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 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 1 of 22 , Dec 23, 2011
      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 2 of 22 , Dec 23, 2011
        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 3 of 22 , Dec 23, 2011
          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 4 of 22 , Dec 23, 2011
            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 5 of 22 , Dec 23, 2011
              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 6 of 22 , Dec 23, 2011
                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 7 of 22 , Dec 24, 2011
                  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 8 of 22 , Dec 24, 2011
                    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 9 of 22 , Dec 24, 2011
                      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 10 of 22 , Dec 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,

                        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 11 of 22 , Dec 24, 2011
                          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 12 of 22 , Jan 9, 2012
                            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.