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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Cup-Bread-Cup in Luke 22:17-20 - Simpler than is generally thought?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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.