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

tc-list versions of the eucharist (fwd)

Expand Messages
  • James R. Adair
    I m forwarding this message from the Synoptic-L list, since it deals with a well-know crux interpretum, the text of the Lukan version of eucharist. Do any list
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 17, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm forwarding this message from the Synoptic-L list, since it deals with
      a well-know crux interpretum, the text of the Lukan version of eucharist.
      Do any list members have comments?

      Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List
      Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
      and
      Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
      -------------> http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu <--------------


      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:45:10 -0500 (EST)
      From: Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@...>
      To: Synoptic-L@...
      Subject: versions of the eucharist


      Esteemed listmembers,

      In the last few months I've been working on the problem of the earliest
      eucharistic texts as we find them in Mk, Lk, and 1 Cor, as well as in the
      Didache. Which of them is the earliest one? Is it possible that some of
      this liturgical material may go back to the Historical Jesus himself? With
      these questions in mind, I've investigated the texts of Lk 22:14ff, Mk
      14:17ff, and 1 Cor 11:23ff, and their history of interpretation. (I should
      note that Mark G., our listowner, is quite familiar with this subject
      since he took part in previous discussions of these matters on Crosstalk
      list.) And the case is further complicated by the existence of the 'longer
      Lk' textual tradition that many scholars believe is the more original
      version of Lk; the critical opinion on this seems to be rather divided.
      (Myself, I incline to the view of Jeremias that the 'longer Lk' is the
      earlier text on which the shorter version of Lk was based.)

      To outline the situation briefly, the eucharist traditions of Mk and of Lk
      seem to be, on the whole, rather different and distinct. Myself, I incline
      to the view that Mk tradition is the earlier one, and that it goes back to
      the early Christian movement in Jerusalem.

      This view is argued in the following very interesting article:

      PEUT-ON RECONSTITUER LE TEXTE PRIMITIF DE LA C`ENE? by J. M. Van Cangh, on
      pp. 623-637 in:

      TITLE: The Corinthian correspondence / edited by R.
      Bieringer.
      PUBLISHED: Leuven : Leuven University Press : Uitgeverij Peeters,
      1996.

      The next big question is the rather amazing similarity of the 'longer Lk'
      eucharist and the text of 1 Cor 11:24,25.

      What exactly is the relationship between Lk 22:19,20 and 1 Cor 11:24,25?
      Let us compare the two texts.

      ...he took the bread, said ... [he] took bread, and
      the blessing, broke it, after he had given
      and gave it to them, thanks, broke it and said,
      saying, "This is my body, "This is my body that is
      which will be given for for you.
      you; do this in memory of Do this in remembrance
      me." And likewise the of me." In the same way
      cup after they had eaten, also the cup, after
      saying, "This cup is the supper, saying, "This cup
      new covenant in my is the new covenant in
      blood, which will be shed my blood."
      for you." Lk 22:19,20 1Cor 11:24,25a

      This is THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE translation. The basic similarity of these
      two texts is pretty obvious. I have also compared the Greek originals of
      these texts, and the similarity in Greek is even more apparent.

      What are we to make of such a close similarity? Isn't it very likely that
      one of these texts depends on the other directly? But if so, which way
      does the dependence go?

      Of course the overwhelming majority of scholars at this time accept the
      eucharistic text of 1 Cor 11 as an authentic early writing of Paul. And
      yet, Alfred Loisy has argued many years ago that this passage is a later
      interpolation into the text of 1 Cor. In such a case, the text of 1Cor
      11:24ff would have been an insertion based on the text of Lk. This seems
      like a very vexing question.

      Now, I would like to return to the arguments about the 'longer' and the
      'shorter' Lk, and here I would like to quote some information I've found
      on the Internet recently. The authorship of this article is not clear to
      me, but the whole text is available at:

      http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/books/luk/luketheo.htm

      The title of this article is THE ATONEMENT IN LUCAN THEOLOGY IN RECENT
      DISCUSSION, and the textual arguments are only a small part of the
      article.

      [begin quote:]

      Regarding critical study of Luke 22:15-20, one author [G. B. Caird, Saint
      Luke, Westminster Pelican Series (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
      1963): 237.] says,

      The Lucan account of the Last Supper is a scholar's paradise and a
      beginner's nightmare; for it raises problems in almost every
      department of New Testament study and has provided a basis for a
      welter of conflicting theories.

      As concerns the text-critical problem of Luke 22:19b, 20 it was
      commonplace up until the 1950's to regard the shorter version as original
      and to dismiss 19b, 20 as the result of later scribal additions. [Howard
      Marshall, The Gospel of Luke,(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
      Company, 1978), 799.] Such is not the case presently and the debate
      surrounding the authenticity of these texts is still ongoing.

      [the following comes from the endnote]

      The various suggested reasons for the inclusion of the two verses are
      stated below. Regarding the apparent consensus on the shorter reading
      prior to 1950 cf. Klyne Snodgrass, "Western Non-interpolations," Journal
      of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 372-74. He argues that the consensus
      appears to go back to the work of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort who, in
      their critical edition of the Greek New Testament, referred to Luke
      22:19b, 20 as "Western Non-interpolations; " that is, not original. Cf. B.
      F. Westcott and F. J. A Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek,
      Cambridge-London, I, 1881, 177 (text); II, 1882, Appendix, 63f. It has not
      been until recently (i.e. 1950's-1990's) that their theory has been
      sharply criticized by the work of men such as Joachim Jeremias, The
      Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1966): 139-159; see our
      discussion below; Kurt Aland, "Neue neutestamentliche Papyri II" New
      Testament Studies 12 (1965, 66): 193-210 and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Papyrus
      Bodmer XIV: Some Features of Our Oldest Text of Luke," Catholic Biblical
      Quarterly 24 (1962): 170-79.

      [end quote]

      So I would like to ask for listmembers' opinions in this area. What do
      people think about all this? It seems that these matters are quite
      pertinent to the history of early Christianity, and also involve the
      Synoptic Problem.

      Best regards,

      Yuri.
    • Bart Ehrman
      For what it s worth, I have a pretty long discussion of this problem in the _Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_, where I argue that the shorter text is
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 17, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        For what it's worth, I have a pretty long discussion of this problem in
        the _Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_, where I argue that the shorter
        text is original, and the longer form was added by proto-orthodox scribes
        as an anti-docetic polemic (see pp. 197-209).

        -- Bart Ehrman
        University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


        On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, James R. Adair wrote:

        > I'm forwarding this message from the Synoptic-L list, since it deals with
        > a well-know crux interpretum, the text of the Lukan version of eucharist.
        > Do any list members have comments?
        >
        > Jimmy Adair, Listowner, TC-List
        > Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
        > and
        > Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
        > -------------> http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu <--------------
        >
        >
        > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
        > Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 12:45:10 -0500 (EST)
        > From: Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@...>
        > To: Synoptic-L@...
        > Subject: versions of the eucharist
        >
        >
        > Esteemed listmembers,
        >
        > In the last few months I've been working on the problem of the earliest
        > eucharistic texts as we find them in Mk, Lk, and 1 Cor, as well as in the
        > Didache. Which of them is the earliest one? Is it possible that some of
        > this liturgical material may go back to the Historical Jesus himself? With
        > these questions in mind, I've investigated the texts of Lk 22:14ff, Mk
        > 14:17ff, and 1 Cor 11:23ff, and their history of interpretation. (I should
        > note that Mark G., our listowner, is quite familiar with this subject
        > since he took part in previous discussions of these matters on Crosstalk
        > list.) And the case is further complicated by the existence of the 'longer
        > Lk' textual tradition that many scholars believe is the more original
        > version of Lk; the critical opinion on this seems to be rather divided.
        > (Myself, I incline to the view of Jeremias that the 'longer Lk' is the
        > earlier text on which the shorter version of Lk was based.)
        >
        > To outline the situation briefly, the eucharist traditions of Mk and of Lk
        > seem to be, on the whole, rather different and distinct. Myself, I incline
        > to the view that Mk tradition is the earlier one, and that it goes back to
        > the early Christian movement in Jerusalem.
        >
        > This view is argued in the following very interesting article:
        >
        > PEUT-ON RECONSTITUER LE TEXTE PRIMITIF DE LA C`ENE? by J. M. Van Cangh, on
        > pp. 623-637 in:
        >
        > TITLE: The Corinthian correspondence / edited by R.
        > Bieringer.
        > PUBLISHED: Leuven : Leuven University Press : Uitgeverij Peeters,
        > 1996.
        >
        > The next big question is the rather amazing similarity of the 'longer Lk'
        > eucharist and the text of 1 Cor 11:24,25.
        >
        > What exactly is the relationship between Lk 22:19,20 and 1 Cor 11:24,25?
        > Let us compare the two texts.
        >
        > ...he took the bread, said ... [he] took bread, and
        > the blessing, broke it, after he had given
        > and gave it to them, thanks, broke it and said,
        > saying, "This is my body, "This is my body that is
        > which will be given for for you.
        > you; do this in memory of Do this in remembrance
        > me." And likewise the of me." In the same way
        > cup after they had eaten, also the cup, after
        > saying, "This cup is the supper, saying, "This cup
        > new covenant in my is the new covenant in
        > blood, which will be shed my blood."
        > for you." Lk 22:19,20 1Cor 11:24,25a
        >
        > This is THE NEW AMERICAN BIBLE translation. The basic similarity of these
        > two texts is pretty obvious. I have also compared the Greek originals of
        > these texts, and the similarity in Greek is even more apparent.
        >
        > What are we to make of such a close similarity? Isn't it very likely that
        > one of these texts depends on the other directly? But if so, which way
        > does the dependence go?
        >
        > Of course the overwhelming majority of scholars at this time accept the
        > eucharistic text of 1 Cor 11 as an authentic early writing of Paul. And
        > yet, Alfred Loisy has argued many years ago that this passage is a later
        > interpolation into the text of 1 Cor. In such a case, the text of 1Cor
        > 11:24ff would have been an insertion based on the text of Lk. This seems
        > like a very vexing question.
        >
        > Now, I would like to return to the arguments about the 'longer' and the
        > 'shorter' Lk, and here I would like to quote some information I've found
        > on the Internet recently. The authorship of this article is not clear to
        > me, but the whole text is available at:
        >
        > http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/books/luk/luketheo.htm
        >
        > The title of this article is THE ATONEMENT IN LUCAN THEOLOGY IN RECENT
        > DISCUSSION, and the textual arguments are only a small part of the
        > article.
        >
        > [begin quote:]
        >
        > Regarding critical study of Luke 22:15-20, one author [G. B. Caird, Saint
        > Luke, Westminster Pelican Series (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
        > 1963): 237.] says,
        >
        > The Lucan account of the Last Supper is a scholar's paradise and a
        > beginner's nightmare; for it raises problems in almost every
        > department of New Testament study and has provided a basis for a
        > welter of conflicting theories.
        >
        > As concerns the text-critical problem of Luke 22:19b, 20 it was
        > commonplace up until the 1950's to regard the shorter version as original
        > and to dismiss 19b, 20 as the result of later scribal additions. [Howard
        > Marshall, The Gospel of Luke,(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
        > Company, 1978), 799.] Such is not the case presently and the debate
        > surrounding the authenticity of these texts is still ongoing.
        >
        > [the following comes from the endnote]
        >
        > The various suggested reasons for the inclusion of the two verses are
        > stated below. Regarding the apparent consensus on the shorter reading
        > prior to 1950 cf. Klyne Snodgrass, "Western Non-interpolations," Journal
        > of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 372-74. He argues that the consensus
        > appears to go back to the work of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort who, in
        > their critical edition of the Greek New Testament, referred to Luke
        > 22:19b, 20 as "Western Non-interpolations; " that is, not original. Cf. B.
        > F. Westcott and F. J. A Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek,
        > Cambridge-London, I, 1881, 177 (text); II, 1882, Appendix, 63f. It has not
        > been until recently (i.e. 1950's-1990's) that their theory has been
        > sharply criticized by the work of men such as Joachim Jeremias, The
        > Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1966): 139-159; see our
        > discussion below; Kurt Aland, "Neue neutestamentliche Papyri II" New
        > Testament Studies 12 (1965, 66): 193-210 and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Papyrus
        > Bodmer XIV: Some Features of Our Oldest Text of Luke," Catholic Biblical
        > Quarterly 24 (1962): 170-79.
        >
        > [end quote]
        >
        > So I would like to ask for listmembers' opinions in this area. What do
        > people think about all this? It seems that these matters are quite
        > pertinent to the history of early Christianity, and also involve the
        > Synoptic Problem.
        >
        > Best regards,
        >
        > Yuri.
        >
        >
        >
      • Robert B. Waltz
        ... Whereas I ve always thought the two forms a conflation. There is good evidence that Luke is using two different sources in the Passion account. One is
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 17, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Bart Ehrman <behrman@...> wrote:

          > For what it's worth, I have a pretty long discussion of this problem in
          >the _Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_, where I argue that the shorter
          >text is original, and the longer form was added by proto-orthodox scribes
          >as an anti-docetic polemic (see pp. 197-209).

          Whereas I've always thought the two forms a conflation. There is good
          evidence that Luke is using two different sources in the Passion account.
          One is Mark, but one is something else (probably something that uses
          John's chronology of the passion; note the reading in Luke 22:16, which
          clearly implies that it is not yet Passover). Presumably one of these
          sources used the sequence one cup-bread and the other bread-cup. Luke
          combined them to produce the present three-item sequence.

          In assessing this, of course, it should be noted that I incline
          to believe the Johannine rather than the Synoptic chronology of
          the Passion (without being in any way dogmatic about it; I could
          easily be wrong). My personal list shows 6 points in favour of
          Mark's chronology and 11 in favour of John's.



          -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

          Robert B. Waltz
          waltzmn@...

          Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
          Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
          (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
        • DC PARKER
          I discuss the problem as well, in The Living Text of the Gospels, pp. 151-7. DC PARKER DEPT OF THEOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM TEL. 0121-414 3613 FAX
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 18, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            I discuss the problem as well, in The Living Text of the Gospels, pp.
            151-7.


            DC PARKER
            DEPT OF THEOLOGY
            UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
            TEL. 0121-414 3613
            FAX 0121-414 6866
            E-MAIL PARKERDC@...
          • marc bauer
            thank you for such insights and insight. i make no pretensions to being an elitist scholar in the higher levels of the food chain known as academia (i miss
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 14, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              thank you for such insights and insight.

              i make no pretensions to being an elitist scholar in the higher levels
              of the food chain known as academia (i miss being school despite the
              previous clauses.). try mellon's _mark as recovery story_. peace. it
              was a commentary i used during the previous liturgical year.

              marc bauer

              >Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:26:11 -0600
              >To: tc-list@...
              >From: "Robert B. Waltz" <waltzmn@...>
              >Subject: Re: tc-list versions of the eucharist (fwd)
              >Reply-To: tc-list@...
              >
              >On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Bart Ehrman <behrman@...> wrote:
              >
              >> For what it's worth, I have a pretty long discussion of this
              problem in
              >>the _Orthodox Corruption of Scripture_, where I argue that the shorter
              >>text is original, and the longer form was added by proto-orthodox
              scribes
              >>as an anti-docetic polemic (see pp. 197-209).
              >
              >Whereas I've always thought the two forms a conflation. There is good
              >evidence that Luke is using two different sources in the Passion
              account.
              >One is Mark, but one is something else (probably something that uses
              >John's chronology of the passion; note the reading in Luke 22:16, which
              >clearly implies that it is not yet Passover). Presumably one of these
              >sources used the sequence one cup-bread and the other bread-cup. Luke
              >combined them to produce the present three-item sequence.
              >
              >In assessing this, of course, it should be noted that I incline
              >to believe the Johannine rather than the Synoptic chronology of
              >the Passion (without being in any way dogmatic about it; I could
              >easily be wrong). My personal list shows 6 points in favour of
              >Mark's chronology and 11 in favour of John's.
              >
              >


              ______________________________________________________
              Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.