yalla

I did.
Interesting.
And I checked out the relevant sections of 'Mark' and 'Matthew' too, which incidentally are where my RSV says the word "new' has been added.
So a chunk of Paul similar stuff has been added to some versions of Luke hey??
Lots of mucking around with this text re Eucharist.

Now who start these particular balls rolling and in what direction and when?
From Paul to some versions of 'Luke'?
From some versions of 'Luke' back to all versions of 1 Cor.?
Independently or simultaneously?

spin

That does show a taint from Luke, I think.

We have a development from Mark's version to Mt and from Mk to Lk, then the Lucan text has fed into the other two with the scribal insertion of the thematic "new" covenant -- a very easy marginal comment being incorporated in the body of the text. This is par for the course about which our christian friends tend to be in denial. (If it's in the manuscript tradition then they have to deal with it, otherwise it never happened.)

I'd think that someone has turned Paul's Jewish feast into the eucharist via large-scale taint from Lk 22. That seems the simplest progression to me at the moment.


spin

yalla

The dating of this would be interesting.
Am I right in supposing the Eucharist section is extant in all old manuscripts?
If so it would seem to follow that it is either original to Paul or, if interpolated by anyone [the editor[s] of 'Luke' in particular] such was done very early in the piece so as to 'capture' the market of Paul and to become the orthodox version.
So when would that be?
At a date which is considered 'late' re the writings of Paul, say early to mid 2c? Late enough for 'Luke''s editors to get at Pauline material in it's embryonic stage?
After 'Luke' had written his material. perhaps even mid 2c plus?
Or do we push 'Luke' back towards the conventional date of Paul?
So that such editing occurred, say immediately post 70ce?
Thus making the date of 'Luke' very early, possibly pre-'Mark'? [not my preference]?
Or some other scenario.
cheers
yalla

robto

Hi, Ben. Thanks for bringing up this point.

I read an article (which I will cite as soon as I can dig up the reference) that made the claim that Paul is not complaining that the Corinthians don't "wait for" one another, but rather that they don't "wait on" one another. That is, the issue is not one of timing (some eating before the others arrive) but of community: some eating apart from the others. Of course, the argument relied on the Greek terms used, which I am not qualified to judge, but the gist of the argument was pretty convincing. Look at 1 Cor 11:21
Here the NJB is relying on the "timing" interpretation of the passage, and the result is almost incoherent. How can each one eat first after the eating has already begun? And how can one be getting drunk while the others are going hungry if the eating took place earlier?

Again, I'm not qualified to evaluate the linguistic argument, but if this is the correct interpretation of the passage then is removes the objection you raised to the interpolation idea.

Ben C Smith

1. The translation of that first line is pretty loose here. The Greek expression is quite general, εν τω φαγειν or in the [act of] eating. It does not on its own specify who is or is not eating. In context, if some variety of temporal interpretation is correct, the ones eating at this point are the haves.

2. I actually think the emphasis is on the word own, ιδιον. The timing simply facilitates the well-to-do eating their own dinner apart from those who have nothing, that is, separating the meal from the rite of the eucharist.

3. The verb προλαμβανω typically means to receive beforehand, in a temporal sense. It can also mean to seize, without a real temporal sense, but that meaning would not fit here very well. Doubtless there are other ways to interpret this verb, but the temporal sense seems the most natural to me.

Ben.

spin

And extremely difficult. For example, how does one know when either text was in circulation?

My original argument that it was an interpolation involved the disturbance in the text with the insertion of 11:23-26 plus the glue v27 to make it fit.

Read the text without this material:

20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not! 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body [of the Lord] eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment.

("of the Lord" is a later interpolation, which taints the significance.)

The text reads as a ritual meal, already seen in the DSS, so ostensibly pre-christian and non-eucharistic, maintained by Paul.

The eucharistic material in Luke depends upon Mk. The interpolation in 1 Cor 11 -- if that's what it is -- need only have happened after the writing of Luke. Whether that is early or late obviously depends on the evidence for dating all texts concerned. Our only real indicators are when writers start clearly citing the texts.


spin

gstafleu

To compare:
This shows exactly what I was saying: the two share the ritual elements of the Eucharist, but not the context. Luke has this happen in the context of the Last Supper, Paul lacks any context except to say it was "on the night he was betrayed." Passover, disciples: all these are missing from Paul.

So:

1. If we do not assume interpolations or copying, all we know is that both Paul and (the author of) Luke knew about the ritual elements of the Eucharist. We most emphatically do not know that Paul knew about Luke's context.
2. If we assume interpolation into Paul then we cannot even assume Paul knew about the Eucharist. In that case he was just talking about a common meal.
3. If we assume that Luke took the ritual elements from Paul we are back at 1 above.

Taking the text at face value I would suggest the following. The ritual elements of the Eucharist, possibly taken from earlier myths, were combined by Paul and his Cohorts with the extant (I take it from various comments) tradition of the common meal. The gospels then add further detail. This fits both the generally assumed timing of Paul and the gospels, and what we can see was already extant at Paul's time.

Gerard Stafleu

Amaleq13

What about "the Lord's supper" in verse 20? Is that really so different from Luke's supper?

In addition, I've attempted to argue in the past against the assumption that Paul describes Jesus as talking to someone with him on that night but I have to admit such arguments are weak.

It seems to me that Paul does describe a "last supper" and the presence of close associates is implied.

yalla

I recall that conversation you had. I thought your argument was better than weak. Got a link to refresh my memory?

With reference to the meal in Paul, Macoby makes the points that a Jewish meal incorporated a thanking of god, a sharing of food, grace and a blessing [the original meaning of eucharist apparently]. He states that the addition of mystery religion trappings [bread=the god's body, wine=blood] was the work of Paul and he thus turned an ordinary Jewish meal into a pagan sacrament.

Amaleq13

Sorry, I can't think of a specific enough keyword to narrow the search. I've apparently been in a LOT of discussions in which I've used "Lord's supper", etc.

IIRC, I attempted to argue that Paul's "vision" involved Jesus speaking to Paul (and to those he would teach) rather than to unamed others present with him in the vision.