JoeWallack

JW:
I was just bluffing. I got nothing.



Joseph

"I thought I made a mistake once but it turned out I was wrong." - JW

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page







JW:
Just kidding. Since we agree that Tertullian (T) was an Evil & Wicked man perhaps we can find some Truth in what he calls Lies:

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-31.htm

"Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel"

JW:
And so Marcion, as opposed to T, is off to a Truthful start.


"Well, but70 Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles71 ) for "not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,"72 as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character73 of those Gospels which are published as genuine74 and under the name of apostles, in order, forsooth, to secure for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them. [3] But then, even if he censures Peter and John and James, who were thought to be pillars, it is for a manifest reason."

JW:
And so Marcion is closer to the Source, "Mark", which Discredits The Three, and Marcion correctly understands Paul as doing the same, as opposed to T.

Now unto the Specifics:

"22.17–20 {B}

The Lukan account of the Last Supper has been transmitted in two principal forms: (1) the longer, or traditional, text of cup-bread-cup is read by all Greek manuscripts except D and by most of the ancient versions and Fathers; (2) the shorter, or Western, text (read by D ita, d, ff2, i, l) omits verses 19b and 20 (τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν … ἐκχυννόμενον), thereby presenting the sequence of cup-bread.1 Four intermediate forms of text, which appear to be compromises between the two principal forms, are the following: (a) two Old Latin manuscripts (itb, e) modify the shorter text by placing ver. 19a before ver. 17, thus securing the customary order of bread-cup; (b) the Curetonian Syriac reads the same, but is enlarged with the wording of 1 Cor 11.24 added to ver. 19a; (c) the Sinaitic Syriac is still further expanded, chiefly by the insertion of “after they had supped” at the beginning of ver. 17 and “this is my blood, the new covenant” (ver. 20b) between verses 17 and 18; and (d) the Peshitta Syriac lacks (perhaps due to homoeoteleuton) verses 17 and 18, as do also l32, two Sahidic manuscripts, and one Bohairic manuscript. For convenience of comparison the six forms of the text are set forth in parallel columns on p. 149.

It is obvious that the chief problem is concerned with the merits of the two principal forms of text, since each of the others can be accounted for more or less satisfactorily as modifications of either the shorter or the longer form.

Majority Text

17. καὶ δεξάμενος ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε τοῦτο καὶ διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς.

18. λ�*γω γὰρ ὑμῖν, [ὅτι] οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπ�*λου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ.

19. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λ�*γων, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

20. καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λ�*γων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου, τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.

D ita, d, ff2, i, l

17. καὶ δεξάμενος τὸ ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε τοῦτο, διαμερίσατε ἑαυτοῖς.

18. λ�*γω γὰρ ὑμῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπ�*λου ἕως οὗ ἔλθῃ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.

19. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λ�*γων, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου.

itb, e

19. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λ�*γων, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου.

17. καὶ δεξάμενος τὸ ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε (τοῦτο. om. e) διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς.

18. λ�*γω γὰρ ὑμῖν (ὅτι, om. e) ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος (+ τούτου b) τῆς ἀμπ�*λου (+ ταύτης b) ἕως οὗ ἔλθῃ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.

syrc

19. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔλεγεν, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

17. καὶ δεξάμενος τὸ ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε τοῦτο, διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς.

18. λ�*γω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τούτου τῆς ἀμπ�*λου ἕως οὗ ἔλθῃ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.

syrs

19. καὶ λαβῶν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔλεγεν, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

20a. καὶ μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι.

17. δεξάμενος τὸ ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας εἶπεν, Λάβετε τοῦτο, διαμερίσατε εἰς ἑαυτούς.

20b. τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου ἡ διαθήκη ἡ καινή.

18. λ�*γω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τούτου ἕως οὗ ἔλθῃ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ.

syrp

19. καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔλεγεν, Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον· τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

20. καὶ ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, λ�*γων, Τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον.

Table of six forms of the text of Lk 22.17–20, reproduced (with a few minor modifications) from the chapter, “The Textual Data,” by Sir Frederick G. Kenyon and S. C. E. Legg, in The Ministry and the Sacraments, ed. by Roderic Dunkerley (London, 1937), pp. 284 f. By “Majority Text” at the head of the first column is meant the consensus of P75 א A B C K L Tvid W X Δ Θ�* Ψ 063 f 1 f 13 apparently all minuscules itc, q, r1 vg syrpal copsa, bo arm geo. It will be understood that the Greek form given to the versions is in some details uncertain.

Considerations in favor of the originality of the longer text include the following: (a) The external evidence supporting the shorter reading represents only part of the Western type of text, whereas the other representatives of the Western text join with witnesses belonging to all the other ancient text-types in support of the longer reading. (b) It is easier to suppose that the Bezan editor, puzzled by the sequence of cup-bread-cup, eliminated the second mention of the cup without being concerned about the inverted order of institution thus produced, than that the editor of the longer version, to rectify the inverted order, brought in from Paul the second mention of the cup, while letting the first mention stand. (c) The rise of the shorter version can be accounted for in terms of the theory of disciplina arcana, i. e. in order to protect the Eucharist from profanation, one or more copies of the Gospel according to Luke, prepared for circulation among non-Christian readers, omitted the sacramental formula after the beginning words.

Considerations in favor of the originality of the shorter text include the following: (a) Generally in New Testament textual criticism the shorter reading is to be preferred. (b) Since the words in verses 19b and 20 are suspiciously similar to Paul’s words in 1 Cor 11.24b–25, it appears that the latter passage was the source of their interpolation into the longer text. (c) Verses 19b–20 contain several linguistic features that are non-Lukan.

The weight of these considerations was estimated differently by different members of the Committee. A minority preferred the shorter text as a Western non-interpolation (see the Note following 24.53). The majority, on the other hand, impressed by the overwhelming preponderance of external evidence supporting the longer form, explained the origin of the shorter form as due to some scribal accident or misunderstanding.2 The similarity between verses 19b–20 and 1 Cor 11.24b–25 arises from the familiarity of the evangelist with the liturgical practice among Pauline churches, a circumstance that accounts also for the presence of non-Lukan expressions in verses 19b–20.

{B} {B} The letter {B} indicates that the text is almost certain."


Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York


JW:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_22:20

"And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, [even] that which is poured out for you. (ASV)"

JW:
It appears that T thought this original and cited it against Marcion with some Implication that Marcion exorcised it:

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/...#P6942_2020079 (Thanks Roger)

"When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body,"1600 that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.1601 An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say, ) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body,1602 that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon,1603 which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: "I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that1604 they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,"1605 which means, of course, the cross upon His body. [4] And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies,1606 He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed "in His blood,"1607 affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. [5] Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood."

JW:
Note that Tertullian does not Explicitly accuse Marcion here of exorcising the verse (and Ehrman doesn't say this either) but it's such a good example of Tertullian citing a Forged verse to use against Marcion that I had to start with it.

Ehrman starts his related discussion on page 197. On 208 Ehrman starts to give his contra Metzger conclusion that 22:20 is not original with key reasons:

1) There is no good reason for a change to the shorter reading.

2) A change to the longer reading can be easily explained.

3) Jesus' blood as atoning sacrifice is otherwise foreign to "Luke".

4) The wording parallels 1 Corinthians.



Joseph

"Why did the chicken Apologiest "cross" the road? To get to the "other" side. - JW

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

I used to think so, too. But Bradley Billings has a good discussion of why the longer reading may have been shortened in a recent JBL article (PDF).

Ben.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Ahh, the last twelve verses of Mark.

Rather than reinvent the wheel I will point out that we have had
various threads on this 'Ending of Mark' and it is unlikely that
JW is adding anything new in this thread.

Here are earlier threads.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=54039
How did the Gospel of Mark end? - 2003/05 (2 pages)
(more on Doherty view of Mark, note earlier resurrection references)

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=82794
Robert Price's Explanation for Abrupt Mark Ending 2004/04 (1)

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116631
How early is the longer ending of Mark? - 2005/02 (3)

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=125251
On The Apostolic Preaching .. 2005/05 (3)
Last 12 Verses of Mark - Early Church Writers
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...2&postcount=31
Scholarship References
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...1&postcount=49

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=126528
Dating of Mark [before 70 CE?] 2005/06 (3)
URL's and some excerpts
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...0&postcount=57

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=140300
The Sudden Stop of Mark 16 - 2005/10 (2)

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=147649
Mark 16, "the missing resurrection", Aramaic Peshitta - 2005/12 (3)
URL to TWeb discussions (James Snapp & others)
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...77#post2989577

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=178463&page=4
Biblical authenticity (pg. 4 on) - 2006/09 (10)
last twelve verses of Mark - hiding evidences
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...9&postcount=93
ending of Mark threads - summary url's
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=156

James Snapp is possibly the world's most knowledgeable on the
Mark ending issues. If there is significant new material he would
almost surely be happy to engage in dialog here as he does on
the textualcriticism forum and other venues.

Note also that the claim of Mark not having the traditional ending
is an essential element to some skeptic/mythicist views that the
resurrection of Jesus was not in the original teaching and is a late
addition to the Gosepls. Thus it becomes critical for some mythicist
views to claim that the traditional ending is an addition. And the
evidence can be severely misrepresented to that end. Since the
traditional Mark ending is actually very well attested arguments
that are actually based on the (snipped) ending are very flimsy
from the getgo.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Casper

Thanks JW. That is very interesting.

So according to this the shorter ending would support the idea that "resurrection" was an older aspect than "divine conception" I take it. Funny how sometimes validation of the obvious seems so anti-climactic, LOL!

I was looking for some reason to negate the idea that Marcion was older. Lacking that proves nothing of course except that I might have a plausible scenario.

andrewcriddle

I have finally read Drijvers essays.

He shows the common ground between Eznik and Ephraem Syrus on Marcion(convincingly IMO) and links this to material in Tertullian and Epiphanius (this part of the argument is interesting but IMO less convincing than the links between Ephraem and Eznik.)

It is important to note that the links between Eznik and other sources argued by Drijvers concern the Marcionite cosmology of three principles;
a/ the Stranger God who sent Jesus,
b/ the Creator and God of the Law
c/ Hyle or matter.
And the Marcionite ideas of the creation of the world and mannkind.

Eznik attributes an unusual doctrine of the atonement to Marcion (quoted in this thread) which does not appear paralleled in other sources for Marcionite ideas. (It has some parallels in some early orthodox theories of the Atonement in which Jesus deceives Satan into unlawfully having him killed)

According to Ephraem as interpreted by Drijvers Marcion held that the God of the Law knew who Christ was. Marcion seems to have held that Jesus met with the authorised representatives of the Creator (Moses and Elijah) at the transfiguration and by the threat of his revealed spiritual power bullied them into accepting on behalf of the Creator a deal whereby in exchange for the death of Christ his followers would be set free from the claims of the Creator.

This is in one sense a mythological set of ideas but one more closely based on the Gospel of Luke than the ideas found in Eznik.

Andrew Criddle