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

Re: tc-list versions of the eucharist (fwd)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Apr 14 9:34 PM
    View Source
    • 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.