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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 18 , Jul 3, 2012
    • 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 2 of 18 , Jul 4, 2012
      • 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 3 of 18 , Jul 4, 2012
        • 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 4 of 18 , Jul 4, 2012
          • 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 5 of 18 , Jul 4, 2012
            • 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 6 of 18 , Jul 4, 2012
              • 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 7 of 18 , Jul 4, 2012
                • 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 8 of 18 , Jul 5, 2012
                  • 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 9 of 18 , Jul 5, 2012
                    • 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 10 of 18 , Jul 5, 2012
                      • 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 11 of 18 , Jul 5, 2012
                        • 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 12 of 18 , Jul 7, 2012
                          • 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 13 of 18 , Jul 7, 2012
                            • 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 14 of 18 , Jul 9, 2012
                              • 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.