Subject: Re: tc-list: versions of the eucharist

From: "Roderic L. Mullen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 11:25:32 -0500

On the basis of the manscript traditions, and on what I perceive as
the general development of eucharistic traditions, a la Gregory Dix in THE
SHAPE OF THE EUCHARIST, I tend to favor the longer text of Luke.  Bart
Ehrman and I had this discussion when I was doing my dissertation under him,
and I had some similar comments from D.C. Parker following a presentation I
made at AAR/SBL some years back.  It seems to me that what one decides about
this text depends in part on what types of evidence one prefers.  It also
seems that the shorter reading tends to get more respect among scholars in
the U.K., so perhaps there is something of a scholarly tradition at work
here.  Both Ehrman and Parker lean heavily on internal criteria at this point.
        As far as the external evidence of the textual tradition goes, an
important point to be made is that not only do the Alexandrian mss. support
the longer reading against their customary brevity, but that the "Western"
mss. support the shorter reading against their customary fulness.  Since
both early ms. groups run counter to type in this reading, one cannot simply
suggest that either group deserves our confidence a priori.  What does
impress me is the wide range of textual groups and patristic witnesses in
favor of the longer reading.
        I'm not sure I would care to argue on textual grounds that the
entire pericope dates to a later stage of Lucan composition.  What I am
curious about though is how you reach the conclusion that I Corinthians 11
is a later insertion into the Pauline material?
--Rod Mullen     

At 10:07 AM 3/23/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Greetings, all.
>
>First of all, I would like to thank James R. Adair who thought my recent
>research on the eucharist good enough to be offered to this honoured
>audience. And also thanks to Bart Ehrman and to D. C. Parker for their
>helpful replies.
>
>It is with some trepidation that I write this post, since the opinion I
>wish to defend seems to go against such competent scholars as Bart and
>D.C. Parker. But I still feel that my position has something to recommend
>itself.
>
>Bart wrote in reply to my article:
>
>> 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). 
>
>And DC Parker also wrote:
>
>> I discuss the problem as well, in The Living Text of the
>> Gospels, pp. 151-7.
>
>The full citations are as follows:
>
>Ehrman, Bart D. _The Orthodox corruption of scripture: the effect of early
>Christological controversies on the text of the NT_, New York; Oxford:
>Oxford University Press, 1993.   
>
>Parker, D. C. (David C.) _The living text of the Gospels_, New York:
>Cambridge University Press, 1997. 
>
>I have now read both of these analyses. Since DC Parker was aware or
>Bart's much longer treatment, and seems to be in basic agreement with it,
>I will focus primarily on Bart's treatment of the problem of the two
>eucharist texts in Lk, the longer and the shorter one.
>
>As another preliminary, I'm somewhat reassured by the fact that the
>position I'm defending in fact seems like a majority position overall. As
>DC Parker said in his volume, 
>
>	"The tide of scholarly opinion has long flowed in favour of the
>	longer text. Verses 19b-20 were included in Nestle-Aland 25th 
>	ed. within double brackets. They appear in the 26th and 27th 
>	editions without reservation as an integral part of the 
>	text." (p. 155) 
>
>(To this, I would like to add a comment that this majority opinion
>apparently was formed only since about the 1950's, which indeed may be
>considered as pretty long ago.)
>
>Now, to remind, my basic position is that the longer Lk text is the
>earlier one. I also think, after Jeremias [Joachim Jeremias, _The
>Eucharistic Words of Jesus_ (London: SCM Press, 1966)] that this longer
>Lukan eucharist does not really belong to the larger body of Lk/Acts, and
>was based on a pre-existent liturgical formula. I also think that this
>longer eucharistic text (ET) was imported into the body of Lk at a later
>stage. 
>
>On the other hand, Bart thinks that the shorter ET is the more original
>one, and that Lk 19b-20 were the expansions imported into the text at a
>later stage.
>
>So, one may say that perhaps our positions are not really that different.
>Both of us accept that a later editing of Lk took place. Except that I
>think the whole of the eucharist was added up as a piece, but he thinks
>only parts of it were added up.
>
>There's also the problem of how to deal with the ET in 1 Cor 11. Since it
>is so close to the longer Lk, Bart seems to think that the longer Lk was a
>later assimilation to the 1 Cor eucharist. My own position on 1 Cor 11 ET
>is that it is a later insertion into the Pauline epistle, that (seeing
>that it is related so closely to Lk) both represent the same liturgical
>tradition, and that both texts are quite late (dating at the earliest from
>ca. 100).
>
>The extended treatment Bart gives to this matter in his book is rather
>impressive. He sets out in detail the arguments that the longer ET stands
>apart from the larger body of Lk. I prefer to grant him this point.
>(Certain parallels with Acts 20:28 is the only place where Bart's argument
>may be challenged with some hope of success, but I will not try to do
>this.) I'll accept that the longer ET is lacking substantial parallels in
>the rest of Lukan writings.
>
>Bart also adduces quotes from Irenaeus and Tertullian that stress the
>importance of the realistic understanding of the eucharist; both authors
>use this view as a weapon against docetists. This, so Bart, provides the
>motive of why the later additions would have been made, viz. in order to
>counter the docetist opponents of these "proto-orthodox" authors. All I
>can add to this is that these arguments may be reinterpreted also to
>provide support for my hypothesis. See below.
>
>But the crux of Bart's case, as I understand it, is the lack of a
>plausible scenario for how and why the ostensibly more original longer
>text may have been abridged.
>
>	"In point of fact, no one has been able to provide a convincing
>	explanation for how the shorter text came into existence if the 
>	longer text is original." (p. 207)
>
>Bart surveys the reasons that have been offered so far, and finds them
>wanting. Perhaps they are, at least the ones that he surveyed. And yet
>there's another other reason that he didn't mention. If indeed nobody has
>offered it before, then I would like to claim it. (Although I may have
>read something similar in one of the works of Alfred Loisy who was very
>interested in the problem of eucharistic texts in the later part of his
>career. I'll have to check about this.)
>
>Here's my explanation. I believe 19b-20 were omitted from the longer Lk
>because the idea of drinking blood and eating human flesh were a problem
>for Jewish-Christians who were probably members in the congregations where
>this shorter text was used. In other words, the longer Lk was simply "too
>radical" for some Christians, and that is why the shorter Lk came into
>being. 
>
>I have offered the above reason already in a related discussion on
>Synoptic-l. But now, after I've read Bart's analysis, I would like to show
>how the information he provides about the antidocetic agenda of Irenaeus
>and Tertullian can be reinterpreted also to support my thesis. To wit, if
>docetists were such a problem at the time, i.e. if they were so widely
>attested among early Christians, one can easily suppose that Lk/Acts as a
>whole was, at an early stage, a gospel circulating among Christians
>influenced by docetism. This, after all, seems to be the editorial
>tendency of Lk, in which the idea of atonement through the death of Christ
>on the Cross seems so singularly lacking. Bart demonstrates the latter
>rather convincingly in his analysis. Thus, in my view,
>
>- 	the first stage: antidocetic Lk.
>-	second stage: a longer Lk, including the "antidocetic eucharist".
>-	after some resistance among some congregations, an abridged Lk,
>including a shorter ET.
>
>And it seems to me that these two explanations I've provided here cannot
>be seen as mutually exclusive. To the contrary, they may reinforce each
>other. After all, the earliest Lk may have been current among
>Jewish-Christian docetists...
>
>And now for some idea when these developments may have been occurring. (In
>fact, I think that the events that both I and Bart postulate may have been
>happening at a similar historical period.)
>
>J. M. Van Cangh, in PEUT-ON RECONSTITUER LE TEXTE PRIMITIF DE LA C`ENE?,
>[in _The Corinthian correspondence_, edited by R. Bieringer, Leuven,
>Leuven University Press: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1996 (pp. 623-637)] argues
>that the ET of Lk/1Cor would not have been the earliest stage of the
>eucharistic liturgy. He gives very strong arguments for the temporal
>priority of Markan eucharist. This is good evidence for the general
>lateness of the longer Lukan/1 Cor ET. As Van Cangh suggests, this version
>of the eucharist probably arose among the Hellenistic Christians who were
>most likely based in Syria, especially in Antioch. Thus, these
>developments could not have been taking place too early on in the history
>of the canon creation. As I said, the period ca. 100 seems likely to me.
>Perhaps Bart may wish to correct me about his own view of this chronology.
>
>The close parallel between the Lukan ET and the ET in the 1 Cor may be
>seen as providing further support for my position. Let's take a look at
>this for a moment. Indeed, if one sees that even the shorter Lukan ET
>contains so many parallels to the 1 Cor ET, isn't it much more sensible to
>suppose that whoever inserted the ET into Lk has borrowed the pre-existent
>liturgical tradition _as a whole_? I think it is much less likely that
>this inserter would have inserted an abridged version of the tradition
>right from the beginning, only to add the missing pieces of this
>traditional liturgy later.
>
>Finally, the strongest arguments for my position seem to come from the mss
>evidence that goes very strongly in support of the longer Lk.  
>
>The textual evidence for each position is as follows [I'm using in the
>following some materials from the website I've referenced previously]:  
>
>In favor of the shorter reading is the following: D a d ff2 i l syh (and
>perhaps c r2 d). The longer reading is attested by the following: 
>
>1) all the Greek manuscripts, including p75 (AD 175/225); 
>2) all the versions with the exception of the Old Syriac and part of the
>itala and 
>3) by all early Christian writers beginning with Marcion, Justin and
>Tatian. 
>
>Therefore, the bulk of the manuscript evidence supports the longer
>reading. 
>                                                                         
>Also cf. Pierson Parker, "Three Variant Readings in Luke-Acts,"  Journal
>of Biblical Literature 83 (1965): 165-170.                               
>                                                                         
>He says, "the textual evidence for rejecting vss. 19b, 20 is so scanty
>that it is hard to see why it should be taken seriously. Against the
>[driblets of support for the shorter reading] is the overwhelming mass of
>evidence from all the great uncials and cursives, Byzantine, Caesarean,
>and Alexandrian, that Luke 22 19b, 20 is authentic."
>
>Best wishes to all,
>
>Yuri.
>

---

From: Yuri Kuchinsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 14:08:18 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Roderic L. Mullen wrote:

>         On the basis of the manscript traditions, and on what I perceive
> as the general development of eucharistic traditions, a la Gregory Dix
> in THE SHAPE OF THE EUCHARIST, I tend to favor the longer text of Luke. 
> Bart Ehrman and I had this discussion when I was doing my dissertation
> under him, and I had some similar comments from D.C. Parker following a
> presentation I made at AAR/SBL some years back.  It seems to me that
> what one decides about this text depends in part on what types of
> evidence one prefers. 

Dear Rod,

This may be so.

> It also seems that the shorter reading tends to
> get more respect among scholars in the U.K., so perhaps there is
> something of a scholarly tradition at work here. 

This is interesting. It is true that there are also other instances where
scholarly opinions seem to diverge depending on which side of the Big Pond
one finds oneself. 

> Both Ehrman and Parker
> lean heavily on internal criteria at this point. 

I agree.

>         As far as the external evidence of the textual tradition goes,
> an important point to be made is that not only do the Alexandrian mss.
> support the longer reading against their customary brevity, but that the
> "Western"  mss. support the shorter reading against their customary
> fulness.  Since both early ms. groups run counter to type in this
> reading, one cannot simply suggest that either group deserves our
> confidence a priori.  What does impress me is the wide range of textual
> groups and patristic witnesses in favor of the longer reading. 

Yes, this is so.

> entire pericope dates to a later stage of Lucan composition. 

Well, at least it seems pretty clear that this pericope does stand apart
from the main body of Lk. Since it is very likely that this text
originally represented a liturgical formula, and a key one at that, it may
have a different history compared to the rest of Lk.

> What I am
> curious about though is how you reach the conclusion that I Corinthians
> 11 is a later insertion into the Pauline material?  --Rod Mullen

Yes, this indeed is my position. As I understand it, this theory is
virtually completely unknown at this time, and yet it was formulated in
great detail by Alfred Loisy many years ago.

He has dealt with this matter specifically in:

Alfred Loisy, LES ORIGINES DE LA CENE EUCHARISTIQUE in CONGRES D'HISTOIRE
DU CHRISTIANISME (A. LOISY FESTSCHRIFT), p. 83f., Paris, 1928,

But other treatments by him are also available in his other publications, 
including in:

Loisy, Alfred Firmin (1857-1940), _The birth of the Christian religion (La
naissance du Christianisme)_; authorized translation from the French by
L.P. Jacks, London, G. Allen [and] Unwin [1948].

In order to appreciate his arguments for 1 Cor. 11.23-26 being an
interpolation, one needs to take into consideration his much bigger theory
about what he saw as numerous and wide-ranging interpolations in the
Pauline literature. His arguments re: 1 Cor. 11.23-26 are only a small
part of his larger thesis. 

To put it briefly, most commentators are well aware that the (presumably) 
genuine letters of Paul often seem confusing and inconsistent. But usually
this is explained either as indicating that Paul's theology went through
various developments over time, or that he wrote in different styles for
different audiences. Well, Loisy was bold enough to suggest that these
usual explanations are inadequate, and that the way out is to accept that
Paul's writings were in fact widely interpolated in later periods.

Such theories were actually first apparently pioneered by Joseph Turmel,
who was a friend and co-worker of Loisy, e.g.:

Turmel, Joseph (1859-1943) _Histoire des dogmes_, Paris, Rieder, 1933.

But Loisy has developed them in his own way. His theories were not
accepted too widely at the time. 

While these theories are still very little known, some modern scholars are
working in this area. In particular, the best development of Loisy's
theories in this area is found in Winsome Munro, AUTHORITY IN PAUL AND
PETER, Cambridge UP, 1983. 

Also William O. Walker published quite a lot on this subject, e.g. William
O. Walker, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN IDENTIFYING INTERPOLATIONS IN THE
PAULINE LETTERS, NTS 33 (1987): 610-618. 

Now, specifically re: 1 Cor. 11.23-26, I think the best argument for this
being an interpolation would be a textual argument based on proving that
the Markan eucharist is a much older one. Since Mk, written ca. 70,
contains what seems like the older eucharist, it is hard to believe that
the seemingly later eucharistic text of 1 Cor/Lk (the epistle as a whole
dating mostly from the 50s) would have been really written by Paul.

Best regards,

Yuri.