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

The archetype of Mark: the first papyrus codex?

Expand Messages
  • Ronald Price
    Today I ve uploaded the new web page whose url is indicated below. This new page indicates the original structure of Mark s gospel, together with my reasons
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 18, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Today I've uploaded the new web page whose url is indicated below.

      This new page indicates the original structure of Mark's gospel, together
      with my reasons for reconstructing it in the way shown. It provides evidence
      that this, the earliest of the gospels, was produced from the beginning in
      codex format. The Markan archetype could even have been the first papyrus
      (as opposed to wooden-tablet) codex.

      However the web page does not go into the detailed mathematical underpinning
      of the page hypothesis validity tests, or into the formula for the
      identification of the Greek word stem most characteristic of a structure
      section (corresponding to a capitalized word in a section title in the
      structure tables).

      Ron Price,

      Derbyshire, UK

      http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/page_Mark.html



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Inglis
      Apologies in advance for the length and complexity of this post, but I would very much appreciate any comment on my suggested solution. Verses 17-20 (Note: All
      Message 2 of 22 , Dec 19, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Apologies in advance for the length and complexity of this post, but I would very much appreciate any comment on my
        suggested solution.



        Verses 17-20 (Note: All verse reference apply to Lk 22 unless otherwise specified) describe the Last Supper, and contain
        the odd sequence (cup-bread-cup). With the exception of 19b-20a all these verses have close parallels in both Mk (vv.
        14:22-25) and Mt (vv. 26:26-29 ), while 19-20b have parallels in 1 Cor 11:24-25b. Because the order of the text in Mk/Mt
        is different, and 1 Cor 11 does not have parallels of 17-18, in both Mt/Mk and 1 Cor 11 the sequence is just
        (bread-cup). Most mss of Luke contain all of 17-20 (the 'Majority Text'), including the two elements not in either Mk or
        Mt, in 19b: "which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me," and 20a: "Likewise also the cup after supper," both
        of which are present in 1 Cor 11. However, 19b-20 are omitted in some the Western mss (D and the old Latins a, d, ff2,
        i, l), giving the sequence (cup-bread). This has given rise to many different theories as to how the three different
        sequences arose, and whether in Lk the long (Majority Text) or the short (Western) variant is original. Unfortunately,
        the problem is further complicated by variants involving 17-18 in the old Latin and Syriac mss.



        1. Two other old Latin mss (b, e) omit 19b-20, but also have 17-18 after 19a;

        2. The Curetonian Syriac reads the same as b and e, except for having the wording of 1 Cor 11.24b added between 19a
        and 17;

        3. The Sinaitic Syriac is still further expanded, chiefly by the insertion of "after they had supped" (c.f. 1 Cor
        11:25a) before 17 and "this is my blood, the new covenant" (c.f. Mt 26:28a) between 17 and 18;

        4. The Peshitta Syriac lacks 17-18, as do also L32, two Sahidic mss, and one Bohairic ms.



        These variations give rise to six different basic combinations of 17-20 in the mss. In addition, 1 Cor and Mk/Mt provide
        two more combinations (In these cases the verse numbers given below are the Lukan equivalents):



        1. Mk/Mt 19a, 17, 20b-c, 18 (bread-cup)

        2. 1 Cor 11:24-25 19a, 19b-20a, 20b (bread-cup)

        3. Sy-P (Peshitta) 19a, 19b-20a, 20b-c (bread-cup)

        4. Sy-C (Curetonian) 19a + 1 Cor 11:24, 17-18 (bread-cup)

        5. Sy-S (Sinaitic) 19a + 1 Cor 11:24, "after they had supped", 17, "this is my blood, the new covenant", 18
        (bread-cup)

        6. The 'Majority Text': 17-18, 19a, 19b-20a, 20b-c (cup-bread-cup)

        7. D, a, d, ff2, i, l 17-18, 19a (cup-bread)

        8. b, e 19a, 17-18 (bread-cup)



        These combinations have led to much discussion as to which was the original form of this text in Lk. For example,
        Chadwick writes: "The Lukan account with its notorious difficulties of text and interpretation, the one being
        inextricably bound up with the other, has been the Waterloo of many investigators. Both the shorter and the longer texts
        present the student with their individual mass of problems." (Henry Chadwick: The Shorter Text of Luke XXII. 15-20)



        When looking for possible solutions it is necessary is to note the patterns in the above different combinations (Again,
        Lukan equivalents are used for Mk/Mt and 1 Cor):



        . Six combinations begin with 19a, giving the sequence 'bread-cup.'

        . Two combinations begin with 17-18, giving the sequences 'cup-bread' and 'cup-bread-cup.'

        . Either both 17 and 18 are present, or neither are.

        . When both 17 and 18 are present, 17 always precedes 18 (although sometimes with 20b between them).

        . When both 19 and 20 are present, 19 always precedes 20.

        . When present, 19b-20a is always a single unit.

        . 19a is never followed directly by 20b.

        . In Lk, either the whole of 19-20 is present (although with 17 between 20a and 20b in one variant), or just
        19a.



        In order to avoid postulating a solution for which there is no mss support, any solution has to fit with these patterns.
        The starting point is the text we see as 17-18. It has parallels in both Mk and Mt, but not in 1 Cor. Although the
        wording in Lk is not exactly the same as in Mk/Mt, all the essential details are present in the same order, and hence
        (assuming Markan priority) either Mk or Mt are almost certainly the source of this text. Given that in Mk/Mt the text is
        not contiguous, why did it become so in Lk? The simplest answer is that after the original text of Lk was written,
        someone (either aLk or someone else) wanted to include 1 Cor 11:24-25 in this passage. This required just two steps:



        1. Merge 1 Cor 11:24-25 with the words originally from (e.g.) Mt 26:26, 28, editing existing words as desired, to
        form what we see as 19-20.

        2. Join the remaining text from (e.g.) Mt 26:27, 29 to form a second unit (that we see as 17-18), and place it
        before the merged text.



        This simple, and natural, process creates what we see as the majority text, and with 17-18 before 19-20 creates the
        (cup-bread-cup) sequence. However, this would not have pleased various communities, and so in order to avoid having two
        cups, two different 'fixes' were then applied to this text, one giving priority to the text from Paul, the other the
        text from Mk/Mt:



        1. The Syriac solution: Swap 19-20 with 17-18. This places the text from Paul first (although still with changes
        introduced from the parallel Mk/Mt text during the 'merge'), but then creates a (bread-cup-cup) sequence, for which
        there were three different solutions:

        a. Peshitta: Remove 17-18 (the cup from Mk/Mt).

        b. Curetonian: Remove 20 (the cup from Paul).

        c. Sinaitic: Edit 20a and swap 20b with 17, to give: "after they had supped, he took the cup, and gave thanks, and
        said."

        2. The old Latin solution: Remove text which originated in Paul (19b-20a). Then, because 20b-c depend on 20a, remove
        20b-c as well, leaving just 17-19a (cup-bread). Then, in b and e, the (bread-cup) sequence was restored by swapping 19a
        with 17-18.



        All of these changes had a single motivation: to remove one of the cups from the (cup-bread-cup) sequence; and differed
        mainly according to the importance given to the text from Paul vs. that from Mk/Mt.



        David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ronald Price
        ... David, Your solution sounds good to me. It would be interesting to know where your explanation differs from that of Ehrman (which is commended by Parker).
        Message 3 of 22 , Dec 21, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          On 19/12/2011 23:43, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

          > ..... I would very much appreciate any comment on my suggested solution.

          David,

          Your solution sounds good to me. It would be interesting to know where your
          explanation differs from that of Ehrman (which is commended by Parker).

          I can confirm that Lk 22:19b-20 was not in the original document, nor in the
          document formed after the inclusion of the birth stories. For in each case
          my highly credible logical structure matches a page model which indicates a
          codex, but my validity tests for the match between structure and pages fail
          badly when Lk 22:19b-20 and/or the other Western non-interpolations are put
          back into the text.

          Ron Price,

          Derbyshire, UK

          http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/page_head.html


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Inglis
          Ron, my explanation and Ehrman s differ quite significantly (see http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/ehrman-pres.html ). He believes the shorter variant found
          Message 4 of 22 , Dec 21, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Ron, my explanation and Ehrman's differ quite significantly (see http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/ehrman-pres.html
            ). He believes the shorter variant found in D is original, whereas I believe that it was derived from the longer one by
            (essentially) just removing all the Pauline elements. However, I suspect that a different shorter form, i.e. the Mk/Mt
            form (in the Mk/Mt order), was the original in Lk, and that this was then expanded (as explained in my post) by merging
            it with the text from 1 Cor 11.

            One of the difficulties that Ehrman and others note regarding the shorter variant seen in D is the abruptness of the Lk
            22:19a-21 transition, and this is one reason why the longer variant is often considered to be original. However, if my
            suggestion is correct, then (because of the different order in Mk/Mt) the transition would have been the much cleaner
            one from Lk 22:18-21 instead. If this alternate shorter form was actually seen by anyone other than aLk we do not have
            any ms evidence for it, but it would, I assume, still fit with your codex model.

            David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

            From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ronald Price
            Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 8:22 AM
            To: Synoptic-L
            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Cup-Bread-Cup in Luke 22:17-20 - Simpler than is generally thought?

            On 19/12/2011 23:43, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@... <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> > wrote:
            > ..... I would very much appreciate any comment on my suggested solution.

            David,
            Your solution sounds good to me. It would be interesting to know where your explanation differs from that of Ehrman
            (which is commended by Parker).
            I can confirm that Lk 22:19b-20 was not in the original document, nor in the document formed after the inclusion of the
            birth stories. For in each case my highly credible logical structure matches a page model which indicates a codex, but
            my validity tests for the match between structure and pages fail badly when Lk 22:19b-20 and/or the other Western
            non-interpolations are put
            back into the text.
            Ron Price,
            Derbyshire, UK



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David Mealand
            I have tried several times to work out exactly what is being proposed as a solution, and am still unclear. I think the difficulty may partly be due to
            Message 5 of 22 , Dec 21, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              I have tried several times to work out exactly
              what is being proposed as a solution, and am still
              unclear. I think the difficulty may partly be due to
              counting text in Luke which matches either Mark and Matthew
              or 1 Cor as being a "supported" reading in Luke. But
              I may be wrong about this. Perhaps the gloom of the winter
              solstice has got me into a confused and lethargic state.

              I think it would help to set out in translation what
              is proposed as the original text, and to identify which
              texts or versions of _Luke_ support it.

              There are other points to consider, but maybe it would
              help to have this clarified first.

              David M.



              ---------
              David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


              --
              The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
              Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
            • David Inglis
              David, as part of my reason for the post was to see if what I was writing was even understandable, I’m more than happy to try a different approach. In order
              Message 6 of 22 , Dec 21, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                David, as part of my reason for the post was to see if what I was writing was even understandable, I’m more than happy to try a different approach. In order to (hopefully) answer your last point first, please could I ask you to take a look at TVU329, about ¾ way through http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Luke.pdf from Wieland Willker. This should explain the various textual variants satisfactorily. I am suggesting that all the shorter forms are derived from the longer form (as in NA27).

                However, I’m very reluctant to call this the ‘original’ text, as I believe that this form is itself the expansion of an earlier version of Lk that contained the Mk/Mt version of the text, essentially what we see today (in this order) as vv. 19a, 17, 20b, 18 (vv. 19b-20a did not exist in Lk at this point). From this, the simple explanation for the creation of the NA27 text was a desire (by someone) to combine the Mk/Mt text with 1 Cor 11:24-25, as follows:

                1. Merge 1 Cor 11:24-25 with the words from what is now vv. 19a and 20b, editing existing words as necessary, to form what we now see as Lk 22:19-20.

                2. Join together the text of what was left (now vv. 22:17-18), and place it before the merged text.

                Whether these two ‘versions’ were created by the same person, and whether the first was seen by anyone other than the author, is unknown. The motivation may have been to include the atonement doctrine from 1 Cor 11, but again, this is unknown. However, if the first ‘version’ is considered to be the ‘original,’ there is nothing in the mss to suggest that any another known variants were derived from it. Instead, I believe that, as stated in my first email, all the other mss variants can be seen as a desire to get rid of the (cup-bread-cup) sequence from the longer form.

                David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



                From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Mealand
                Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 2:32 PM
                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Cup-Bread-Cup in Luke 22:17-20 - Simpler than is generally thought?

                I have tried several times to work out exactly what is being proposed as a solution, and am still unclear. I think the difficulty may partly be due to counting text in Luke which matches either Mark and Matthew or 1 Cor as being a "supported" reading in Luke. But I may be wrong about this. Perhaps the gloom of the winter solstice has got me into a confused and lethargic state. I think it would help to set out in translation what is proposed as the original text, and to identify which texts or versions of _Luke_ support it.

                There are other points to consider, but maybe it would help to have this clarified first.

                David M.





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Ronald Price
                ... David, Thanks for this clarification. Firstly I find Wieland s argument at one point rather strange. On the one hand he presents an argument that Paul s
                Message 7 of 22 , Dec 22, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 22/12/2011 00:10, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

                  > ..... I am suggesting that all the shorter forms are derived from the longer
                  > form (as in NA27). .....
                  > However, I¹m very reluctant to call this the Œoriginal¹ text, as I believe
                  > that this form is itself the expansion of an earlier version of Lk that
                  > contained the Mk/Mt version of the text, essentially what we see today (in
                  > this order) as vv. 19a, 17, 20b, 18 (vv. 19b-20a did not exist in Lk at this
                  > point).

                  David,

                  Thanks for this clarification.

                  Firstly I find Wieland's argument at one point rather strange. On the one
                  hand he presents an argument that Paul's text in 1 Cor 11 is so different
                  from Lk 22:19b-20 ('7 differences') that dependence on Paul here is
                  unlikely. On the other hand he suggests that the words are so similar
                  because they were used liturgically from an early date. Trying to have it
                  both ways surely renders the analysis invalid.

                  Secondly you appear to be proposing an original text which has the support
                  of no single MS. Also the posited two-stage process for D etc. consisting of
                  expansion followed by contraction, while not impossible, seems overly
                  complex.

                  To me the Ehrman/Parker solution, in which Lk 22:19b-20 was absent from the
                  original, is the most credible.

                  Ron Price,

                  Derbyshire, UK

                  http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/page_head.html



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • David Inglis
                  RON: Firstly I find Wieland s argument at one point rather strange…. Trying to have it both ways surely renders the analysis invalid. DAVID: As I see it, he
                  Message 8 of 22 , Dec 22, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    RON: Firstly I find Wieland's argument at one point rather strange�. Trying to have it both ways surely renders the
                    analysis invalid.

                    DAVID: As I see it, he is documenting the various variants, presenting various opinions as to how they occurred, and
                    then picking what he believes to be the �best fit.� I don�t see anything wrong with that.



                    RON: Secondly you appear to be proposing an original text which has the support of no single MS.

                    DAVID: Correct, except I would say �no single extant ms.� However, I believe I have found support for it, but I�m still
                    putting together my argument for this point.



                    RON: Also the posited two-stage process for D etc. consisting of expansion followed by contraction, while not
                    impossible, seems overly complex.

                    DAVID: I�m not sure where you got this from. I�m suggesting that the D reading is just a contraction of the long
                    variant. I didn�t suggest an expansion for D.



                    RON: To me the Ehrman/Parker solution, in which Lk 22:19b-20 was absent from the original, is the most credible.

                    DAVID: We disagree on this, but there�s nothing wrong with that. The problem I have with this solution is explaining why
                    they would have been omitted right from the start. Given the prior existence of the text in Mk, Mt, and 1 Cor 11, what
                    would be the motivation to not only omit what we see as Lk 22:19b-20, but to also re-order the remaining Mk/Mt text? I
                    just have a hard time envisioning both these taking place at the same time.



                    From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ronald Price
                    Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2011 6:49 AM
                    To: Synoptic-L
                    Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Cup-Bread-Cup in Luke 22:17-20 - Simpler than is generally thought?

                    On 22/12/2011 00:10, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@... <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> > wrote:

                    > ..... I am suggesting that all the shorter forms are derived from the longer form (as in NA27). .....
                    > However, I�m very reluctant to call this the �original� text, as I believe that this form is itself the expansion of
                    an earlier version of Lk that contained the Mk/Mt version of the text, essentially what we see today (in this order) as
                    vv. 19a, 17, 20b, 18 (vv. 19b-20a did not exist in Lk at this point).





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • David Mealand
                    Thanks for clarifying the position. I would also differ, and favour the shorter text as being the original. My main reason has been that the original is
                    Message 9 of 22 , Dec 22, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks for clarifying the position.

                      I would also differ, and favour the "shorter text" as being
                      the original. My main reason has been that
                      the original is most likely to be the text which
                      caused the other variants to come about.

                      I would argue that the shorter text provoked the
                      interpolation (after Luke's time) in 19b and 20 by those unhappy
                      with the cup-bread sequence, who would also not have been
                      happy with the lack of the interpretation of the cup
                      found in Mark and Paul (and Matthew).

                      The cup-bread order is evidenced elsewhere but didn't
                      become the majority practice. Also we need to pay attention
                      to vv.15-16 which look like a bit more of the older material
                      found in Mark 14.25. It looks as though Luke also has
                      a bit of tradition which preserves the older original eschatological
                      words from the meal. So Luke could well be preserving an
                      older version of the meal.

                      So far I am largely in line with others who have argued
                      for the shorter text. But I would add one further factor.
                      If it is right that a cup of wine (and other items) preceded
                      the breaking of bread at Passover, and if it is right that
                      at Passover the bread was interpreted (bread of affliction)
                      then the order cup-bread, followed by an interpretation of
                      the bread, would match what the followers of Jesus presumably did
                      at the first Passover after the crucifixion. What were they to do?
                      Should they observe Passover as before, or should they observe it
                      but with a different interpretative story?

                      The variation in the wording of the interpretation
                      of the cup might well suggest
                      that this was introduced in more than one form a little later
                      - before 1 Cor, but not at the very start. Was the cup
                      given an interpretation at Passover meals, or is this an early
                      Christian element supplementing the bread "word" with further
                      insight?

                      I am more confident about the shorter text being original, but I
                      also think we need an account of why Luke had a tradition which
                      produced a cup-bread version of the meal in the first place,
                      and this I have tried to provide.

                      David M.


                      ---------
                      David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                      --
                      The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                      Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                    • Ronald Price
                      DAVID: I m not sure where you got this from. I‚m suggesting that the D reading is just a contraction of the long variant. I didn t suggest an expansion for
                      Message 10 of 22 , Dec 22, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        DAVID: I'm not sure where you got this from. I‚m suggesting that the D
                        reading is just a contraction of the long
                        variant. I didn't suggest an expansion for D.
                        ..... I am suggesting that all the shorter forms are derived from the longer
                        form (as in NA27).

                        RON: Surely the sequence 'original-text --> NA27 text --> D' implies that D
                        has arisen as a result of an expansion followed by a contraction.

                        - - - - - - - - - -

                        DAVID: Given the prior existence of the text in Mk, Mt, and 1 Cor 11, what
                        would be the motivation to not only omit what we see as Lk 22:19b-20, .....

                        RON: Neither Ehrman nor Parker (nor I) see it as having been "omitted". I
                        think we merely believe that the author of Luke did not know about the
                        letter containing 1 Cor 11:23-26. Anyway, shouldn't a similar question be
                        addressed to you: what would be the motivation to omit Lk 22:19b-20a in
                        *your* original?

                        - - - - - - - - - -

                        DAVID: ..... [what would be the motivation] to also re-order the remaining
                        Mk/Mt text?

                        RON: If Luke had planned to start the story with 22:15-16 and to end with
                        22:21-23, he may have reordered the bread and cup parts so that the
                        "kingdom" of 22:18 would be close to the "kingdom" of 22:16, and "This is my
                        body" would be next to the betrayal of vv. 21-23. The transitions between
                        vv. 16 & 17 and between vv. 20 & 21 then read more smoothly.

                        - - - - - - - - - -

                        Ron Price,

                        Derbyshire, UK

                        http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/page_head.html
                      • David Inglis
                        DAVID: Given the prior existence of the text in Mk, Mt, and 1 Cor 11, what would be the motivation to not only omit what we see as Lk 22:19b-20, ..... RON:
                        Message 11 of 22 , Dec 23, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          DAVID: Given the prior existence of the text in Mk, Mt, and 1 Cor 11, what would be the motivation to not only omit what we see as Lk 22:19b-20, .....

                          RON: Neither Ehrman nor Parker (nor I) see it as having been "omitted". I think we merely believe that the author of Luke did not know about the letter containing 1 Cor 11:23-26. Anyway, shouldn't a similar question be addressed to you: what would be the motivation to omit Lk 22:19b-20a in *your* original?

                          DAVID I: This comes down to the question of what we think aLk used as his sources, and whether he had everything in front of him when he wrote his ‘original,’ or whether his text grew in stages as he incorporated material from other sources (e.g. 1 Cor 11). It is my contention that the re-ordering of what is in Mk and Mt into what we see in Lk makes most sense when seen as the (previously described) result of merging the Mk/Mt text with that from 1 Cor 11, in which case my pre- 1 Cor ‘original’ (or first draft?) would be basically the same as what we see in Mk/Mt, excluding only vv. 22:19b-20a. This would only be ‘omitting’ text in the text critical sense of it not being present, because the reality was that aLk didn’t know of its existence at the time.

                          In your scenario vv. 22:19b-20a are not present in the D text because they weren’t in the Mk/Mt text (agreed), but v. 22:20b is also not present, and the remaining text from Mk/Mt is re-ordered. This is the main sticking point for me. Although it is possible to postulate reasons why aLk might make these other changes in his original, to me they just don’t seem likely enough to have actually happened to make what we see in D the original text.

                          The other problem I have with D containing the original is that (notwithstanding the fact that textual expansion is generally seen as more likely than contraction) the possible explanations given for the expansion of the D text into the longer variants seen in the mss just seem to me to be more convoluted and less convincing than those given for the contraction of the long form into the shorter variants.

                          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • David Mealand
                          David Inglis says he can t see why Luke would have left out the words in Mark 14.24b (the blood poured out). Perhaps he did it for the same reason as he left
                          Message 12 of 22 , Dec 23, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            David Inglis says he can't see why Luke would have left out the
                            words in Mark 14.24b (the blood poured out). Perhaps he did it for the same
                            reason as he left out the words in Mark 10.45b about giving his life
                            to set the many free?

                            David I's theory seems to be that Luke first largely followed what Mark had,
                            then later expanded it with material from 1 Cor 11, and at that point
                            moved the
                            passage about the fruit of the vine earlier. Then that this was later
                            shortened to remedy the now cup-bread-cup sequence by omitting the material
                            from 1 Cor etc.

                            I quote: ----------
                            1. Merge 1 Cor 11:24-25 with the words from what is now vv. 19a and
                            20b, editing existing words as necessary, to form what we now see as
                            Lk 22:19-20.

                            2. Join together the text of what was left (now vv. 22:17-18), and
                            place it before the merged text.
                            -----------------------

                            I find it very hard to think that someone could create a cup-bread-cup
                            sequence out of two accounts which have the bread-cup order.

                            Also I find it very unlikely that someone else would then at that point try
                            to remedy matters by cutting out the _later_ cup section.

                            I find it much more likely that "Luke" had more material with eschatological
                            words relating to Passover, knew of a cup-bread sequence (as also in Didache
                            and 1 Cor 10), and so produced a narrative reflecting what he was familiar
                            with, followed by a bit of material similar to Mark's interpretative bread
                            word, but leaving out the references to blood, just as he left out Mk
                            10.45b. Because this older
                            more Passover-like tradition was giving ground to what became the standard
                            bread-cup pattern I think Luke's text was then later "corrected" by inserting
                            what people "expected" to be there - hence the longer (Greek) text.
                            This longer text didn't get into some of the Syriac and Western texts
                            and versions.
                            The older tradition closer to the Passover meal didn't die altogether and
                            elements of it survived despite the attempts to "adjust" Luke 22 by making
                            it more Pauline.

                            One of the main problems with reading 1st century texts is to avoid
                            making them
                            say what we think they ought to have said, and to try to see that many of the
                            things they actually say fit quite well with their period. This is not a new
                            problem - whichever way Luke 22 was altered points to someone doing something
                            fairly drastic to a text felt not to be "right". But Lk 22.19f is a
                            hotbed of contested views.

                            David M.

                            ---------
                            David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                            --
                            The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                            Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                          • David Mealand
                            David Inglis says he can t see why Luke would have left out the words in Mark 14.24b (the blood poured out). Perhaps he did it for the same reason as he left
                            Message 13 of 22 , Dec 23, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              David Inglis says he can't see why Luke would have left out the
                              words in Mark 14.24b (the blood poured out). Perhaps he did it for the same
                              reason as he left out the words in Mark 10.45b about giving his life
                              to set the many free?

                              David I's theory seems to be that Luke first largely followed what Mark had,
                              then later expanded it with material from 1 Cor 11, and at that point
                              moved the
                              passage about the fruit of the vine earlier. Then that this was later
                              shortened to remedy the now cup-bread-cup sequence by omitting the material
                              from 1 Cor etc.

                              I quote: ----------
                              1. Merge 1 Cor 11:24-25 with the words from what is now vv. 19a and
                              20b, editing existing words as necessary, to form what we now see as
                              Lk 22:19-20.

                              2. Join together the text of what was left (now vv. 22:17-18), and
                              place it before the merged text.
                              -----------------------

                              I find it very hard to think that someone could create a cup-bread-cup
                              sequence out of two accounts which have the bread-cup order.

                              Also I find it very unlikely that someone else would then at that point try
                              to remedy matters by cutting out the _later_ cup section.

                              I find it much more likely that "Luke" had more material with eschatological
                              words relating to Passover, knew of a cup-bread sequence (as also in Didache
                              and 1 Cor 10), and so produced a narrative reflecting what he was familiar
                              with, followed by a bit of material similar to Mark's interpretative bread
                              word, but leaving out the references to blood, just as he left out Mk
                              10.45b. Because this older
                              more Passover-like tradition was giving ground to what became the standard
                              bread-cup pattern I think Luke's text was then later "corrected" by inserting
                              what people "expected" to be there - hence the longer (Greek) text.
                              This longer text didn't get into some of the Syriac and Western texts
                              and versions.
                              The older tradition closer to the Passover meal didn't die altogether and
                              elements of it survived despite the attempts to "adjust" Luke 22 by making
                              it more Pauline.

                              One of the main problems with reading 1st century texts is to avoid
                              making them
                              say what we think they ought to have said, and to try to see that many of the
                              things they actually say fit quite well with their period. This is not a new
                              problem - whichever way Luke 22 was altered points to someone doing something
                              fairly drastic to a text felt not to be "right". But Lk 22.19f is a
                              hotbed of contested views.

                              David M.

                              ---------
                              David Mealand, University of Edinburgh






                              ---


                              --
                              The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                              Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                            • David Inglis
                              DAVID M: David Inglis says he can t see why Luke would have left out the words in Mark 14.24b (the blood poured out). Perhaps he did it for the same reason as
                              Message 14 of 22 , Dec 23, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                DAVID M: David Inglis says he can't see why Luke would have left out the words in Mark 14.24b (the blood poured out). Perhaps he did it for the same reason as he left out the words in Mark 10.45b about giving his life to set the many free?

                                DAVID I: Touché! I suppose any appeal to “I can’t see why X would have done Y” is bound to be rejected. Basically, aLk could have done anything he wanted with any of his sources. None of us were there at the time, so really have no idea why he did what he did.



                                DAVID M: David I's theory seems to be that Luke first largely followed what Mark had, then later expanded it with material from 1 Cor 11, and at that point moved the passage about the fruit of the vine earlier. Then that this was later shortened to remedy the now cup-bread-cup sequence by omitting the material from 1 Cor etc. I quote:

                                1. Merge 1 Cor 11:24-25 with the words from what is now vv. 19a and 20b, editing existing words as necessary, to form what we now see as Lk 22:19-20.

                                2. Join together the text of what was left (now vv. 22:17-18), and place it before the merged text.

                                DAVID I: Correct.



                                DAVID M: I find it very hard to think that someone could create a cup-bread-cup sequence out of two accounts which have the bread-cup order.

                                DAVID I: Notwithstanding my initial point above, I find it very hard to think that someone could create a cup-bread-cup sequence out of two accounts, one with the cup-bread order, and the other with the bread-cup order.



                                DAVID M: Also I find it very unlikely that someone else would then at that point try to remedy matters by cutting out the _later_ cup section.

                                DAVID I: Why?



                                DAVID M: I find it much more likely that "Luke" had more material with eschatological words relating to Passover, knew of a cup-bread sequence (as also in Didache and 1 Cor 10), and so produced a narrative reflecting what he was familiar with, followed by a bit of material similar to Mark's interpretative bread word, but leaving out the references to blood, just as he left out Mk 10.45b.

                                DAVID I: We’re basically into unknown territory here, hypothesizing as to what source material aLk had. I would prefer to leave the Didache out of it, but only for the ‘Occam’s Razor” reason of not wanting to introduce more sources than I think necessary.



                                DAVID M: … But Lk 22.19f is a hotbed of contested views.

                                DAVID I: David, unfortunately, you’re right, and because so much depends on knowing the answer to “What would Luke do?” I think that you and Ron are very unlikely to convince me of your viewpoint, and vice versa. However, I’m more than happy to continue the discussion if you are, in case there’s something significant I’ve not taken into account.

                                David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA





                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • David Inglis
                                DAVID M: I find it much more likely that Luke had more material with eschatological words relating to Passover, knew of a cup-bread sequence (as also in
                                Message 15 of 22 , Dec 23, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  DAVID M: I find it much more likely that "Luke" had more material with eschatological words relating to Passover, knew of a cup-bread sequence (as also in Didache and 1 Cor 10), and so produced a narrative reflecting what he was familiar with, followed by a bit of material similar to Mark's interpretative bread word, but leaving out the references to blood, just as he left out Mk 10.45b.

                                  DAVID I: We’re basically into unknown territory here, hypothesizing as to what source material aLk had. I would prefer to leave the Didache out of it, but only for the ‘Occam’s Razor” reason of not wanting to introduce more sources than I think necessary.
                                  Apologies – I forgot to add that as both the Didache and 1 Cor contain both the cup-bread AND bread-cup sequences, I see it as perfectly reasonable that Lk might combine the two to create the cup-bread-cup sequence.

                                  David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • E Bruce Brooks
                                  To: Synoptic (GPG) On: Directionality From: Bruce When David comes up against Goliath, we all know who to side with (in real life, the bigger guy usually
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Dec 23, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    To: Synoptic (GPG)
                                    On: Directionality
                                    From: Bruce

                                    When David comes up against Goliath, we all know who to side with (in real
                                    life, the bigger guy usually wins), but in recent days we have had a David
                                    vs David discussion, which requires to be decided on the merits, always a
                                    difficult task. My own sense has been that on the present matter, David M
                                    has the better case (vis-a-vis David I), but it may be useful to say why.

                                    1. DAVID I: I suppose any appeal to "I can't see why X would have done Y" is
                                    bound to be rejected. Basically, aLk could have done anything he wanted with
                                    any of his sources. None of us were there at the time, so really have no
                                    idea why he did what he did.

                                    BRUCE: I don't think that all imaginable options are equally likely for aLk,
                                    or equally impenetrable for ourselves. A certain sense of aLk's
                                    propensities, verbal and theological, can be had by reading his whole work;
                                    we don't have to (and as Bruce Metzger reminds us, are often better advised
                                    not to) consider one word, or one passage, in isolation. The statement "I
                                    can't see why aLk would have done A" is strong insofar as it is paired with
                                    "I *can* see why aLk *would* have done B." This is the basic Tischendorf
                                    principle, and the heart of all textual decisions, with and without the
                                    presence of manuscript variants. And the more widely informed our sense of
                                    "aLk" is, the better for both those statements, and the more convincing is
                                    the resulting directionality statement.

                                    2. DAVID I: I would prefer to leave the Didache out of it, but only for the
                                    'Occam's Razor" reason of not wanting to introduce more sources than I think
                                    necessary.

                                    BRUCE: Occam's Razor concerns elements in a construct (each of which should
                                    be doing work in the construct), not the amount of evidence to be considered
                                    in reaching a construct. As to amount of evidence, how do we judge what is
                                    necessary? Or better, what is appropriate? The Didache is interesting
                                    because its chief instructions imply a cup-bread order, and because as an
                                    Alpha text and thus presumptively early, it is likely to establish a
                                    directionality together with Paul's bread-cup theory, which (as a Beta view,
                                    since it invests the cup with a "Jesus's blood" symbolism) is probably
                                    developmentally later than the Didache version. I think that this passage,
                                    and the entire posture of aLk in Lk/Acts, becomes more intelligible if we
                                    see Luke as taking a hand in the Alpha/Beta argument which had burst out
                                    earlier between The Epistle of James (on the Alpha or "works" side) and Paul
                                    in Romans (on the Beta or "faith" side).

                                    The point, for me, is that (a) there were theological differences at the
                                    time, (b) that those differences were felt to be important, and provoked
                                    sometimes violent disputes between Christians, and (c) that Luke
                                    consistently sided with the Alpha or works position - just like the Didache,
                                    which knows nothing of belief in Jesus's death as leading to salvation, and
                                    which on the contrary has annexed the Two Ways document, which preaches
                                    nothing but the salvific consequences of good and bad deeds.

                                    3. I think, and will end by suggesting, that realization of these
                                    differences in the interpretation of Jesus's life and teachings lights up
                                    the whole panorama of Christian history, from the 1st century (see above)
                                    through the 4th, where we find the PseudoClementines preaching at simply
                                    enormous length a doctrine of salvation having nothing to do with the
                                    atoning death of Jesus, for the Alpha side, and for the Beta side,
                                    Epiphanius sputtering and spouting, uttering serpents and spewing ordure, on
                                    what he calls the Ebionites, in part for holding just those views.

                                    In other words, there may have been more to cup-bread vs bread-cup than
                                    scribal metathesis; the whole plan of salvation may be involved. I suggest
                                    that, in fact, it was involved, and that this is what is at stake between
                                    James and Paul, as well as between one variant of a Luke passage and another
                                    variant of that passage.

                                    Bruce

                                    E Bruce Brooks
                                    University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                  • Dennis Goffin
                                    Confirmation that Bruce s view is correct is found in Luke s omission of Mark 10:45b - a Beta interpolation shoehorned into an Alpha passage, which clashed
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Dec 24, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Confirmation that Bruce's view is correct is found in Luke's omission of Mark 10:45b - a Beta interpolation shoehorned into an Alpha passage, which clashed with Luke's view on salvation theology.Dennis

                                      ---------------------

                                      Dennis Goffin

                                      Chorleywood UK

                                      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                      CC: gpg@yahoogroups.com
                                      From: brooks@...
                                      Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:29:48 -0500
                                      Subject: [GPG] RE: [Synoptic-L] Cup-Bread in Luke 22:15-19a




























                                      To: Synoptic (GPG)

                                      On: Directionality

                                      From: Bruce



                                      When David comes up against Goliath, we all know who to side with (in real

                                      life, the bigger guy usually wins), but in recent days we have had a David

                                      vs David discussion, which requires to be decided on the merits, always a

                                      difficult task. My own sense has been that on the present matter, David M

                                      has the better case (vis-a-vis David I), but it may be useful to say why.



                                      1. DAVID I: I suppose any appeal to "I can't see why X would have done Y" is

                                      bound to be rejected. Basically, aLk could have done anything he wanted with

                                      any of his sources. None of us were there at the time, so really have no

                                      idea why he did what he did.



                                      BRUCE: I don't think that all imaginable options are equally likely for aLk,

                                      or equally impenetrable for ourselves. A certain sense of aLk's

                                      propensities, verbal and theological, can be had by reading his whole work;

                                      we don't have to (and as Bruce Metzger reminds us, are often better advised

                                      not to) consider one word, or one passage, in isolation. The statement "I

                                      can't see why aLk would have done A" is strong insofar as it is paired with

                                      "I *can* see why aLk *would* have done B." This is the basic Tischendorf

                                      principle, and the heart of all textual decisions, with and without the

                                      presence of manuscript variants. And the more widely informed our sense of

                                      "aLk" is, the better for both those statements, and the more convincing is

                                      the resulting directionality statement.



                                      2. DAVID I: I would prefer to leave the Didache out of it, but only for the

                                      'Occam's Razor" reason of not wanting to introduce more sources than I think

                                      necessary.



                                      BRUCE: Occam's Razor concerns elements in a construct (each of which should

                                      be doing work in the construct), not the amount of evidence to be considered

                                      in reaching a construct. As to amount of evidence, how do we judge what is

                                      necessary? Or better, what is appropriate? The Didache is interesting

                                      because its chief instructions imply a cup-bread order, and because as an

                                      Alpha text and thus presumptively early, it is likely to establish a

                                      directionality together with Paul's bread-cup theory, which (as a Beta view,

                                      since it invests the cup with a "Jesus's blood" symbolism) is probably

                                      developmentally later than the Didache version. I think that this passage,

                                      and the entire posture of aLk in Lk/Acts, becomes more intelligible if we

                                      see Luke as taking a hand in the Alpha/Beta argument which had burst out

                                      earlier between The Epistle of James (on the Alpha or "works" side) and Paul

                                      in Romans (on the Beta or "faith" side).



                                      The point, for me, is that (a) there were theological differences at the

                                      time, (b) that those differences were felt to be important, and provoked

                                      sometimes violent disputes between Christians, and (c) that Luke

                                      consistently sided with the Alpha or works position - just like the Didache,

                                      which knows nothing of belief in Jesus's death as leading to salvation, and

                                      which on the contrary has annexed the Two Ways document, which preaches

                                      nothing but the salvific consequences of good and bad deeds.



                                      3. I think, and will end by suggesting, that realization of these

                                      differences in the interpretation of Jesus's life and teachings lights up

                                      the whole panorama of Christian history, from the 1st century (see above)

                                      through the 4th, where we find the PseudoClementines preaching at simply

                                      enormous length a doctrine of salvation having nothing to do with the

                                      atoning death of Jesus, for the Alpha side, and for the Beta side,

                                      Epiphanius sputtering and spouting, uttering serpents and spewing ordure, on

                                      what he calls the Ebionites, in part for holding just those views.



                                      In other words, there may have been more to cup-bread vs bread-cup than

                                      scribal metathesis; the whole plan of salvation may be involved. I suggest

                                      that, in fact, it was involved, and that this is what is at stake between

                                      James and Paul, as well as between one variant of a Luke passage and another

                                      variant of that passage.



                                      Bruce



                                      E Bruce Brooks

                                      University of Massachusetts at Amherst


















                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • E Bruce Brooks
                                      To: Synoptic/GPG In Response To: Dennis G On: Lk 22:19b-20 From: Bruce I had suggested that David M (not to mention Westcott and Hort and a few others) was
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Dec 24, 2011
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        To: Synoptic/GPG

                                        In Response To: Dennis G

                                        On: Lk 22:19b-20

                                        From: Bruce



                                        I had suggested that David M (not to mention Westcott and Hort and a few
                                        others) was right in seeing this Western Non passage in Lk (present in
                                        Vaticanus but missing in Bezae) as a later, and doctrinally motivated,
                                        addition to Lk.



                                        DENNIS: Confirmation that Bruce's view is correct is found in Luke's
                                        omission of Mark 10:45b - a Beta interpolation shoehorned into an Alpha
                                        passage, which clashed with Luke's view on salvation theology.



                                        BRUCE: It's not necessary to agree with my stratification of Mark for this
                                        point to have its full force. It is only required that the two (and only
                                        two) passages in Mark which register the Atonement doctrine (Mk 10:45 and
                                        14:24) were present for Luke. (That both were present for Matthew is
                                        evidenced by their unrevised presence in Matthew). And we don't need to
                                        start with any idea of Luke's soteriology; we can begin by simply seeing
                                        what Luke does with these two passages. In a word, (1) he eliminates them,
                                        and (2) he does not introduce the Atonement doctrine at any other point. His
                                        Gospel thus becomes entirely free of the Atonement doctrine. It is then a
                                        reasonable conjecture that Luke disagreed with the Atonement doctrine. It is
                                        not only the fact of its being absent from the Gospel that makes this
                                        conjecture reasonable, but the fact of its having been stamped out wherever
                                        it occurred in Luke's one securely known source.



                                        There is further evidence. Take Luke's Sermon on the Plain. It not only does
                                        not preach the Atonement, or recommend faith in the fact of the Atonement,
                                        it preaches something entirely different: a proto-Ebionite (that is, a
                                        pro-poverty) version of the "works" doctrine which is reduced to a list of
                                        do's and don't's in the Two Ways tract. So just as Luke's theory of the
                                        Eucharist is congruent with the Didache's view of the Eucharist, so is his
                                        theory of salvation congruent with (though further advanced in one direction
                                        than) the Didache's view of salvation. (We know it was theirs since the
                                        Didache people at some point absorbed into their text the entire Two Ways
                                        tract). Luke thus seems to be right in line with the most primitive
                                        Christianity of which we have any textual evidence - a pre-Resurrection
                                        Christianity. It is this early version of Christianity (and by
                                        "Christianity" I mean merely the beliefs and practices of Jesus followers)
                                        that I have called Alpha.



                                        There is yet further evidence. What of Luke's later effort, Acts, which
                                        purports to tell the whole story of the Jesus movement from the death of
                                        Jesus onward, a story in which Paul, the prime advocate of the Atonement
                                        theory, figures very prominently? Answer: Except for one conversational
                                        passing mention in Ac 20:28, Paul in Acts *never,* repeat, *never* states
                                        the Atonement doctrine. He preaches Christianity on a wholly different
                                        basis. Paul in Acts is thus entirely shorn of his most characteristic, his
                                        most strongly urged, doctrine. So here again, the facts (in Paul's case) and
                                        the previous texts (in Mark's case) have been censored by aLk in order to
                                        remove the Atonement doctrine from the scene.



                                        It is at this point that one may properly be moved to conclude that Luke
                                        refused to accept the Atonement doctrine, and wished to see it removed - and
                                        as far as in him lay, did remove it - from the Christian thinking of his own
                                        time. (Including the Christian controversy of his own time; see the answer
                                        of the Epistle of James to Paul's atonement doctrine as expressed in
                                        Romans). I do reach that conclusion, and adopt it as operative and
                                        actionable until contradicted by later evidence. No later evidence has so
                                        far come to hand. This is why I call Acts an "irenic" document, even in its
                                        second and final form (which is not at all irenic as respects the Jews, but
                                        does keep the lid on what I may call intraChristian disputes).



                                        E Bruce Brooks

                                        University of Massachusetts



                                        Of course, somebody can always be found to take the other leg of the mule.
                                        David Allen, in Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (B&H 2010) 245f, largely quoting
                                        Francis Carpinelli, argues that Luke "did have a theologia crucis." Since
                                        Hebrews not only has a theologia crucis, but goes further than any other NT
                                        text in developing the idea of Jesus's death as a sacrifice, this point is
                                        essential to any idea that Luke wrote Hebrews. Allen reaches the following
                                        position on p247: "In conclusion, the works of Barrett, Fuller, Neyrey,
                                        Moessner, Witherington, Doble, and Carpinelli make it impossible to argue
                                        Luke has no theologia crucis. Clearly one reason many have inferred this is
                                        Luke's omission of Mark 10:45. But this argument assumes Markan priority, an
                                        assumption many have called into question . . ."



                                        In other words, to maintain the Lukan authorship thesis, the entire edifice
                                        of relatively firm NT conclusions up to now (including the
                                        deuteroPaulinicity of the Pastorals) must be dismantled. The whole book is
                                        an example of such tenuous links and precarious inferences. It is
                                        interesting as such, and of course for any actual evidence of Lukan features
                                        in Hebrews, which have been pointed out since antiquity, and which in the
                                        last days will need to be accounted for somehow. That study awaits someone
                                        (not myself, at least not this week) who cares to undertake it on a decently
                                        modern basis. (The place to start is probably Allen p117-120. Did Hebrews,
                                        like Ephesians, know the Parting Scene at Ephesus, in Acts 20??).



                                        Meanwhile, undeterred by the wilder authorship theories Allen cites at the
                                        beginning of his book (ending with Mary the mother of Jesus, as suggested by
                                        J M Ford in 1976), I continue to have the impression that inferences drawn
                                        from the *content* of Hebrews about the imputed *author* of Hebrews bear an
                                        uncanny likeness to everything we know, or have reason to suspect, about
                                        Apollos.





                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Bob Schacht
                                        ... I think Dennis is on to something here. That is, the original motivation for this thread was a concern with *sequence,* whereas Luke s (and other s)
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Dec 24, 2011
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          At 02:00 AM 12/24/2011, Dennis Goffin wrote:

                                          >Confirmation that Bruce's view is correct is found in Luke's
                                          >omission of Mark 10:45b - a Beta interpolation shoehorned into an
                                          >Alpha passage, which clashed with Luke's view on salvation theology.Dennis

                                          I think Dennis is on to something here. That is, the original
                                          motivation for this thread was a concern with *sequence,* whereas
                                          Luke's (and other's) primary concerns may be elsewhere, e.g.
                                          salvation theology.

                                          Bob Schacht
                                          Northern Arizona University


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Ronald Price
                                          ... Dennis, There is a better explanation for Mk 10:45. Mark was himself a Beta believer (c.f. Goulder who took Mark as a Pauline ). He made use of an Alpha
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Dec 24, 2011
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dennis Goffin wrote:

                                            > Confirmation that Bruce's view is correct is found in Luke's omission of Mark
                                            > 10:45b - a Beta interpolation shoehorned into an Alpha passage, which clashed
                                            > with Luke's view on salvation theology.

                                            Dennis,

                                            There is a better explanation for Mk 10:45.

                                            Mark was himself a Beta believer (c.f. Goulder who took Mark as a
                                            "Pauline"). He made use of an Alpha source in the form of the logia produced
                                            by the early Jesus movement. But being a Beta by conviction, he omitted
                                            about half of this source, and the remainder he generally adapted to suit
                                            his (Pauline) gospel. Thus in the case under discussion, he incorporated the
                                            Alpha aphorism Mk 10:42-44 (You know that ..... slave of all", then
                                            carefully blended it (v.45a) into the climax of the passage: his take on the
                                            Pauline gospel (v.45b). In other words, the aphorism served as a convenient
                                            introduction to the message Mark was most keen to get across to his
                                            audience.

                                            Ron Price,

                                            Derbyshire, UK

                                            http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/syno_home.html
                                          • David Inglis
                                            I’m getting into some email weirdness. Basically, I didn’t receive any copies of Bruce’s posts from Synoptic, although I did see copies he posted on
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Dec 24, 2011
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I’m getting into some email weirdness. Basically, I didn’t receive any copies of Bruce’s posts from Synoptic, although I did see copies he posted on another list. Consequently I may have read some of the responses out of order, so I’m not sure who to address this to. I think I may have been confusing things by not reinforcing something I wrote in my first post:



                                              “The simplest answer is that after the original text of Lk was written, someone (either aLk or someone else) wanted to include 1 Cor 11:24-25 in this passage. This required just two steps:
                                              1. Merge 1 Cor 11:24-25 with the words originally from (e.g.) Mt 26:26, 28, editing existing words as desired, to form what we see as 19-20.
                                              2. Join the remaining text from (e.g.) Mt 26:27, 29 to form a second unit (that we see as 17-18), and place it before the merged text.”
                                              In other words, I’m suggesting that Lk could have originally contained just the Mk/Mt wording, and that the words from 1 Cor 11 were added later by someone else. So, that would mean that cup-bread-cup was the result of a later (beta?) interpolation. It would also mean that (depending on the timing) the other variants could have been created either from the original, or the interpolated cup-bread-cup version.

                                              David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • David Inglis
                                              A simple question: Is there any evidence that any part of Lk 19b-20a existed in the Old Latin? I can’t find any. David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Jan 9, 2012
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                A simple question: Is there any evidence that any part of Lk 19b-20a existed in the Old Latin? I can’t find any.

                                                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.