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

Re: versions of the eucharist; Lk:22:19b-20

Expand Messages
  • Richard H. Anderson
    Yuri Kuchinsky, greetings: Rather than responding at length, I will simply state that I believe Bart Erhman has presented the best argument to date, first in
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 23, 1998
      Yuri Kuchinsky, greetings:

      Rather than responding at length, I will simply state that I believe
      Bart Erhman has presented the best argument to date, first in his SBL
      article several years ago and recently in his book, Orothodox Corruption
      of Scripture, which I mentioned to you two or three weeks ago.
      As I understand your argument you believe the Cor. passage to be a
      later interpolation added perhaps at the same time as the longer version
      of Luke yet you consider the longer version of Luke to be the original
      version. Although you are not willing to consider theological arguments,
      you believe that the same theological concerns caused the Cor and Lucan
      interpolations to be inserted. Have I correctly stated your position?
      Ehrman cited examples of the church fathers using the longer texts to
      support their theological arguments demonstrating the docetic concerns.
      Can you cite any examples of the early Christians expressing an aversion
      to eating the body and drinking the blood that would cause a scribe to
      delete 19b-20?

      Richard H. Anderson
    • Yuri Kuchinsky
      ... Dear Richard, Yes, I remember you recommending this book. Well, I have just recently read the relevant parts of it. I agree that it is a very competent
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 24, 1998
        On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Richard H. Anderson wrote:

        > Yuri Kuchinsky, greetings:
        >
        > Rather than responding at length, I will simply state that I
        > believe Bart Erhman has presented the best argument to date, first in
        > his SBL article several years ago and recently in his book, Orothodox
        > Corruption of Scripture, which I mentioned to you two or three weeks
        > ago.

        Dear Richard,

        Yes, I remember you recommending this book. Well, I have just recently
        read the relevant parts of it. I agree that it is a very competent
        treatment. And I have written about my view of Ehrman's analysis to the
        tc-list, of which Prof. Ehrman is a member.

        BTW, I still hold to my position.

        > As I understand your argument you believe the Cor. passage to be
        > a later interpolation added perhaps at the same time as the longer
        > version of Luke, yet you consider the longer version of Luke to be the
        > original version.

        This is so.

        > Although you are not willing to consider theological arguments,

        Well, actually I did already in my reply to Ehrman posted to tc-list.

        > you believe that the same theological concerns caused the Cor and Lucan
        > interpolations to be inserted. Have I correctly stated your position?

        Yes.

        > Ehrman cited examples of the church fathers using the longer
        > texts to support their theological arguments demonstrating the docetic
        > concerns.

        Yes, he did.

        > Can you cite any examples of the early Christians expressing
        > an aversion to eating the body and drinking the blood that would cause a
        > scribe to delete 19b-20?

        Richard, since _all_ very early Christians were Jewish, I don't think one
        needs to wonder too hard whether or not they would have had serious
        problems consuming blood.

        Best wishes,

        Yuri.
      • Richard H. Anderson
        Yuri Kuchinsky, greetings: ... Yuri, since we are talking about the GLuke, [which in your opinion; Is this your opinion?] written by a Gentile to a Gentile
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 24, 1998
          Yuri Kuchinsky, greetings:

          R.H. Anderson said:
          > > Ehrman cited examples of the church fathers using the longer
          > > texts to support their theological arguments demonstrating the
          > > docetic concerns.
          Yuri said:
          > Yes, he did.
          R.H. Anderson said:
          > > Can you cite any examples of the early Christians expressing
          > > an aversion to eating the body and drinking the blood that would
          > > cause a scribe to delete 19b-20?
          Yuri said:
          > Richard, since _all_ very early Christians were Jewish, I don't think >one
          > needs to wonder too hard whether or not they would have had serious
          > problems consuming blood.
          >
          Yuri, since we are talking about the GLuke, [which in your opinion; Is
          this your opinion?] written by a Gentile to a Gentile late in the first
          century, do you still believe a scribe among the audience of GLuke would
          have altered GLuke in the manner you have said to make the gospel more
          palatable to his Gentile audience?

          Or is it your position that the GLuke was written by a Jew to Jewish
          followers of Jesus and a scribe among the audience of GLuke altered
          GLuke in the manner you have said to make the the gospel more palatable
          to his Jewish/Christian audience?

          Richard H. Anderson
        • Yuri Kuchinsky
          ... Well, Richard, I m not sure that it was written by a Gentile. As far as the audience, it was most likely a mixed audience, Jewish and Gentile Christians.
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 26, 1998
            On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Richard H. Anderson wrote:

            > Yuri said: > Richard, since _all_ very early Christians were Jewish, I
            > don't think >one > needs to wonder too hard whether or not they would
            > have had serious > problems consuming blood.

            > Yuri, since we are talking about the GLuke, [which in your
            > opinion; Is this your opinion?] written by a Gentile to a Gentile late
            > in the first century,

            Well, Richard, I'm not sure that it was written by a Gentile. As far as
            the audience, it was most likely a mixed audience, Jewish and Gentile
            Christians.

            By the way, I think the earliest and rather short version of Lk would have
            been written very early, perhaps ca. 60.

            > do you still believe a scribe among the audience
            > of GLuke would have altered GLuke in the manner you have said to make
            > the gospel more palatable to his Gentile audience?

            Basically, our mss overwhelmingly attest Lk with a longer version of the
            eucharist. So this would have been the gospel as "promulgated officially",
            perhaps early in the 2nd century. But it proved troublesome for some
            congregations, and hence was abridged a little. So this is my position.

            Best wishes,

            Yuri.

            Yuri Kuchinsky | Webpage for those who think they have
            Toronto | heard of every biblical heresy:

            http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

            The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
            equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.