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

From: "James R. Adair" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 15:16:26 -0500 (EST)

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 <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
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.

---

From: Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:05:44 -0500 (EST)

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

---

From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 17:26:11 -0600

>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
                     [email-masked]

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)

---

From: "DC PARKER" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 14:08:29 GMT

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 [email-masked]