt not only to fill the gap between the composition of the gospels and the historical events they supposedly narrate, but to explain why the narrative is so theological and mythical and not more 'historical'.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Could this perceived connection between oral tradition and historicism gone wild be one reason you are reluctant to countenance lost sources and oral transmission, both of which could be leveraged as ways to bridge the gap between Jesus and the gospels?

Ben.

Thank you for your concern that I might be compromising intellectual integrity with a presumed mythicist agenda, but perhaps another explanation is that I have read every narrative text from this era that I can get my hands on and see many writings that remind me of the canonical gospels and know that some of the arguments used to affirm oral sources in the gospels fall apart the more familiar one is with this literature. You also overlooked my point about the whole "gap" idea being the fix for a problem that arises as a consequence of circular reasoning. [The circularity is in arguing the events of the narrative are based on true events because the narrative would not exist unless those true events had happened.]

One more time! I do not refuse to countenance "lost sources" or "oral transmission". I have not always understood where you are coming from, but I think you are unclear about my views, too. No doubt we have lost sources, and no doubt the author lived in an oral culture and communities of various kinds and most of what he knew was transmitted orally. What I am reluctant to countenance are building cases on speculation and assumption without evidence.

The specific example you discussed (time of crucifixion) is indeed based on evidence and is not an example of form criticism as I understand that term. The example is in my view no different from the sorts of redaction activities that anyone who is interested in assessing the nature of the original text is interested in doing.

The technical markers that have been proposed as evidence of oral sources are in fact also common literary devices of the day, so they alone do not make a case either way. But again, identifying oral (or literary) sources alone is not the same as form criticism as I understand it.

Ben C. Smith wrote: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.

Ben.

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

neilgodfrey wrote:I have tried to explain my concerns but obviously not clearly because the same inferences about my reasons keep recurring. I have no ideological or presumptive opposition to lost sources or oral transmission and I am at some loss to understand why you keep implying that I do.

Well, especially with regard to oral transmission, you wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:By studying the gospels as literary wholes one gains a clearer perspective of exactly what those individual sayings were intended to convey. Forget form criticism and memory theory. I would also say forget oral tradition theory. Read them as literary texts. Acknowledge their evident literary sources and relationships.

Perhaps you were distinguishing between oral transmission and oral tradition somehow.

Don't tell too many others this, but I am even more open to Q than many of the current Goodacre fans are.

So am I. But I am less confident in our ability to reconstruct it than some seem to be.

As for oral sources I have no doubt there were some involved, but that is not the same as "form criticism". And when you talk of "tradition" as in "oral tradition" I am simply asking that we be clear about what we mean by "tradition".

For me, tradition is simply the act of transmitting something on from one person to another and from the older generation to the younger (or, alternatively, from those more experienced to those less experienced). Oral tradition is that process undertaken by the spoken word rather than by the written word. By itself, the term does not imply special schools or methods beyond the usual human ways of remembering information.

Ah, perhaps we have different ideas about what we each mean by form criticism. Joining passages by catch words is not something I would consider part of the form of a unit (forms such as healing stories, ...). They are units that are used to unite a narrative -- as you yourself say, they are ways of organizing the sayings.

That blows my mind. The catchword thing is classic form criticism. Here, virtually at random, is a snippet from the Form Criticism entry at Encyclopedia.com:

But we can't just assume that because there are a series of small units joined together that those units derived from any particular source, let alone "a tradition". I happen to think we have evidence for arguing those units were derived from literary sources on the whole (not all of them).

Yes, I believe some of the sayings have a literary origin.

If those units did indeed derive from oral traditions then I would like to see some argument that supports that view. There are several arguments against that view that I believe have evidence-based foundations. I am certainly not opposed to opposing arguments. I am not being either-or on some pig-headed "principle" that I like one idea better than the other.

Ignore the specific arguments for a moment, though. You were asking about the principle of form criticism being accommodated with literary criticism. Can you see at least the potential for form criticism intermingling with literary criticism in this context? Suppose we have decent evidence that some of the sayings were transmitted orally before being collected, while others were collected from more literary sources. And suppose we have evidence of Marcan redaction here and there throughout the section. I would say that in such a situation we could easily and profitably do form criticism, literary criticism, and redaction criticism all pretty much at the same time, attempting to unravel what it all looked like before the sayings were collected and/or before they were incorporated into Mark. Do you at least agree with the potential here?

I thought for a while we may have been confusing redaction criticism with form criticism. Perhaps we are?

We certainly dipped in to redaction criticism for a while there, but I do not think I ever actively confused it with form criticism.

Catchwords are also a feature of the literary works of the day. So catchwords alone don't necessarily point us in either direction.

I would be interested in an example or two from you now. Mainly for clarity, since we have obviously misunderstood each other a number of times here. What is a text or passage which is organized by catchwords and (key point for me here) not by logical connection, and which you would say evinces evidence of purely literary origins?

I was originally asked about form criticism. Form criticism and even "oral traditions" cannot be equated with an acknowledgment of oral sources. No doubt our author talked with and listened to people and was part of communities of sorts so no doubt he had oral sources of various kinds that fueled what he wrote.

Well, that probably explains a lot. Oral sources fueling what the evangelist wrote is exactly what I have in mind in these cases. If the term "oral tradition" automatically and necessarily means something much more than that, then we are not speaking of the same phenomenon.

Thank you for your concern that I might be compromising intellectual integrity with a presumed mythicist agenda....

Neil, I sincerely apologize for making my statement come across that way. That was not my intent. I intended to ask whether the very real abuses of oral tradition and form criticism by historicists might have made you shy about those methods. It was not about how mythicist you are; it was about how historicists those practitioners are.

One more time! I do not refuse to countenance "lost sources" or "oral transmission". I have not always understood where you are coming from, but I think you are unclear about my views, too.

I obviously did/do not understand what you meant by form criticism, for one. And I think your view of oral tradition was/is far more robust and official than mine is.

Hopefully we are now a few steps closer to mutual understanding.

Ben.

gmx wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote: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.

1 Corinthians 11.23-26 sounds dogmatically Proto-Orthodox. Was this text present in Marcion's 1 Corinthians?

Ben C. Smith wrote:

gmx wrote: 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.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2019 may be relevant.

Andrew Criddle

lsayre wrote:1 Corinthians 11.23-26 sounds dogmatically Proto-Orthodox. Was this text present in Marcion's 1 Corinthians?

Probably see viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1838&start=10#p40563

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote:

lsayre wrote:1 Corinthians 11.23-26 sounds dogmatically Proto-Orthodox. Was this text present in Marcion's 1 Corinthians?

Probably see viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1838&start=10#p40563

Andrew Criddle

IIUC, the argument that 1 Co 11:23-25(26) was attested in the Apostolicon rests on a passing mention in Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem 5.8.3. asserting that the "gospel sacrament of the bread and the cup" proves "the truth of Lord's body and blood". I am genuinely puzzled by the logical process in which this attests to the presence of the disputed verses in Marcion's version of 1 Corinthians. For one, Tertullian invokes "gospel" evidence, not Paul's word but even if he had in mind 1 Corinthians then it could have been the rhetoric of 10:16: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

Incidentally, from my vantage point, it is relevant that the "εἷς ἄρτος" from the next verse (1 Co 10:17) is transparently punned by Mark in 8:14 (καὶ ἐπελάθοντο λαβεῖν ἄρτους καὶ εἰ μὴ ἕνα ἄρτον οὐκ εἶχον μεθ’ ἑαυτῶν ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ - Now they had forgotten to bring bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat.). And to confirm that Jesus is very much aware of what Mark is up to, the gospel next paraphrases Paul's "leaven of malice and evil" (1 Co 5:8) in a warning against the Pharisees and Herod. This saying is characteristically tangential to the flow of narration, which continues with the comedial "argument" among the disciples, about whether there is the figurative one loaf present in the boat or not.

Based on the above I hold that the Eucharist scenes, including the Last Supper, were Mark's original symbolic figures constructed from Paul's maxim of 1 Co 10:16-17. IOW, if these scenes appear elsewhere, they are sourced in Mark in the last instance.

Best,
Jiri