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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.