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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Cup-Bread in Luke 22:15-19a

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.