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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Lk 22:17-20 - Blessing or giving thanks?

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    Stephen, many thanks (and for the reminder that 05 and 06 are not the same ms). David Inglis ... From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
    Message 1 of 18 , Jul 3 9:54 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Stephen, many thanks (and for the reminder that 05 and 06 are not the same ms).

      David Inglis

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Carlson
      Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 7:15 AM
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Lk 22:17-20 - Blessing or giving thanks?

      On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 5:50 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@...> wrote:
      > As ‘eucharistçsas’ in Lk 22:19a cannot have come from either Mk or Mt,
      > this appears to be evidence that what we see here in the Majority Text
      > version of Lk 22:19a came from 1 Cor 11 instead. However, because Lk
      > 22:19a exists in the Old Latin (and D) and Syriac variants, we should
      > be able to test whether they have Jesus blessing or giving thanks. The
      > significance of this would be that if Jesus is blessing in a variant it probably dates back to a time when the text
      originated in Mk or Mt, not 1 Cor 11. I believe that D reads ‘eucharistçsas’ in both versions, but I don’t know what is
      in the Old Latin and Syriac. As I would very much like to know their readings, can anyone help?

      All the Old Latins except d, the facing page of D, read GRATIAS EGIT (gave thanks) for Luke 22:19a. Old Latin d has
      BENEDIXIT (blessed) instead.

      All the Syriac versions have W'WDY (give thanks) for Luke 22:19a.

      Note that the D of Paul is a different MS than the D of the Gospels.
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson
      Ph.D., Duke University
    • David Mealand
      Isn t it the case that in many cases where there is an underlying Hebrew or other Semitic stratum there might not be very much difference between giving
      Message 2 of 18 , Jul 3 10:32 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Isn't it the case that in many cases where
        there is an underlying Hebrew or other Semitic stratum
        there might not be very much difference between
        "giving thanks" and "blessing" i.e. praising or
        thanking God? This may not be always true, but I
        suspect that it is often the case. The entry for
        eulogew in the relevant large Greek lexicon will
        categorize instances, especially for passages where
        the context makes praise or bless the preferred
        translation, the latter being the case where x blesses
        y and y is a person or object, or where x blesses
        while y curses someone or something. (And some instances
        again may not fit even this schema e.g. when the opposite
        case is reviling or slandering in which case I think
        I would prefer the translation "speak well of").

        David M.




        ---------
        David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


        --
        The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
        Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
      • Bob Schacht
        ... Or, similarly, that this might be a translation issue from an underlying source text in a different language? For example, is there a difference between
        Message 3 of 18 , Jul 3 11:19 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          At 10:32 AM 7/3/2012, David Mealand wrote:
          >Isn't it the case that in many cases where
          >there is an underlying Hebrew or other Semitic stratum
          >there might not be very much difference between
          >"giving thanks" and "blessing" i.e. praising or
          >thanking God?

          Or, similarly, that this might be a translation issue from an
          underlying source text in a different language?

          For example, is there a difference between blessing and giving thanks
          in Aramaic?

          Bob Schacht
          Northern Arizona University

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David Mealand
          Bob said Or, similarly, that this might be a translation issue from an underlying source text in a different language? That is part of what I meant. David M.
          Message 4 of 18 , Jul 4 2:38 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Bob said
            Or, similarly, that this might be a translation issue from an
            underlying source text in a different language?

            That is part of what I meant.

            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, lots of may s, may not s, might not s etc. here. I think what you are saying (please correct me if I m wrong) is that where we see subtle differences
            Message 5 of 18 , Jul 4 9:08 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              David, lots of "may"s, "may not"s, "might not"s etc. here. I think what you are saying (please correct me if I'm wrong)
              is that where we see subtle differences in the Greek we need to ask ourselves whether these may in fact just be slightly
              different translations of the same word in whatever was (or may have been) the underlying language of the texts (in much
              the same way that English (and other) translations from the Greek may use slightly different words to represent the same
              Greek). However, I do have to ask whether what you are suggesting here is a bit like Q, in that you are hypothesizing
              what seems to be an underlying written Hebrew/Aramaic source from which the details of the last supper were taken by the
              authors of 1 Cor and the synoptics, in order to explain the similarities. Are you actually suggesting that, or am I
              reading too much into your post?



              David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



              From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Mealand
              Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 10:33 AM
              To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Lk 22:17-20 - Blessing or giving thanks?

              Isn't it the case that in many cases where there is an underlying Hebrew or other Semitic stratum there might not be
              very much difference between "giving thanks" and "blessing" i.e. praising or thanking God? This may not be always true,
              but I suspect that it is often the case. The entry for eulogew in the relevant large Greek lexicon will categorize
              instances, especially for passages where the context makes praise or bless the preferred translation, the latter being
              the case where x blesses y and y is a person or object, or where x blesses while y curses someone or something. (And
              some instances again may not fit even this schema e.g. when the opposite case is reviling or slandering in which case I
              think I would prefer the translation "speak well of").

              David M.

              ---------
              David Mealand, University of Edinburgh





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • David Inglis
              Stephen, as you appear to have your finger on the pulse here (so to speak) in this area, would you also be able to let me know whether the Syriac mss have
              Message 6 of 18 , Jul 4 11:03 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Stephen, as you appear to have your finger on the pulse here (so to speak) in this area, would you also be able to let
                me know whether the Syriac mss have “cup” and/or “new” before covenant/testament in Lk 22:20b. Also, I’m not sure which
                (if any) of the Old Latins include this verse (many don’t), but it would be good to know of any that do, and, of those
                that do, which do or do not have these words. I’m hypothesizing that “cup” and “new” in Lk 22:20b most likely came from
                1 Cor 11:25b, and not from Mk 14:24a or Mt 26:28a (Neither of the latter have “cup,” and “new” in both appears to be an
                assimilation to Lk), so any evidence would be useful here.



                David Inglis



                From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Inglis
                Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 9:54 AM
                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Lk 22:17-20 - Blessing or giving thanks?

                Stephen, many thanks (and for the reminder that 05 and 06 are not the same ms).

                David Inglis

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Stephen Carlson
                Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 7:15 AM
                To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Synoptic%40yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Lk 22:17-20 - Blessing or giving thanks?

                On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 5:50 PM, David Inglis <davidinglis2@... <mailto:davidinglis2%40comcast.net> > wrote:
                > As ‘eucharistçsas’ in Lk 22:19a cannot have come from either Mk or Mt,
                > this appears to be evidence that what we see here in the Majority Text
                > version of Lk 22:19a came from 1 Cor 11 instead. However, because Lk
                > 22:19a exists in the Old Latin (and D) and Syriac variants, we should
                > be able to test whether they have Jesus blessing or giving thanks. The
                > significance of this would be that if Jesus is blessing in a variant it probably dates back to a time when the text
                originated in Mk or Mt, not 1 Cor 11. I believe that D reads ‘eucharistçsas’ in both versions, but I don’t know what is
                in the Old Latin and Syriac. As I would very much like to know their readings, can anyone help?

                All the Old Latins except d, the facing page of D, read GRATIAS EGIT (gave thanks) for Luke 22:19a. Old Latin d has
                BENEDIXIT (blessed) instead.

                All the Syriac versions have W'WDY (give thanks) for Luke 22:19a.

                Note that the D of Paul is a different MS than the D of the Gospels.
                --
                Stephen C. Carlson
                Ph.D., Duke University



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David Mealand
                David Inglis wrote ... However, I do have to ask whether what you are suggesting here is a bit like Q, in that you are hypothesizing what seems to be an
                Message 7 of 18 , Jul 4 12:08 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  David Inglis wrote
                  ---------
                  However, I do have to ask whether what you are suggesting
                  here is a bit like Q, in that you are hypothesizing
                  what seems to be an underlying written Hebrew/Aramaic
                  source from which the details of the last supper were
                  taken by the authors of 1 Cor and the synoptics, in order
                  to explain the similarities. Are you actually suggesting
                  that, or am I reading too much into your post?
                  ----------

                  I am not necessarily going as far as thinking of a _written_
                  source in Aramaic or Hebrew.

                  I personally would think that either A) the words were
                  formulated in Hebrew or Aramaic, used and amplified and
                  remembered, and eventually written down in Greek translation
                  or B) the words were formulated in Greek but by people
                  for whom the words for thanksgiving and blessing overlapped.
                  (I happen to think A more likely, but either to be possible)

                  The fact that we have the two Greek words in the tradition
                  indicates (to my mind) that, whenever it began, the idea was
                  that of giving thanks or of blessing God. That would of
                  course fit either with the berakah for bread at an ordinary
                  meal, or that over the cup (if there was such and the meal
                  was at Passover). See Jewish examples of berakot over bread.

                  Given the semantic range of the various words we have to
                  take the variation between the words, and also the context into
                  account when deciding on the meaning, or the translation into
                  a modern language.

                  We also need to bear in mind that the semantic overlap
                  is somewhere above 50% but not total i.e. some uses of
                  eulogew or its precursor in other passages are in contexts
                  where it is clear that thanks or praise is not the issue but
                  the conferring of a blessing on a person or object. I suspect
                  that this is less frequent, but it is certainly there in some
                  passages.

                  You draw attention to the many qualifications in my earlier
                  post on this topic. This passage is one which has been hugely
                  debated, and where there are a large number of very complex
                  issues to chase before attempting to piece it all together,
                  and come up with some kind of coherent account of its origin
                  and meaning.

                  David M.

                  ---------
                  David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                  --
                  The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                  Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                • David Mealand
                  ... we need to ask ourselves whether these may in fact just be slightly different translations of the same word in whatever was (or may have been) the
                  Message 8 of 18 , Jul 4 12:52 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    David Inglis also asked me if I meant:
                    -------------
                    we need to ask ourselves whether these may in fact just be slightly
                    different translations of the same word in whatever was (or may have
                    been) the underlying language
                    ------------
                    Yes, (but the version in the underlying language may not
                    have been written down). The same word in the underlying language
                    could have come out either as eucharistew or as eulogew when turned
                    into Greek.

                    David M.


                    ---------
                    David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                    --
                    The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                    Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                  • E Bruce Brooks
                    To: Synoptic In Response To: Recent Comments On: Previous Language From: Bruce In recent discussion of translation phenomena in the NT texts, we had: A: we
                    Message 9 of 18 , Jul 4 1:22 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      To: Synoptic
                      In Response To: Recent Comments
                      On: Previous Language
                      From: Bruce

                      In recent discussion of translation phenomena in the NT texts, we had:

                      A: we need to ask ourselves whether these may in fact just be slightly
                      different translations of the same word in whatever was (or may have
                      been) the underlying language

                      B: Yes, (but the version in the underlying language may not have been
                      written down).

                      BRUCE: I think there may be a problem of conception here: the paradox of the
                      "oral text." If there is mere information, it can be transmitted orally in
                      any way a given speaker wants to phrase it at the time of interpersonal
                      contact. That is, oral transmission (and more than one oral transmission in
                      a series makes an oral tradition) does not typically involve precise
                      wordforms. Someone who knows a fact in his home language A, in putting that
                      down for the first time in writing in second language B, may be influenced
                      by deep patterns of usage in the home language A, but not by any precise
                      wordform in language A, because ex hypothesi there is no precise verbal
                      structure in language A.

                      The other option is where there ARE verbally precise wordforms in language
                      A. This in most ways is equivalent to a written text in language A. But in
                      the absence of a written version it is hard to keep such wordings precise.
                      There are several well known ways, all of them involving social repetition.
                      Prayers and game-songs, by the fact of continual repetition in social (not
                      private) contexts, tend to keep themselves in being. Memorized genealogical
                      lists are another possibility (though it has been proved that these lists
                      are highly subject to interpolation and mythification, for the usual power
                      reasons). The Japanese koto piece Rokudan is another - notation exists, but
                      the typical performer learns it by direct imitation, not by the use of a
                      score. Again, the repetition involved in practice and performance tends to
                      keep the music constant - though not over a thousand years, as a colleague
                      and I once demonstrated at an American Musicological Association conference.


                      So we have roughly two alternatives, if we stick to what is known or
                      observable about oral cultures (and all cultures are in part oral cultures):
                      the linguistically fixed text and the linguistically free information
                      module. I think it would aid discussion if these two were carefully
                      distinguished. Where a precise verbal form exists (whether or not written,
                      but somehow fixed - and it should be possible in a given instance to say how
                      it came to be fixed), we can validly speak of translation. Where it does
                      not, the written expression in language B is going to be a first formulation
                      of something previously inarticulate (in the fixed verbal sense), not a
                      second,

                      Thus it looks from here.

                      Bruce

                      E Bruce Brooks
                      Warring States Project
                      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                    • David Inglis
                      David M wrote: “You draw attention to the many qualifications in my earlier post on this topic. This passage is one which has been hugely debated, and where
                      Message 10 of 18 , Jul 5 9:57 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        David M wrote:

                        “You draw attention to the many qualifications in my earlier post on this topic. This passage is one which has been hugely debated, and where there are a large number of very complex issues to chase before attempting to piece it all together, and come up with some kind of coherent account of its origin and meaning.”



                        David, I don’t think that the issue that I’m dealing with here is particularly complex. We have:

                        • In Lk 22:17 and the parallels in Mk 14:23 and Mt 26:27 Jesus is giving thanks; (eucharistçsas)

                        • In Lk 22:19a and the parallel in 1 Cor 11:24a Jesus is also giving thanks, (eucharistçsas) while in the parallels in Mk 14:22b and Mt 26:26b Jesus is blessing (eulogçsas.)

                        This is one of a number of clues that suggest that the text of Lk 22:17 originated in either Mk 14:23 or Mt 26:27, while Lk 22:19a originated in 1 Cor 11:24a instead. However, it is reasonable to ask whether eucharistçsas and eulogçsas (having similar meanings) simply reflect slightly different translations of the same word from the underlying Hebrew or Aramaic (presumably) source.



                        Assuming it was the same non-Greek word then we can say that the difference we see in the Greek cannot have originated in the underlying source, and is therefore the result of different (but having similar meanings) translations of the same word. This would explain the difference between 1 Cor 11:24a and Mk 14:22b/Mt 26:26b (different authors), but not that between Mk 14:23/Mt 26:27 and Mk 14:22b/Mt 26:26b, where the author is the same.



                        On this basis it therefore seems likely that there were two underlying non-Greek words, which meant similar but slightly different things, and that this difference is mirrored in the Greek. If so, then Mk and Mt have maintained this difference, while Lk (at least in the Majority Text variant) has not. 1 Cor 11 does things slightly different, as it refers to giving thanks (once only) and does not mention blessing at all. Instead, 1 Cor 11:25a has “ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον”, “Likewise also the cup,” and simply does not record whether Jesus blessed or gave thanks at this point. We do not know why the author of 1 Cor (whether Paul or not) did this. Perhaps he was less familiar with the underlying language than the author of Mk (or Mt), but the point is that at the point where the breaking of the bread is mentioned, 1 Cor 11 differs from Mk/Mt in the description of Jesus’ actions.



                        The Majority Text of Lk is also different. Despite being based on Mk/Mt (taking Markan priority as read), Lk diverges from these sources in a number of ways. There is no equivalent to Mk 14:22a/Mt 26:26a, there is the blessing/giving thanks difference in Lk 22:19a, and no parallel to Lk 22:10b-20a in either Mk or Mt. Given that 1 Cor 11 exists, and contains text very similar to that in Lk 22:19-20, the most parsimonious explanation for what we see in here in Lk is that someone (not necessarily the original author of Lk) merged (interpolated) the text from 1 Cor 11 into that of Lk (The text in Lk is not identical to that in 1 Cor 11, but it is sufficiently close to say that there is a literary relationship between the two here, and hence no need to invoke a ‘mini-Q’ or an unknown non-Greek source to explain the differences).



                        Now, there are variants of Lk that do not appear to have any of this additional text, i.e. they do not have vv. 22:19b-20a. Consequently, in any of these variants in which vv. 22:19a and/or 20b exist, we would expect them to here have words similar to those in the Mk/Mt parallels, and not the parallels at 1 Cor 11:24a and 25b. So, by examining the words in Lk 22:19a and 20b, we have a plausible test for which variants of Lk 22:17-20 are likely to originate in a variant prior to the merging with text from 1 Cor 11, and which are likely to have originated in a post-merge variant.



                        This seems a fairly robust argument to me, but please let me know of any holes you may find.



                        David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA







                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • David Mealand
                        David Inglis sent in a sustained case for one way of solving issues in Lk.22, which I am printing out and will need to spend some time on. I will reply in due
                        Message 11 of 18 , Jul 5 10:26 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          David Inglis sent in a sustained case
                          for one way of solving issues in Lk.22,
                          which I am printing out and will need
                          to spend some time on. I will reply in
                          due course. I will probably need to
                          take into account, and reconsider, at least
                          half a dozen further items which I think are
                          relevant to the issue, so it won't be completed
                          this evening.

                          David M.






                          ---------
                          David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                          --
                          The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                          Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                        • David Mealand
                          These are some responses to and comments on David Inglis email I will try to keep to the same sequence as in his piece Yes the cup section in all three
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jul 5 11:51 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            These are some responses to and comments on David Inglis email
                            I will try to keep to the same sequence as in his piece

                            Yes the cup section in all three Synoptists uses euxaristew (though
                            Luke has the cup earlier, as at Passover).

                            In Mark and Matthew the bread section has eulogew but in
                            1 Cor 11.24a euxaristew is used. However in 1 Cor 10.16 eulogew
                            is used with reference to the cup! So 1 Cor does use both Greek
                            words but the other way around!

                            Yes Lk. 22.17-18 are close to Mark in referring to the cup, and to the
                            fruit of the vine, and to the future kingdom, but of course here the
                            cup comes first (as in 1 Cor 10.16 and as at Passover).

                            Lk 22.19a is close both to Mark and to Paul, except for the relevant
                            verbs we are looking at, where it uses the same verb as in the cup
                            section earlier (or as in the bread section of 1 Cor 11).

                            Yes it is possible two different Greek words are used where the
                            underlying version(s) used one word. However the idea that one author
                            always uses the same Greek word for the same underlying word is
                            not correct. The difference between 1 Cor 10 and 1 Cor 11 shows that.**
                            Authors may switch between synonyms, or near synonyms, just to
                            avoid repetition. It would seem to be the case that Mark does it in
                            one direction, Paul the other, one word in the bread section, the
                            other in the cup section. Luke has the same word twice, in the cup
                            word agreeing with Mark and then in the bread section keeping the
                            same word, (or perhaps importing the relevant word from Paul).
                            But we would only think the latter if we regard the longer text as
                            Lukan (which I do not).

                            Because of the above I do not think there is any reason to think that
                            two different words were used in the underlying stratum. Perhaps they
                            were, perhaps they were not, I am not persuaded either way.

                            I would agree that the longer text is dependent on 1 Cor 11 though I
                            think that it is an interpolation, and that the shorter text is original.
                            Q is not at issue here, but some explanation for the extra material
                            earlier in Luke 22.15a is needed. Either Luke has created an introductory
                            Passover word, or he has extra material which matches the eschatological
                            word about the fruit of the vine and the kingdom.

                            I haven't got as far as the last two paragraphs, but apart from noting
                            that I think Lk.22.10b should be 19b I don't really have anything to
                            add just now.

                            David M.

                            ** I think I would prefer to say we should not assume a different
                            word in some underlying Hebrew/Aramaic version just because we have
                            a different but near synonymous Greek word used.

                            ---------
                            David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


                            --
                            The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
                            Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
                          • Bob Schacht
                            ... Keeping in mind that there may be as much as several generations between Paul s Letter, and the composition of Luke, there might also be an evolution in
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jul 5 12:59 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 11:51 AM 7/5/2012, David Mealand wrote:
                              >,,,Yes it is possible two different Greek words are used where the
                              >underlying version(s) used one word. However the idea that one author
                              >always uses the same Greek word for the same underlying word is
                              >not correct. The difference between 1 Cor 10 and 1 Cor 11 shows that.**
                              >Authors may switch between synonyms, or near synonyms, just to
                              >avoid repetition.,,,

                              Keeping in mind that there may be as much as several generations
                              between Paul's "Letter," and the composition of Luke, there might
                              also be an evolution in theology that is absent in the early source,
                              but beginning to become manifest in the later source. The world in
                              which Luke was written was a different place than the sitz of Paul.
                              I'm not able to make a case that this evidence points in that
                              direction, but it is a consideration that should not be ignored.

                              Bob Schacht
                              Northern Arizona University

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • David Mealand
                              One further factor which might go in the direction which I think David Inglis is indicating would be this. Luke 9.16 has euloghsen in agreement with Mark (and
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jul 7 8:47 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                One further factor which might go in the direction
                                which I think David Inglis is indicating would be this.
                                Luke 9.16 has euloghsen in agreement with Mark
                                (and Matthew). Luke 24.30 also uses euloghsen.
                                The stories in these places are obviously similar to Lk.22.
                                Given that in these two places Luke is not at all
                                averse to using eulogew one could argue that it is
                                then slightly odd that the shorter text of Luke 22
                                has euxaristhsas rather than Mark's euloghsas.

                                As for the wider issues connected with this passage
                                I found a lot of very interesting material in an article
                                by Deborah Bleicher Carmichael in JSNT for 1991 which
                                makes serious use of David Daube's (1966) comparison of the
                                traditions about the meal with Jewish Passover tradition.
                                Many would argue that information about Passover practices
                                mostly dates from after 70CE, but Daube and Carmichael
                                are fairly cautious in this regard, and Naomi Cohen has,
                                I think, shown that it is reasonable to claim that Philo
                                was aware of a tradition of interpreting the bread or the
                                meal - as "bread of affliction". It would therefore seem
                                that there may have been precedent for interpreting the bread
                                but not the wine. That would make the shorter text in Luke,
                                and the repeated references in Acts to breaking of bread the
                                more interesting. The longer text in Luke seems anxious to
                                harmonize what were presumably divergent earlier traditions,
                                its reference to blood is also more vocal on issues about
                                which Luke is elsewhere more reticent.

                                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 earlier wrote: I would agree that the longer text is dependent on 1 Cor 11 though I think that it is an interpolation, and that the shorter text is
                                Message 15 of 18 , Jul 7 11:09 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  David M earlier wrote: "I would agree that the longer text is dependent on 1 Cor 11 though I think that it is an
                                  interpolation, and that the shorter text is original." This is very much my position, except that there is no single
                                  "shorter text." There are six different extant variants of Lk 22:17-20, of which the Majority Text is the longest. If
                                  you consider that the parallel passages in Mk and Mt, and also 1 Cor 11:24-25, are other variants of the same text, then
                                  there are eight variants that are shorter than the Majority Text. The trick is to figure out which can best be
                                  considered to have given rise to the others. My money is on the Mk/Mt variants giving rise to an early (non-extant) very
                                  similar variant of Lk, into which 1 Cor 11:24-25 was then interpolated. The problems this caused then gave rise to most
                                  of the other variants. I'm still polishing my arguments for this scenario, but if anyone would like to see an early
                                  version please let me know.

                                  David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • David Inglis
                                  This McDaniel: Miscellaneous Biblical Studies, Chapter Ten, Recovering Jesus Words By Which He Iinitiated The Eucharist - Thomas F. McDaniel, Ph.D., 2009
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Jul 9 4:09 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    This "McDaniel: Miscellaneous Biblical Studies, Chapter Ten, Recovering Jesus' Words By Which He Iinitiated The
                                    Eucharist - Thomas F. McDaniel, Ph.D., 2009

                                    http://tmcdaniel.palmerseminary.edu/MBS_10_Eucharist.pdf appears to bear somewhat on this topic. However, I'm not in any
                                    way qualified to comment on it.



                                    David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA



                                    From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Schacht
                                    Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 11:20 AM
                                    To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Lk 22:17-20 - Blessing or giving thanks?

                                    At 10:32 AM 7/3/2012, David Mealand wrote:
                                    >Isn't it the case that in many cases where
                                    >there is an underlying Hebrew or other Semitic stratum
                                    >there might not be very much difference between
                                    >"giving thanks" and "blessing" i.e. praising or
                                    >thanking God?

                                    Or, similarly, that this might be a translation issue from an underlying source text in a different language? For
                                    example, is there a difference between blessing and giving thanks in Aramaic?

                                    Bob Schacht
                                    Northern Arizona University





                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.