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