NOGO

This is news to me.
Paul's letters are the earliest Christian text that we have.

I would be curious to know why you consider GLuke different than Paul and the other synoptic gospels as far as the Eucharist is considered?

Julian

I believe that the Western non-interpolation of Luke 22:19-20 is the correct reading. This means reading Luke 22 without 19b-20 which leaves the last meal but removes the liturgical aspects of it. For more information, see Westcott-Hort's introduction or Bart Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.

I have been unable to locate any arguments against the Pauline eucharist but I still must reject on the grounds that it is

1) Too advanced for its time.
2) Conflicts with later, yet still early, references to the eucharist.
3) Appears in a section of 1 Cor. which is riddled with interpolations.

Julian

robto

The only scholar I know of who has argued that 1 Cor 11:23-26 is an interpolation is R.D. Richardson in his commentary at the end of Lietzmann's Mass and the Lord's Supper. (See pp. 598 ff. Warning - this is not easy reading!) His argument is thematic: in the rest of 1 Cor, the "body" refers to the body of believers, while in this section it is the body of Christ.

To me it is more compelling that this is the ONLY place where "Paul" quotes Jesus directly, and the ONLY place where he narrates anything about Jesus's life on earth. This makes the passage stick out like a sore thumb. I'm baffled why scholars almost universally ignore Richardson in discussing this passage.

Lietzmann's book argues that there were two traditions of the Eucharist: the Didache-like tradition of a simple shared meal and the "Pauline" one of body&blood. The only modern comment on this that I have found said something like "this idea has been rejected, but scholars today increasingly accept a dual tradition."

?? If the dual tradition is accepted, how is that a rejection of Lietzmann?

Here's a question to ask your friend: why, if Jesus DID institute the Eucharist at the Last Supper, does the Gospel of John fail to mention it? How could he omit something so important? It seems to me that the author of John either didn't know or (more likely) rejected the idea of eucharist as body and blood of Jesus.

Oh, yeah, and the earliest writer to connect the Gospel of John with the apostle John was Irenaeus of Lyon, c. 180 AD. Other early writers rejected John, some even claiming that it was written by the heretic Cerinthus!

robto

One more thought: one of the earliest eucharistic liturgies, the Syrian Addai and Mari, does not have the Institution. It's very hard to put a date on this liturgy, tho.

TedM

Can you please explain why you conclude this?

Could you explain how it doesn't fit in?

Also, if it is an interpolation, why would an interpolator exclude the disciples, and say that it was received "from the Lord"?


Your theory of interpolation in Paul seems to rely fairly heavily on the interpolation in the idea of a Western non-interpolation for Luke. Could you explain what that is?

Thanks,

ted

Julian

Sure, resurrect this and force me to actually have to think... And on a work day!
We see no evidence of the wine=blood, bread=flesh until the gospels and then only in Matthew and Mark which stand closer to each other than does Luke.
Paul is very focused on the seed of David and of Abraham, in fact it is fairly central to his theology. This conforms nicely to the Didache. Jesus is not the central message of this eucharist but rather the legacy of Abraham and David and the eucharist reflects this promise. Also, Paul knows next to nothing about the sayings and actions of Jesus but then, all of a sudden, this very specific reference?
Keeping it simple, I suppose. I suspect an anti-docetic issue here. Notice how it is very similar to Luke. I believe that it may be the same forger at work here. Faced with docetism he threw in a very real argument for actual flesh and blood both in Luke and Paul. Marcion complained that the proto-orthodox added to the scriptures. This may very well be an example of this.
Not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking, "What are the Western Non-interpolations?" I am assuming so, and will answer that.

The Western Non-interpolations were originally identified by Westcott and Hort in their publication of their critical Greek version in 1881. Their logic was simple. The Western texts show a great many additions over and above what is found in the other text families. The Western text has frequently been considered 'wild.' In a few cases, however, all in Luke except for one case in Matthew, the Western text is much simpler than the 'standard' text. Since scribes hardly ever removed text from the gospels it could be reasoned that the simpler versions represented a much ealier version of the passage.

Over the years more and different evidence for the correctness of their arguments has since come to light. See especially Bart Ehrman's Orthodox Curruption of Scripture.

The eucharist in Luke is one of those Western Non-interpolations, i.e. revealing an earlier strata of Luke which didn't have the eucharist.

Julian

andrewcriddle

What is known in textual criticism as the 'Western Text' (the text of Codex Bezae the Old Latin etc) mostly presents a somewhat expanded paraphrased version of the text and is regarded by most textual scholars as not original.

However despite its general tendency to present a longer text the 'Western Text' sometimes (mainly in Luke) presents a shorter text than that of the other ancient manuscripts. Some textual scholars hold that, since the 'Western Text' has a general bias towards addition rather than deletion, the readings where it gives the shorter text are not omissions in the 'Western Text' but interpolations in the other early manuscripts. Hence Western non-interpolation. Probably most contemporary textual critics are dubious of this type of argument but a substantial minority would broadly agree with it.

In Luke 22 vs 19-20 the 'Western Text' reads omitting the rest of verse 19 and all of verse 20.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/gnosis_eucharist1.html

A fascinating perspective!

The religions of the Didache, of Paul, of the gospels and of later writers are possibly too entangled to work out what was there originally, but vine of David and seed of David sound symbolic!

Julian

Here is some more info: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/WestNonInterp.html

Aland is against them but that's hardly a surprise since he is heavily biased. Ehrman is for them and I suspect that Metzger is a closet Western Non-interpolation believer.

Julian

Ben C Smith

I have this variant in the apparatus of my synopsis for the last supper. See also my page of textual variants.

I am very glad you guys resurrected this thread, since it presses somewhat in the direction that my questions on the other thread were going.

What is there to prevent the tradition from having developed as follows?

1. The earliest Christian eucharist is pretty much as we find it in the Didache or maybe even in Acts 2.42, a ritual meal with no real associations as yet with the death and resurrection of Christ.
2. Paul receives a vision of some kind as per 1 Corinthians 11.23 in which he is told that Jesus himself linked the eucharist to his own death and resurrection. Paul is therefore the originator of this connection.
3. Since Paul specified that this happened on the night on which Jesus was handed over, Mark the evangelist (who had a tradition of a last supper with no real eucharist on his hands, consisting primarily of Mark 14.17-21, 25, without the eucharist of verses 22-24) adds the Pauline insight to his last supper account. Matthew picks it up from Mark, and Luke... well, I am not sure what Luke did.
4. The earlier traditions of a last supper without a eucharist and a eucharist without a last supper continue to be transmitted for a while, most notably in John (last supper, no eucharist, or rather eucharist placed in chapter 6) and the Didache (eucharist, no last supper or death connection).

I am not by any means committed to this position, and very much want to read Scot McKnight on Jesus and sacrificial death, but is the position feasible? Are there any gaping holes or flaws?

Ben.