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

Luke 22:19b-20

Expand Messages
  • Larry J.
    Briefly, Lk 22:19-b-20 is omitted in Codex Bezae and a few other manuscripts. None of these are early. It has come to my attention rather belatedly I admit
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 31, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Briefly, Lk 22:19-b-20 is omitted in Codex Bezae and a few other manuscripts. None of these are early. It has come to my attention rather belatedly I admit that some have in the past and continue to posit the Bezae reading as either a) original or b) at least early. But I have to wonder on the justification of this: while it is difficult to explain the omission on the evidence, on what grounds can one suppose or argue that the Bezae reading is early?

      Larry Swain
      Bemidji State University
    • Ehrman, Bart D
      The longer text is an orthodox corruption made in order to emphasize the salvific significance of Jesus death ( for you - otherwise missing in Luke); or so I
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment

             The longer text is an orthodox corruption made in order to emphasize the salvific significance of Jesus’ death (“for you” – otherwise missing in Luke); or so I argue in Orthodox Corrupiton of Scripture..  The shorter text is very difficult indeed to explain if not older; so Bezae didn’t “omit” the text; it represents the older form.

         

        n  Bart Ehrman

         

        Bart D. Ehrman

        James A. Gray Professor

        Department of Religious Studies

        University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

         

        http://www.bartdehrman.com

         

         

         

         

         

        From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry J.
        Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:57 PM
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Luke 22:19b-20

         

         

        Briefly, Lk 22:19-b-20 is omitted in Codex Bezae and a few other manuscripts. None of these are early. It has come to my attention rather belatedly I admit that some have in the past and continue to posit the Bezae reading as either a) original or b) at least early. But I have to wonder on the justification of this: while it is difficult to explain the omission on the evidence, on what grounds can one suppose or argue that the Bezae reading is early?

        Larry Swain
        Bemidji State University

      • Bill Warren
        A different take on this would be to see it as an apologetically motivated variant, with the longer reading being original. In this case, the lack of
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          A different take on this would be to see it as an apologetically motivated variant, with the longer reading being original.  In this case, the lack of coordination between the accounts in Mt. & Mk. and here in Luke especially with regard to the two cups in Luke is resolved by eliminating one of the cups (with the unit understood as covering vv. 17-20).  As for the D-text reading, the Old Latins mostly support it and the Sin-Syr omits verse 20, a very telling point on the apologetic motivation side (or harmonization if you prefer, but it still leaves the cup before the bread) since that is exactly the second cup verse.  Of course Bart's point is that the insertion of the second cup is the harmonization addition since then the cup follows the bread as in Mt. and Mk., a tradition that Luke would have known since he almost certainly uses Mark (as well as inserting the theological interpretation on the meaning of the death of Jesus). Perhaps the movement of v. 19 to before v. 17 by the Old Latins b and e as well as the Cur-Syr would indicate the problem of the two cups being wrestled with in different ways in the D-text tradition, with some removing the second cup entirely but leaving the order as cup then bread, and others "fixing" the text more by both eliminating the second cup and moving the bread passage to before the first cup.  Bart's point in his work "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" about "UPER UMWN" not being Lucan would seem to be offset by Mark's usage of nearly the identical phrase "UPER POLLWN" (Mk. 14:24), with Luke simply interpreting POLLWN as meaning UMWN so as to make it more personable to the disciples in the context. 

          But returning to your point, Larry, of the date of the D-text reading, based on this combination (somewhat a combination in that D and most of the Old Latins and some of the Syriac tradition omit v.20), the reading would seem to have entered the transmission stream quite early since the Latin and Syriac are the two oldest translations of the text (second c. is generally held) and overall the D-text is still seen as mostly deriving from the early part of the transmission process (the early 2nd c. view of it's readings as per Westcott and Hort has not really been overturned or seriously challenged in my mind).   

          paz y gracia, 

          Bill Warren, Ph.D.
          Director of the Center for New Testament Textual Studies
          Landrum P. Leavell, II, Professor of New Testament and Greek
          New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary



          On Apr 1, 2011, at 6:12 AM, Ehrman, Bart D wrote:

           

               The longer text is an orthodox corruption made in order to emphasize the salvific significance of Jesus’ death (“for you” – otherwise missing in Luke); or so I argue in Orthodox Corrupiton of Scripture..  The shorter text is very difficult indeed to explain if not older; so Bezae didn’t “omit” the text; it represents the older form.

           

          n  Bart Ehrman

           

          Bart D. Ehrman

          James A. Gray Professor

          Department of Religious Studies

          University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

           

          http://www.bartdehrman.com

           

           

           

           

           

          From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry J.
          Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:57 PM
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Luke 22:19b-20

           

           

          Briefly, Lk 22:19-b-20 is omitted in Codex Bezae and a few other manuscripts. None of these are early. It has come to my attention rather belatedly I admit that some have in the past and continue to posit the Bezae reading as either a) original or b) at least early. But I have to wonder on the justification of this: while it is difficult to explain the omission on the evidence, on what grounds can one suppose or argue that the Bezae reading is early?

          Larry Swain
          Bemidji State University



        • Larry Swain
          Thanks. I ll have a look at your argument there. From where I sit at the moment, though, I really don t see how that can be maintained, since you d have to
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks.  I'll have a look at your argument there.  From where I sit at the moment, though, I really don't see how that can be maintained, since you'd have to argue that the "corruption" would have had to be very early before some developments in eucharistic theology and liturgy.  But before I say more, I'll go have a look at your discussion there.
             
            BTW, I used "omit" not to prejudice the conversation, but from the critical apparatus usage.  But it does prejudice the conversation. Perhaps a methodology discussion is in order.
             
            Larry Swain
            Bemidji State University
            --
            Larry Swain
             
            On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:12 +0000, "Ehrman, Bart D" <behrman@...> wrote:
             

             

                 The longer text is an orthodox corruption made in order to emphasize the salvific significance of Jesus’ death (“for you” – otherwise missing in Luke); or so I argue in Orthodox Corrupiton of Scripture..  The shorter text is very difficult indeed to explain if not older; so Bezae didn’t “omit” the text; it represents the older form.

             

            n  Bart Ehrman

             

            Bart D. Ehrman

            James A. Gray Professor

            Department of Religious Studies

            University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

             

            http://www.bartdehrman.com

             

             

             

             

             

            From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry J.
            Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:57 PM
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [textualcriticism] Luke 22:19b-20

             

             

            Briefly, Lk 22:19-b-20 is omitted in Codex Bezae and a few other manuscripts. None of these are early. It has come to my attention rather belatedly I admit that some have in the past and continue to posit the Bezae reading as either a) original or b) at least early. But I have to wonder on the justification of this: while it is difficult to explain the omission on the evidence, on what grounds can one suppose or argue that the Bezae reading is early?

            Larry Swain
            Bemidji State University

             

            Email had 2 attachments:

            • image001.jpg
                1k (image/jpeg)
            • image002.jpg
                1k (image/jpeg)
            -- 
            http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web
            
          • Ehrman, Bart D
            OK, sounds good. Yes, it was a very early change. It is very difficult indeed (I argue) to explain how the shorter text came into existence if the longer
            Message 5 of 8 , Apr 1, 2011
            • 0 Attachment

                  OK, sounds good.  Yes, it was a very early change.  It is very difficult indeed (I argue) to explain how the shorter text came into existence if the longer text is original.  The explanations – including the one just offered to the list by my friend Bill Warren – simply don’t make sense, in my judgment.  But I lay it all out in the book.   Best,

               

              n  Bart Ehrman

               

              Bart D. Ehrman

              James A. Gray Professor

              Department of Religious Studies

              University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

               

              http://www.bartdehrman.com

               

               

               

               

               

              From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Swain
              Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 9:53 AM
              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Luke 22:19b-20

               

               

              Thanks.  I'll have a look at your argument there.  From where I sit at the moment, though, I really don't see how that can be maintained, since you'd have to argue that the "corruption" would have had to be very early before some developments in eucharistic theology and liturgy.  But before I say more, I'll go have a look at your discussion there.

               

              BTW, I used "omit" not to prejudice the conversation, but from the critical apparatus usage.  But it does prejudice the conversation. Perhaps a methodology discussion is in order.

               

              Larry Swain

              Bemidji State University

              --

              Larry Swain

               

              On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:12 +0000, "Ehrman, Bart D" <behrman@...> wrote:

               

               

                   The longer text is an orthodox corruption made in order to emphasize the salvific significance of Jesus’ death (“for you” – otherwise missing in Luke); or so I argue in Orthodox Corrupiton of Scripture..  The shorter text is very difficult indeed to explain if not older; so Bezae didn’t “omit” the text; it represents the older form.

               

              n  Bart Ehrman

               

              Bart D. Ehrman

              James A. Gray Professor

              Department of Religious Studies

              University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

               

              http://www.bartdehrman.com

               

               

               

               

               

              From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry J.
              Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:57 PM
              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [textualcriticism] Luke 22:19b-20

               

               

              Briefly, Lk 22:19-b-20 is omitted in Codex Bezae and a few other manuscripts. None of these are early. It has come to my attention rather belatedly I admit that some have in the past and continue to posit the Bezae reading as either a) original or b) at least early. But I have to wonder on the justification of this: while it is difficult to explain the omission on the evidence, on what grounds can one suppose or argue that the Bezae reading is early?

              Larry Swain
              Bemidji State University

               

              Email had 2 attachments:

              • image001.jpg
                  1k (image/jpeg)
              • image002.jpg
                  1k (image/jpeg)
                
              -- 
              http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web

            • George F Somsel
              P75, our oldest witness, is 2nd cent and does contain the passage as in the critical text with some slight question since the text must be partially
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 1, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                P75, our oldest witness, is 2nd cent and does contain the passage as in the critical text with some slight question since the text must be partially reconstructed. 

                 
                george
                gfsomsel


                … search for truth, hear truth,
                learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                defend the truth till death.


                - Jan Hus
                _________



                From: "Ehrman, Bart D" <behrman@...>
                To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Fri, April 1, 2011 4:12:59 AM
                Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Luke 22:19b-20

                 

                     The longer text is an orthodox corruption made in order to emphasize the salvific significance of Jesus’ death (“for you” – otherwise missing in Luke); or so I argue in Orthodox Corrupiton of Scripture..  The shorter text is very difficult indeed to explain if not older; so Bezae didn’t “omit” the text; it represents the older form.

                 

                n  Bart Ehrman

                 

                Bart D. Ehrman

                James A. Gray Professor

                Department of Religious Studies

                University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

                 

                http://www.bartdehrman.com

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry J.
                Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:57 PM
                To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [textualcriticism] Luke 22:19b-20

                 

                 

                Briefly, Lk 22:19-b-20 is omitted in Codex Bezae and a few other manuscripts. None of these are early. It has come to my attention rather belatedly I admit that some have in the past and continue to posit the Bezae reading as either a) original or b) at least early. But I have to wonder on the justification of this: while it is difficult to explain the omission on the evidence, on what grounds can one suppose or argue that the Bezae reading is early?

                Larry Swain
                Bemidji State University

              • George F Somsel
                In other words your determination of what is the original text is based purely on speculation.  Please post the complete text that you deem to be original. 
                Message 7 of 8 , Apr 1, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  In other words your determination of what is the original text is based purely on speculation.  Please post the complete text that you deem to be original. 

                   
                  george
                  gfsomsel


                  … search for truth, hear truth,
                  learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
                  defend the truth till death.


                  - Jan Hus
                  _________



                  From: "Ehrman, Bart D" <behrman@...>
                  To: "textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com" <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Fri, April 1, 2011 7:05:02 AM
                  Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Luke 22:19b-20

                   

                      OK, sounds good.  Yes, it was a very early change.  It is very difficult indeed (I argue) to explain how the shorter text came into existence if the longer text is original.  The explanations – including the one just offered to the list by my friend Bill Warren – simply don’t make sense, in my judgment.  But I lay it all out in the book.   Best,

                   

                  n  Bart Ehrman

                   

                  Bart D. Ehrman

                  James A. Gray Professor

                  Department of Religious Studies

                  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

                   

                  http://www.bartdehrman.com

                   

                   

                   

                   

                   

                  From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Swain
                  Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 9:53 AM
                  To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Luke 22:19b-20

                   

                   

                  Thanks.  I'll have a look at your argument there.  From where I sit at the moment, though, I really don't see how that can be maintained, since you'd have to argue that the "corruption" would have had to be very early before some developments in eucharistic theology and liturgy.  But before I say more, I'll go have a look at your discussion there.

                   

                  BTW, I used "omit" not to prejudice the conversation, but from the critical apparatus usage.  But it does prejudice the conversation. Perhaps a methodology discussion is in order.

                   

                  Larry Swain

                  Bemidji State University

                  --

                  Larry Swain

                   

                  On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:12 +0000, "Ehrman, Bart D" <behrman@...> wrote:

                   

                   

                       The longer text is an orthodox corruption made in order to emphasize the salvific significance of Jesus’ death (“for you” – otherwise missing in Luke); or so I argue in Orthodox Corrupiton of Scripture..  The shorter text is very difficult indeed to explain if not older; so Bezae didn’t “omit” the text; it represents the older form.

                   

                  n  Bart Ehrman

                   

                  Bart D. Ehrman

                  James A. Gray Professor

                  Department of Religious Studies

                  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

                   

                  http://www.bartdehrman.com/

                   

                   

                   

                   

                   

                  From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry J.
                  Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:57 PM
                  To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [textualcriticism] Luke 22:19b-20

                   

                   

                  Briefly, Lk 22:19-b-20 is omitted in Codex Bezae and a few other manuscripts. None of these are early. It has come to my attention rather belatedly I admit that some have in the past and continue to posit the Bezae reading as either a) original or b) at least early. But I have to wonder on the justification of this: while it is difficult to explain the omission on the evidence, on what grounds can one suppose or argue that the Bezae reading is early?

                  Larry Swain
                  Bemidji State University

                   

                  Email had 2 attachments:

                  • image001.jpg
                      1k (image/jpeg)
                  • image002.jpg
                      1k (image/jpeg)
                    
                  -- 
                  http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web

                • Steven
                  Hi Folks, Luke 22:19-20 (AV) And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in
                  Message 8 of 8 , Apr 3, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Folks,

                    Luke 22:19-20 (AV)
                    And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying,
                    This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
                     Likewise also the cup after supper, saying,
                    This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

                     , "Ehrman, Bart D"  ...> wrote:
                    >      The longer text is an orthodox corruption made in order to emphasize the salvific significance of Jesus' death ("for you" – otherwise missing in Luke); or so I argue in Orthodox Corrupiton of Scripture..  The shorter text is very difficult indeed to explain if not older; so Bezae didn't "omit" the text; it represents the older form. ....    it was a very early change.  It is very difficult indeed (I argue) to explain how the shorter text came into existence if the longer text is original.  The explanations including the one just offered to the list by my friend Bill Warren simply don't make sense, in my judgment.  

                    Bart, isn't your difficulty based on a presumption that an early variant (omission-inclusion) would almost have to be deliberate.

                    Since we know that accidental omissions are very easy, and this has been confirmed more in the last decades by the work of James Ronald Royse and Peter Head and others, why such a presumption ?   If such an omission was simply a scribal faux pas, then all the analysis about causes of deliberate corruption is of no real relevance.

                    Thomas Orland Dobbin counted literally thousands of omissions in Codex Vaticanus, why would it be so difficult for some Old Latin manuscripts and Codex Bezae to have a localized few omissions ? 

                    (Keep in mind that the distinction between accidental and deliberate is not a Chinese wall .. the maintenance of a variant created by an accidental scribal error can involve deliberate decisions later on between the two variants.)

                    As to being deliberate, as was pointed out by others, the variant was almost surely created very early.  Way before Nicea and the major church councils. Thus,  the whole idea of mind-reading (James White) scribal intentions in that ultra-early period is at best ultra-problematic.

                    And usually such theorizing is heavily influenced by the preferences of the theorist, be they high Christology or low, Trinitarian or Unitarian or Sabellian or other, orthodox or heretical or gnostic or agnostic-atheist.  We see that a doctrinal corruption can have two scholarly competing and totally opposite interpretations .. which should tell us more about the value of such attempts than about the variants.

                    ===============

                    While I do not often agree with Kurt Aland, what he says about the external evidence being decisive here is quite salient.

                    nineteenth-century theories have yielded to the overwhelming evidence attesting the originality of Luke 22:19b-20 in the Gospel text, recognizing that for the presentation and perspective of the gospel of Luke it is not the "shorter
                    ," but the "longer" account of the Last Supper that is authentic. ... (The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland, 1987, p. 306)

                    Shalom,
                    Steven Avery

                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.