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

From: "marc bauer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 21:34:46 PDT

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: [email-masked]
>From: "Robert B. Waltz" <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: tc-list versions of the eucharist (fwd)
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>
>On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, Bart Ehrman <[email-masked]> 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