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

(22)
• NextPrevious
• 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 1 of 22 , Dec 24, 2011
View Source
• 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]
• 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 2 of 22 , Dec 24, 2011
View Source
• 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,

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]
• ... 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 3 of 22 , Dec 24, 2011
View Source
• 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]
• ... 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 4 of 22 , Dec 24, 2011
View Source
• 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
• 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 5 of 22 , Dec 24, 2011
View Source
• 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]
• 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 6 of 22 , Jan 9, 2012
View Source
• 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.