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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.