Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Yet Again Lk 22:15-20

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: Synoptic (GPG) Correcting: Previous Comment on Lk 22:15-20 I don t seem to be doing this very well. The problem turns out to be that I have two copies of
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 2, 2011
      To: Synoptic (GPG)
      Correcting: Previous Comment on Lk 22:15-20



      I don't seem to be doing this very well. The problem turns out to be that I
      have two copies of the Synopsis, and they are not identical. One spot at
      which they are not identical is the Western Non bit, Lk 19b-20. I meant to
      omit that passage (accepting the argument of WH and the protest of Metzger
      later on), and should have used the other edition of the Synopsis. Here is
      my previous note, but changing the incorrect parts. Moral of the story: When
      in doubt, always use the earlier edition. The Western Non, in particular,
      have a way of seeping back into the text and commentaries. I should have
      been more alert to catch them.





      Lk 22:14. And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles [sic;
      see below] with him. / COMMENT: This is how Luke actually introduces the
      Last Supper scene, not with the betrayal at all (as in Mk and Mt) but with
      the Supper. Previous remarks about separating the betrayal from the
      following supper are irrelevant; Luke does it simply by moving the betrayal
      after the supper.



      Lk 22:15. And he said to them, I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover
      with you before I suffer, . . . / COMMENT: An original line, invented by
      Luke to continue the supper introduction in Mk 14:17-18b and Mt 26:20-21a,
      and to give the supper a more solemn setting. The idiom behind "earnestly
      desired" has been said to be a Septuagintalism. It has also been more
      specifically linked to Genesis 31:30 (so several; FItzmyer actually
      italicizes the phrase in his translation, with a Genesis footnote). I don't
      think so; Luke is not trying to evoke this scene as nondiegetic background
      for this sentence, or for the scene to which it leads. Other Septuagint uses
      of the idiom EPIQUMIA EPEQUMHSA are Num 11:4 ("the rabble") and Psa 105:14
      (again of miscreants). Neither of these offers a very attractive candidate
      for an intentional allusion or a nondiegetic incorporation, and I continue
      to feel that the only function of this Septuagintal phrase is to be
      Septuagintal, and thus vaguely solemn and portentous.



      Lk 22:16. . . . for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in
      the Kingdom of God. / COMMENT: This is an intentional doublet of Mark's
      anticlimactic saying in Mk 14:25b. It is a good line in Mark, but in Mark,
      it comes as an afterthought. Luke is a dramatist, and he wants to apply that
      idea, not just to the cup, but to the whole occasion: the prospective Lord's
      Supper observance. The whole scene is prospective in Luke (notice the term
      "apostles" above).



      Lk 22:17-18. And he took a cup . . . until the Kingdom of God comes." /
      COMMENT: Here, Luke reverses the order of bread and cup to adapt the ritual
      as Mark knew it to the ritual as Luke and the Didache knew it. He preserves
      the "until the Kingdom of God" part in Mk 14:25, thus creating a duplication
      in his revised text (22:16 = 22:18). Was this respectful retention, or
      intentional reinforcement? Given what was said above about the motive for Lk
      22:15, I would be inclined to guess that it was intentional reinforcement.



      Lk 22:19a. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it, and
      gave it to them, saying, This is my body." / COMMENT: The previous note
      about Luke's refusal to repeat Mark's two mentions of the Atonement doctrine
      still applies, and of course even more easily, to this probably textually
      earliest version. Other remarks previously made on this passage explain, not
      Luke (as I think) but the motive of the person who very early added 19b-20
      to this passage, in the archetype of Codex Vaticanus and others.



      The supper then being sufficiently noticed, Luke proceeds directly to
      introduce the betrayal motif, in a unique line:



      Lk 22:21-23. But behold the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the
      table. For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined . . .And they began
      to question one another, which of them it was that would do this. / COMMENT:
      Luke refrains from identifying Judas, as Mk 14:20 comes close to doing, and
      as Mt 265:25 actually does. Even here, he does not like interpersonal
      controversy.



      As to the cup-bread sequence, which remains important in the changes made by
      Luke, there were different Lord's Supper practices, and even days of
      observance, in the various early churches, and Luke is here adjusting Mark
      to suit his and his fellow members' tradition and comfort.



      Sorry for the confusion, which is entirely on my part. Please substitute the
      above for the previous version.



      E Bruce Brooks

      University of Massachusetts at Amherst





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Inglis
      BRUCE: Lk 22:14. And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles [sic; see below] with him. / COMMENT: This is how Luke actually introduces the Last
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 2, 2011
        BRUCE:

        Lk 22:14. And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles [sic; see below] with him. / COMMENT: This is how
        Luke actually introduces the Last Supper scene, not with the betrayal at all (as in Mk and Mt) but with the Supper.
        Previous remarks about separating the betrayal from the following supper are irrelevant; Luke does it simply by moving
        the betrayal after the supper.
        Lk 22:15. And he said to them, I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer, . . . / COMMENT:
        An original line, invented by Luke to continue the supper introduction in Mk 14:17-18b and Mt 26:20-21a, and to give the
        supper a more solemn setting.

        Lk 22:16. . . . for I tell you I shall not eat it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. / COMMENT: This is an
        intentional doublet of Mark's anticlimactic saying in Mk 14:25b.

        Lk 22:17-18. And he took a cup . . . until the Kingdom of God comes." / COMMENT: Here, Luke reverses the order of bread
        and cup to adapt the ritual as Mark knew it to the ritual as Luke and the Didache knew it.

        Lk 22:19a. And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my body." /
        COMMENT: The previous note about Luke's refusal to repeat Mark's two mentions of the Atonement doctrine still applies,
        and of course even more easily, to this probably textually earliest version.

        DAVID I: I agree with Bruce that vv. 22:15-16 were added by someone editing earlier text, but I'm not happy with saying
        that it was the author of Lk who did it. The problem I have is with the timing, and relates to Marcion's gospel:

        Tertullian quotes almost all of vv. 22:14-15 from Marcion's gospel

        Epiphanius states that v. 22:16 was missing.

        Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to vv. 22:17-18

        Tertullian refers directly to all of v. 22:19a, up to "This is my body," and also v 22:20a, excluding just "which is
        shed for you."

        Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to all of Lk, but where they do it is either to try to 'score points' (i.e. to
        try to refute Marcion from his own gospel), or to point out something that was missing. Where there is no comment from
        either the reasonable assumption is that neither saw anything worth noting. So, in this case it appears that Marcion's
        gospel contained vv. 22:14-15, 17-18, 19a, 20a. I read the evidence this way: Tertullian did not see v. 22:16 in his
        copy of Lk, so he did not note that it was missing in Marcion's gospel. However, Epiphanius did see it in his copy of
        Lk, so noted the omission in Marcion. Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius note any omissions in vv. 22:19-20, so they both
        saw (and expected to see) shorter versions of these verses.

        It seems to me that Marcion would not remove v. 22:16 without also removing v. 22:18, so I think it likely that he
        started from something that did not include this verse, and also shorter versions of vv. 22:19-20. It is also worth
        noting that, according to Metzger, there are 4 other known (intermediate) forms of vv. 22:19-20 in addition to the
        version in Bezae (see http://www.bible-researcher.com/noninterp.html ). Given the evidence of these variations, I don't
        think it's reasonable to suggest that Marcion made the changes noted above. Instead, it appears to me that v. 22:16 is
        post-Marcion, while the shorter forms of vv. 22:17-18 pre-date him.

        David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic (GPG) In Response To: David Inglis On: Luke and Marcion in Lk 22:15-20 From: Bruce I should simply confess that I find the attestation, and
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 2, 2011
          To: Synoptic (GPG)

          In Response To: David Inglis

          On: Luke and Marcion in Lk 22:15-20

          From: Bruce



          I should simply confess that I find the attestation, and especially the
          negative attestation, for what was in Marcion's version of Luke to be too
          uncertain in detail, and too controversial in context (neither Tertullian
          nor Epiphanius seems to be writing in a spirit of calmness and equanimity),
          to take as firm data. Could be that David is right to rely on it, and I have
          been glad to have his reconstructions of Luke available for study; I just
          have difficulty sparing time for what, if it is done right, is a most
          exacting kind of study. For now, I have only a few not very deep responses
          to his latest comments.



          DAVID I: I agree with Bruce that vv. 22:15-16 were added by someone editing
          earlier text, but I'm not happy with saying that it was the author of Lk who
          did it.



          BRUCE: For the record, I don't envision "editing earlier text," but rather
          "creatively processing a Markan antecedent." I don't think that we need to
          find a Vorlage for every paragraph in Luke. On the contrary.



          DAVID: The problem I have is with the timing, and relates! to Marcion's
          gospel:

          Tertullian quotes almost all of vv. 22:14-15 from Marcion's gospel

          Epiphanius states that v. 22:16 was missing.

          Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to vv. 22:17-18



          BRUCE: Then we have to do with 22:16. Might Marcion have excised it if was
          previously present in Luke? I can see a possible reason why he might have:
          to get rid of the duplication between 22:16 and 22:18. David and I have had
          Marcion discussions before, in the course of which it has sometimes occurred
          to me that Marcion, apart from his theology, may not be a bad literary
          critic. This might come under that head.



          DAVID: Tertullian refers directly to all of v. 22:19a, up to "This is my
          body," and also v 22:20a, excluding just "which is shed for you."

          Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to all of Lk, but where they do it
          is either to try to '! ;score points' (i.e. to try to refute Marcion from
          his own gospel), or to point out something that was missing. Where there is
          no comment from either the reasonable assumption is that neither saw
          anything worth noting. So, in this case it appears that Marcion's gospel
          contained vv. 22:14-15, 17-18, 19a, 20a. I read the evidence this way:
          Tertullian did not see v. 22:16 in his copy of Lk, so he did not note that
          it was missing in Marcion's gospel. However, Epiphanius did see it in his
          copy of Lk, so noted the omission in Marcion. Neither Tertullian nor
          Epiphanius note any omissions in vv. 22:19-20, so they both saw (and
          expected to see) shorter versions of these verses.

          It seems to me that Marcion would not remove v. 22:16 without also removing
          v. 22:18, . . .



          BRUCE: Here is where I would be inclined to differ. See above.



          DAVID: . . .so I think it likely that he started from something that did not
          include this verse, and also shorter versions of vv. 22:19-20. It is also
          worth noting that, according to Metzger, there are 4 other known
          (intermediate) forms of vv. 22:19-20 in addition to the version in Bezae
          (see <http://www.bible-researcher.com/noninterp.html>
          http://www.bible-researcher.com/noninterp.html ). Given the evidence of
          these variations, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Marcion made
          the changes noted above. Instead, it appears to me that v. 22:16 is
          post-Marcion, while the shorter forms of vv. 22:17-18 pre-date him.



          BRUCE: I can imagine that there was more than one effort to supplement Lk at
          that liturgically very sensitive point, and so the evidence seems to say.
          (It would here be good to consider all the Western Non at once, several of
          them being in this same category of ritual revision or supplementation).



          Beyond that, I note that Marcion is 2c, and I have much trouble assuming
          that people were extensively adding to Luke at that date. The only passage
          that seems to me to be a post-Marcion addition is the one I feel is also an
          *anti*-Marcion addition, namely Lk 5:39, which drastically reverses the
          sense of the preceding passage. Its point seems to be to affirm the use of
          the OT within Christianity, and that makes sense as a counter to Marcion's
          rejection of the OT. That one looks good to me. Since it is not in Bezae
          (the concurrence here is absence in Mk, Mt, and Bezae), its appearance would
          help date the point at which Vaticanus and company diverged from the
          ancestor of Bezae. An anti-Marcionite passage is likely to have been
          interpolated in the text available to the interpolator not that long after
          the Marcion excitement, or there would have been increasingly less point to
          it. Taking c150 as a decent guess, then proto-Bezae will have been separate
          from proto-Vaticanus at some point before that. I find that helpful, as
          pinning down an otherwise vague event.



          Bruce



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Inglis
          BRUCE: I should simply confess that I find the attestation, and especially the negative attestation, for what was in Marcion s version of Luke to be too
          Message 4 of 4 , Aug 3, 2011
            BRUCE: "I should simply confess that I find the attestation, and especially the negative attestation, for what was in
            Marcion's version of Luke to be too uncertain in detail, and too controversial in context (neither Tertullian nor
            Epiphanius seems to be writing in a spirit of calmness and equanimity), to take as firm data."

            DAVID I: I have sympathies for Bruce's position, even though, ultimately, he and I disagree, and maybe always will. So
            be it. However, If anyone is going to attempt to reconstruct Marcion (which I contend is a valuable exercise even today)
            then they have to decide how to handle those verses from Lk that neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius mention. To do that
            you really do have to go through everything that both of them wrote (or did not write) about the actual contents of
            Marcion's gospel, and determine whether there is enough of a pattern to give meaning to the silence of either or both of
            them regarding any particular verse or verses. I believe there is, but I fully understand that only some people will
            agree with me, and still fewer who will agree with my interpretation of those silences.

            David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA







            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.