Adam

Thanks, Toto,
For the link in your Post #49. However, the very next sentence counters your quote:

"Nevertheless, the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context, on which I am dependent for the following observations."
And it is followed by two pages in which Theissen argues that the Passion Narrative was written between 30 and 60 CE, during the lifetime of eyewitnesses.

It's no argument against the Passion Narrative being early that its character seems similar to the rest of Mark. First John Mark wrote the Passion Narrative that was used for all four gospels, then later he wrote much of the rest of Mark that was written later and unavailable for the chain of texts leading to the Gospel of John.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
On the matter of the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians, gMark and gLuke, I think Lk22:19b-20 is an interpolation:
From my website with some additional clarifications:

Lk22:19b-20 is likely a later insertion because:
a) it is lacking in Codex Bezae & some early Latin translations. And in some other early manuscripts, order of the three clauses in 22:17-20 (wine, bread, wine) is changed, sometimes differently.
b) it duplicates the cup offering.
c) it suggests 'Jesus died for your sins', but this concept never appears again in GLuke/'Acts'.
d) it copies from 1Co11:24-25, with words like "new covenant", "for you", "do this in remembrance of me", not appearing in GMark & GMatthew's versions of the Last Supper.

Remark: Lk22:44 (quoted by Justin Martyr in Trypho CIII) itself is most likely also an interpolation because Lk22:43-44 is absent in many early manuscripts, not witnessed by Clement of Alexandria & Origen and sometimes transposed in GMatthew: see this Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ&..._at_Gethsemane . That would prove interpolations were done on gospels soon after their publishing.

Duvduv

Thanks, Bernard. But how would we understand the verses if they we skipped from Luke 22:18 to verse 21 (or reordered the verses)? And what does the addition of verses 43 and 44 signify in context, or for that matter their removal?

17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!” 23 They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.

Chili

Sure, let it be an interpolation, but let's be reminded here that 'the cross he was to die on' represents the humanity of Joseph werein here now Judaism as the very religion that first got him thusfar and is now the prime mover in this event final event wherein 'with' the death to the ego also Judaism must go. And that must be tragic as it did serve him well, and served him very well indeed . . . and just maybe 'the angel' here is what put his disciples-nee-shepherds to sleep so only the bare naked strongholds is all that he wanted to keep.

It so becomes a reconversion of the disciples , who once were his shepherds and so now must be decommssioned as disciples so that only their bare naked insights remained to be raised. It so is total annililation of faith.

Notice the inability of Matthew and Mark's Jesus to 'walk away' from religion peacefully, which here then shows that it 'formally' is done before crucifixion takes place. It once again show that it counters the "I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered" of Matthew and Mark where religion is just shaken and back to Galilee he goes.

Note well that they were 'still near, while yet asleep' suggests only that they were 'out of function' as disciples called and chosen with a specific purpose in mind.

It is foreshadowed with 'new skins for new wine' that must have causation to be. I mean it is nice to dream about 'no pain in heaven' etc. but there must be causation for that too, and so that is what this is all about, and hence could say what he did as his final words then. Please think of the kundalini transformation as a more realistic image on this.

If it helps towards understanding let me add that 'a female would never say that as parody is not part of her life simply because she is the wine and not the skin itself' based on Gen. 2:22 as the substance in Jn. 5:55

Bernard Muller

To Duvduv,
Here is more info about the confusing status of Lk22:17-21:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Synoptic/message/3954
Read the following discussion if you have time. But I do not think that 19b-21 is ever considered here as an interpolation.
I do not know for sure why 43-44 would have been added. I guess, all kind of people can have their own interpretation of 43-44 and its usefulness.

Duvduv

Thanks for the reference. Unfortunately much of the technical discussion there is over my head, but I always thought that the tendency in these texts was to add material through interpolation, not remove it.

I think I understood that some view the addition to Luke as having happened in manuscripts where the author or interpolator came across Corinthians. This is interesting because if I recall correctly some view that text in Corinthians as being an interpolation itself, although as I posted before, any interpolater did not do a very good job of aligning the text with a gospel view of a historical Jesus with his disciples.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
I think, like you do, texts were more likely added up than removed. I also think the interpolator added Lk22:19b-21 in order to have the sequence bread => cup, at least appearing in the two last segments (out of three), as it is in this order in 1Cor and gMark & gMatthew. And the interpolator certainly trusted Paul's version more than Luke's original one (with its reverse sequence).
And for interpolations in the Pauline epistles, there are many!
The ones who made the interpolations were in a "Pauline mind", that is not interested at all in the historical Jesus. And the gospels available then were faulty, with contradictions and not well considered by most Christians then (around 100 CE). That's what I think.
But there are exceptions, concerning relationship between interpolations in Pauline Corpus and gospels: I am certain 1Cor15:3-11 is an interpolation. In it we have "the twelve" appearing nowhere else in the Pauline's, but certainly in the gospels they do. There is more of that: for example Jesus raising on the third day according to scriptures seems to be drawn from gLuke. See here:
http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#adc
You may allude to an issue: we would expect "historical Jesus" bits in the interpolations of Pauline epistles, more so if these interpolations were made during that hypothetical transition from mythical to historical. I do not see any of that in the considered genuine seven epistles.

Duvduv

There is much to ruminate here. I was just thinking that with all the discussion of interpolations generally, it would quite an interesting project to put together all the NT texts with interpolations removed to be able to reconstruct what may have been there originally.

Now if you suggest that the interpolater of the epistles was also not interested in a historical Jesus, and he interpolated into 1 Corinthians 15, then it standsd to reason that an interpolater into Luke did his work only thereafter, thus you have a) original Corinthians; b) interpolated Corinthians; c) original GLuke; d) interpolated GLuke.

And how did the other gospels fit into the timeline as well?

So in terms of reconstructing the historical timeline of all this, I imagine it wasn't done overnight, and something had to have been left over for people to work on in
the 4th or 5th century in the new world of Constantinian/Theodosian Byzantium. Not only that but one would have to ask why potential interpolaters who DID live in the universe of a historical Jesus story didn't redo the epistles to match the epistles.

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
I made some comprehensive reconstruction of the original letters to the Corinthians in my website. Also of the original gJohn. Also of the original (Jewish, non Christian) Revelation. I also flagged out interpolations in the other Pauline epistles & Hebrews and in the Synoptics. Ask me for the specific webpages if you are interested.
If the Corinthians letters were written in 50-60 and gLuke around 85, I see no problem about interpolators working on both around 100-120.
Looking at external evidence and internal evidence, I adhere to the critical scholars near concensus of 70-100 for the 4 gospels, except I think gMark can be pinpointed to the winter of 70-71, and gJohn was a work in progress from 75 to 100 => http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

Duvduv

Thank you. Yes, I'd like to see the pages of the reconstructions, and what do NT scholars think of these reconstructions based on the idea of multiple speakers? Is it something that they have thought about before? And can an analysis of the Greek confirm it?