Freethought & Rationalism Archive

robto · 12-23-2009, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The lack of manuscript variations of course is not evidence for lack of interpolation, but it underscores the lack evidence in favor of interpolation. For example, if spin really did show that the text flows more naturally with his reconstruction, that would be evidence for interpolation. But he seemingly has not. His reconstructed text starts with an admonition against competitive vanity ("No doubt there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear which of you have approval. When you come together, it is not the lordly supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else"). And it jumps into what spin proposes to be an admonition against gluttony ("A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup"). It hardly makes sense at all.

I read an article a while back (I can look up the ref. if you're interested) that made a pretty strong case (IMO) that the standard interpretation of this passage - that rich Christians arrived early and ate everything up before the poor, working-class Christians could get there - is incorrect. The phrase "wait for" should actually be interpreted as "wait on" - it has a sense of serving, rather than a reference to time. I don't know Greek, so I'm not competent to evaluate the linguistic aspects of the argument, but this interpretation seems to me to make sense of what is otherwise almost incoherent.

This interpretation also helps with the flow problem mentioned here. If the issue is that the poor are being servants to the rich, while the rich are refusing to be servants to the poor, then it is still an issue of vanity, rather than of gluttony, that is under discussion.

Regardless of this interpretation, though, the transition to talking about who eats what/when/how ("When you come together, it is not the lordly supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else") has already taken place BEFORE the passage spin omits, so I don't think the objection here is very strong.

(Thanks, spin, for the blog post, and Apostate Abe for resurrecting the thread. I have been pretty well convinced that the green passage is an interpolation ever since I read about the possibility in Richardson's commentary on Lietzman, but I have never seen it laid out so neatly as this.)

Clivedurdle · 12-23-2009, 09:16 AM

Quote:

wait on

Camels thru the eye of a needle, how does a rich man get to heaven, last shall be first, Jesus washing the disciples feet.

These become teaching aids to set out the rules, as Paul is, for the new heaven on earth, the body of Christ here.

Maybe the levellers, diggers and Quakers have more in common than I realised - this was a revolutionary group holding everything in common and having a figurehead of Christ as the core.

It got religionised though. A normal process as later groups lose the plot.

spin · 12-23-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

I read an article a while back (I can look up the ref. if you're interested) that made a pretty strong case (IMO) that the standard interpretation of this passage - that rich Christians arrived early and ate everything up before the poor, working-class Christians could get there - is incorrect. The phrase "wait for" should actually be interpreted as "wait on" - it has a sense of serving, rather than a reference to time. I don't know Greek, so I'm not competent to evaluate the linguistic aspects of the argument, but this interpretation seems to me to make sense of what is otherwise almost incoherent.

I don't think this reading is at all reasonable. First, the text is explicit in 11:21 about the fact that people are taking food and drink before others, ie earlier than others and that's how the Vulgate translates the notion (praesumit). Second, when you look at the usage of the verb translated in 11:33 as "wait for" (εκδεχομαι) in the new testament, you'll find that it never means what is desired (ie "wait on") -- see Jn 5:3, Acts 17:16, 1 Cor 16:11, Heb 10:13, James 5:7. They all indicate anticipation.

The interpretation has no apparent basis.

spin

Solo · 12-23-2009, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

wait on

These become teaching aids to set out the rules, as Paul is, for the new heaven on earth, the body of Christ here.

Maybe the levellers, diggers and Quakers have more in common than I realised - this was a revolutionary group holding everything in common and having a figurehead of Christ as the core.

It got religionised though. A normal process as later groups lose the plot.

Almost every western radical reformism looked back at the Jerusalem egalitarian community as a model to emulate: the Waldensians (Peter Waldo actually gave up his worldly goods), the Lollards, the (Hussite) Taborites, the Anabaptists of the Hussite wars and in Muenster, the Diggers and Levellers during the English Civil War. Even the early 19th century communal experiments of St-Simon and Owen were largely based of communal living without private property. So were Fourier's phalanxes although their ideas were openly atheist.

Jiri

Clivedurdle · 12-23-2009, 02:39 PM

But what utopian societies have there been?

Was there an early xian one (or several?)

I thought there are much older examples than xianity

We are discussing rules of communal eating - I take that meaning we are looking at a special group of people who have chosen to live like this.

Practicalities leads to a series of solutions - from monks and nuns through to people going to xmas mass.

Quote:

More's Utopia is largely based on Plato's Republic.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia

Quote:

Re 21:1 ¶ And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Clivedurdle · 12-23-2009, 02:46 PM

Quote:

and there was no more sea.

More Alchemy - now why get rid of one of the elements?

DCHindley · 12-23-2009, 08:08 PM

Hmmm, I am suprised I missed this one back in 2007, but there was a new job and a house to sell that needed sprucing up. Ahh, memories.

Anyhow ... you are breaking it down as follows (I omitted the "of the Lord" in vs 29, and respect your choice to modify the English of vs 19 to "lordly supper"):

Original	Interpolations
17 Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear which of you have approval. 20 When you come together, it is not (the) lordly 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!
	23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 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 discerning the body [...] 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. 32 When we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. 33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

Something I long ago noted about any christological passages is that Jesus Christ is always "the" Lord (there is a definite article explicitly in the text). Anywhere else Paul is not speaking of Jesus Christ there is never a definite article (except when quoting the Lxx where it does use it). The gist is that he is speaking of the God of the Jews, and LORD (without a definite article in the text) serves as a stand-in for the holy name (YHVH). When speaking, though, of God without reference to Jesus Christ, the definite article is always present in the text, as if to emphasize that Paul's God is the (true, unique, "my") God, clearly referring again to YHWH. When he is speaking about Jesus, though, all mention of "god" is anarthrous (without a definite article), thus emphasizing divine quality, or even "a god", not a specific God.

So I have underlined the words God or Lord which are anarthrous (no definite article) and bolded those which have a definite article above. In vs 20, there is no definite article with either deipnon (supper) or kuriakon (belonging to lord, or a lord's). While Paul could be saying that they should not come together as though to a lord's banquet, competing to get the higher place and eating the better food, here I think he is using an anarthrous kurios (LORD) as a circumlocution for YHWH.

Below is how I had deconstructed it over a decade ago:

Original	Interpolations.
17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you meet together, it is not (the) LORD’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses 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 commend you in this? No, I will not.
23 - 29 [...].	23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." (Compare 11:24b-25 with Mt 26:26-29; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:14-20) 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself
30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.
32 [...].	32 But when we are judged by (the) Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world
33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another--34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home--lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

Vs 32 is inconsistent with my general rules about "God" and "Lord" with and without the definite article. I justified it because the GNT added a bracketed tou (the) before kuriou (Lord), indicating the editors thought that a definite article was implied without actually being stated (Greek grammar allows this in theory, and there are cases in classical literature where it can be demonstrated). Thematically, vss 30-32 seems more in tune with vs 23-29 than with 17-22. If 30-32 belongs with 17-22, then the Lord of vs 20 must be referring to (the) LORD judging the world, or to a earthly lord who enjoys inviting his servants to dinner and then treating certain ones better than others to humiliate the rest.

Damn, now you've gone and made me think. I think I need some ibuprofen and a good nap.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin 11/17/07

We have discussed 1 Cor 15:17-34 before, but I thought I would present a reduced version in an effort to capture what seems to me to be what the writer had in mind when he originally wrote the passage.

Paul felt it was necessary to reprimand his Corinthians over their behavior when they partook in the group's communal meal, which Paul calls "the lordly supper" -- kuriakos deipnos. This is usually translated as "the lord's supper" (which would be deipnos tou kuriou), but kuriakos is an adjective (used only twice in the christian scripture), hence "lordly" for want of better representation. This will help to avoid the perhaps undue influence that the phrase "lord's supper" would bring to the text.

Here is the reconstructed text (arrived at through reduction of the current text):

Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, for your meetings do more harm than good. In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear which of you have approval. When you come together, it is not the lordly supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 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! A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

Is it that I have so mangled the text that I have lost sight of its significance or is this a communal meal of the sort that people adhering to Jewish customs partook in? We find such a communal meal mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls and believers who had become recognized members of the community could partake in the meal, though they could be excluded from it.

Paul's complaint, so far, seems to have nothing to do with the Jesus inaugurated ritual meal, but with how members of Paul's Corinthian community treated each other by not partaking as good responsible members should. It was not an ordinary meal where one could gluttonize or get drunk, but a meal in which all members should be able to partake and not miss out because of the gluttony of some. If one needed to think of one's body one should do that at home.

If this analysis is correct, let's look at the text as it has become:

17 Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear which of you have approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the lordly 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! 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 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 discerning 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. 32 When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. 33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

The phrase in red is not well supported by the manuscript evidence, so it can be reduced to a footnote as is done in the NRSV. It seems to be a late erroneous attempt at clarifying the significance of "body", shifting from the body of the individual to that of Jesus. It's not the lord's body that the member doesn't discern but his/her own, such that s/he comes to the meal with the wrong attitude and gluttonizes.

The green section is mainly the Lucan presentation of the last supper. Its presence draws attention onto itself and away from Paul's complaint about the poor attitude of his Corinthians when they come to the communal meal.

I'd be interested to know if you think that the text as presented at the beginning is coherent in itself in that it explains itself and the purpose the writer had in mind. Does the material I omitted seem to add to the writer's intention in the passage or not?

spin

spin · 12-23-2009, 09:21 PM

I made an error in the OP regarding the color. 11:28 is not part of the interpolation as the reconstruction shows. DCH's first table should thus be:

Original	Interpolations
17 Now in the following instructions I do not commend you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be factions among you, for only so will it become clear which of you have approval. 20 When you come together, it is not (the) lordly 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!
	23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
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 discerning the body [...] 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. 32 When we are judged by (the) Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. 33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other. 34 If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Something I long ago noted about any christological passages is that Jesus Christ is always "the" Lord (there is a definite article explicitly in the text). Anywhere else Paul is not speaking of Jesus Christ there is never a definite article (except when quoting the Lxx where it does use it). The gist is that he is speaking of the God of the Jews, and LORD (without a definite article in the text) serves as a stand-in for the holy name (YHVH). When speaking, though, of God without reference to Jesus Christ, the definite article is always present in the text, as if to emphasize that Paul's God is the (true, unique, "my") God, clearly referring again to YHWH. When he is speaking about Jesus, though, all mention of "god" is anarthrous (without a definite article), thus emphasizing divine quality, or even "a god", not a specific God.

Umm, just a quick look shows this last claim to be false. Not all mention of god is anarthrous. As a quick look check Rom 1:9, 19, 24, and not to give just Romans, 1 Cor 1:4, 9, 14, Gal 1:4, 10, 13. There are very many other examples which falsify the claim. Unless I have missed your point, naughty, DCH, very naughty. I don't think the issue with the non-titular use of κυριος will resolve along the lines you suggest. Article use is not straightforward or consistent.

spin

Clivedurdle · 12-24-2009, 12:26 AM

Quote:

42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+2&version=NIV

Quote:

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.

Quote:

Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.
3Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"
"Yes," she said, "that is the price."

9Peter said to her, "How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."

10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Quote:

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

16This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

17While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon's house was and stopped at the gate. 18They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.

19While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Simon, three[a] men are looking for you. 20So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them."

21Peter went down and said to the men, "I'm the one you're looking for. Why have you come?"

22The men replied, "We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say." 23Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.

Lots of rules of communal behaviour of this utopian sect aren't there?

Clivedurdle · 12-24-2009, 12:32 AM

Quote:

23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"[a]—which means, "God with us."

If God is with you a utopian society is a logical result, with rules of behaviour of these people who are temples of the holy spirit, the body of Christ.

A Jesus walking around is a further logical conclusion of this set of beliefs, not a cause.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.