| Mark 14:22–24 | And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body. | And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.’ |
| Matthew 26:26–28 | And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ | And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, ‘Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.’ |
| Luke 22:19–20 | And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ | 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.’ |
| 1 Corinthians 11:23–25 | For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ | In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.’ |
The table contains testimonies about Lord’s Supper which indicate a close relationship – three from the gospels and one from Paul’s epistle. According to the consensus, the letters are known to the evangelists from the year 100 CE (G.Zuntz), which was taken into account by a large group of biblical scholars at the last conference on the dating of the Acts of the Apostles. They proposed dating Acts from 100 CE because of Zuntz’s thesis.
Now.. If so, what do we do with the dating of Mark and Matthew?.. and Luke and *Ev?
| *Ev 22:17-23 (well attested) | 17 And he took a cup, gave thanks, saying, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I say to you: From now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” | 19 And he took a loaf of bread, blessed it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is my body. But see, the hand of him who surrenders me is with me on the table. While the Son of Man follows his calling, woe to him by whom the Son of Man is extradited!” |
Jarek said
What about dating game and textual priority?
I find it really interesting.
That observation does lends some plausibility to Marcion’s Gospel antedating Lk–not that it is at all conclusive.
If I recall–didn’t go back and read the links–Bart thinks that the second cup was added to Lk by the scribes trying to harmonize him to the other canonical gospels. But it could have been the author of Lk himself trying to harmonize *Ev to Paul.
Then again, it could be that the author of *Ev was trying to make Lk make sense by removing an obvious doublet.
Or maybe Bart is right, and there was no second cup originally in Lk, and *Ev just copied Lk as he had it.
Oh, and another thing:
I think the reading with the cup before the bread makes sense as a primitive reading–I mentioned above that it matched the order in which Jews do their blessing before meals. It also matches what we get in the Didache. Further, the texts that place the cup first seem to reflect a more primitive theology of the Eucharist.
I’m going a bit beyond the original question, but it seems to me likely that the eucharist originated with Jesus’ disciples just reenacting something that they had lived with him many times during his ministry as a way of memorializing him.
Imagine this:
Jesus–whom they thought the messiah, in whom they had placed all their hopes and expectations, someone they had lived with and counted as a friend–has just been unexpectedly and brutally executed.
At some point after the crucifixion they sit down to have a meal together, and in the blessings they can’t help but share a vivid memory of Jesus, in which they can almost hear him saying the words that they heard him say in life countless times before. This is a super common phenomenon when you are in grieving–to remember the person vividly in doing something that in in the past you did together.
The blessing of the bread, such a potent way for his disciples to remember him, became their way of memorializing him when they met, and it then spread as Christianity spread.
But as it spread to people who had no personal memory of Jesus, it became a bare ritual, begging to be given meaning (again, this process of the ritual preceding the explanation of the ritual, the need to give meaning to and explanation for established ritual actions, is quite common and easily documented)–and as the idea of atonement developed early, the connection between Jesus being made somehow present in the blessing merged with the idea of the crucifixion as sacrifice to give rise to the institution narratives we get in Scripture.
Anyway, if all that is right, then something like what we get in *Ev (or Lk as BDE reconstructs the original) or even the didache makes a whole lot of sense.
Porphyry said
Oh, and another thing:I think the reading with the cup before the bread makes sense as a primitive reading–I mentioned above that it matched the order in which Jews do their blessing before meals. It also matches what we get in the Didache. Further, the texts that place the cup first seem to reflect a more primitive theology of the Eucharist.
I’m going a bit beyond the original question, but it seems to me likely that the eucharist originated with Jesus’ disciples just reenacting something that they had lived with him many times during his ministry as a way of memorializing him.
Imagine this:
Jesus–whom they thought the messiah, in whom they had placed all their hopes and expectations, someone they had lived with and counted as a friend–has just been unexpectedly and brutally executed.
At some point after the crucifixion they sit down to have a meal together, and in the blessings they can’t help but share a vivid memory of Jesus, in which they can almost hear him saying the words that they heard him say in life countless times before. This is a super common phenomenon when you are in grieving–to remember the person vividly in doing something that in in the past you did together.
The blessing of the bread, such a potent way for his disciples to remember him, became their way of memorializing him when they met, and it then spread as Christianity spread.
But as it spread to people who had no personal memory of Jesus, it became a bare ritual, begging to be given meaning (again, this process of the ritual preceding the explanation of the ritual, the need to give meaning to and explanation for established ritual actions, is quite common and easily documented)–and as the idea of atonement developed early, the connection between Jesus being made somehow present in the blessing merged with the idea of the crucifixion as sacrifice to give rise to the institution narratives we get in Scripture.
Anyway, if all that is right, then something like what we get in *Ev (or Lk as BDE reconstructs the original) or even the didache makes a whole lot of sense.
Makes sense to me.
Interesting reconstruction Porphyry.
Let me refine the question about dependance and dating of Lord’s Supper.
I listed 5 sources of Lord’s Supper. 1 Cor, *Ev, Luke, Matthew, Mark. They are related to each other in different ways.
If we consider priority 1 Cor, this means that the gospels were written after 100 CE, after the publication of the Pauline Corpus.
If we consider that Mark was first, this means that 1 Cor was created after 70 CE.
If we recognize the primacy of Luke, or Mateusz or *Ev, we will undermine the primacy of Mark.
What do you choose?
Robert said
Jarek said
… If we consider priority 1 Cor, this means that the gospels were written after 100 CE, after the publication of the Pauline Corpus.
If we consider that Mark was first, this means that 1 Cor was created after 70 CE.
If we recognize the primacy of Luke, or Mateusz or *Ev, we will undermine the primacy of Mark. …
None of these conclusions are logically sound. You are assuming that knowledge of this tradition could only be spread by these particular texts or collection of texts. But Paul clearly indicates that he himself handed it down as traditional material.
It seems likely to me that there is a textual relationship between mark and Mt, that there is a textual relationship between lk (as we have it) and *ev, and that there is also a textual relationship between lk as we have it and Paul.
But I don’t think we can go much further than that–especially since we don’t actually know what lk originally said.
Bolstering Robert’s point, all indications are that some form of Eucharistic ritual is truly primitive, so there might very well be several textually independent traditions based on a common oral tradition or common unwritten practice.
But, as a somewhat trivial point, I’d ask Robert, why do you think Paul says he received this from humans, by which I mean, isn’t it natural to read Paul here (in conformity with his claims in Galatians) to be saying the risen Jesus recounted this history to him? (Of course, I don’t think that actually happened, I think he did learn of it from established Christian communities. Perhaps he originated the idea that Jesus personally instituted the eucharist at the last supper, it’s hard to know, but I think it certain that he learned of the eucharist from others.)
Robert said
Porphyry said
But, as a somewhat trivial point, I’d ask Robert, why do you think Paul says he received this from humans, by which I mean, isn’t it natural to read Paul here (in conformity with his claims in Galatians) to be saying the risen Jesus recounted this history to him? (Of course, I don’t think that actually happened, I think he did learn of it from established Christian communities. Perhaps he originated the idea that Jesus personally instituted the eucharist at the last supper, it’s hard to know, but I think it certain that he learned of the eucharist from others.)
I was only speaking about Paul speaking of himself handing down this material, but it is also true that the most natural reading of the Greek prepositions and cases do indeed suggest an interpretation that Paul himself had also received this as traditional material that only ultimately came from Jesus. It is possible to read this as a direct revelation to Paul from the heavenly Jesus (especially in English translation), but this is not the way Paul elsewhere speaks of private revelations and not the interpretation favored by most exegetes. If you’re interested, we had a long discussion of this topic ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
So if I understand, the argument is that, classically, apo + gen would have the nuance of naming a remote as opposed to proximate source, so (although this subtlety wasn’t rigorously observed in koine), unless we see Paul using it otherwise (which we don’t), it is likely that he was using it deliberately in accordance with its classical significance.
I admit the argument shows that the text is ambiguous, though I would counter that the “from the Lord directly” interpretation seems to fit better with the general tenor of how he routinely presents his apostleship and authority (even when he speaks about going up to Jerusalem to speak to Cephas, I’m inclined to take that as being presented to confirm the authenticity of the direct revelation he had received, rather than as an independent source–so the rhetorical point would be not, “the apostles told me this therefore it is true”, but “Jesus told me this, and you can know that my visions of him are authentic, because when I compared notes with the people who knew him in life, the messages lined up, and given that I had never spoken to them before, the fact that our messages lined up proves that they have a common supernatural source”).
But I’m simply not in a position to judge the lexical argument; I just don’t know the Koine usage well enough, let alone Paul’s habits of abiding older linguistic distinctions, to form a judgement. (As you note, such distinctions are often made indeliberately or semi-deliberately, so one needs to really be immersed in the language to catch it, or do some really careful statistical analyses, which I haven’t.)
Jarek said
Mark 14:22–24 And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body. And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.’ Matthew 26:26–28 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, ‘Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.’ Luke 22:19–20 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ 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.’ 1 Corinthians 11:23–25 For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.’ The table contains testimonies about Lord’s Supper which indicate a close relationship – three from the gospels and one from Paul’s epistle. According to the consensus, the letters are known to the evangelists from the year 100 CE (G.Zuntz), which was taken into account by a large group of biblical scholars at the last conference on the dating of the Acts of the Apostles. They proposed dating Acts from 100 CE because of Zuntz’s thesis.
Now.. If so, what do we do with the dating of Mark and Matthew?.. and Luke and *Ev?
| Ev 22:17-23 (well attested) | 17 And he took a cup, gave thanks, saying, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I say to you: From now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” | 19 And he took a loaf of bread, blessed it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, “This is my body. But see, the hand of him who surrenders me is with me on the table. While the Son of Man follows his calling, woe to him by whom the Son of Man is extradited!” |
Steefen
The action in all of these verses would work better with a Leviticus 17: 10 preface.
Second, the action in all of these verses would work better with a Yom Kippur preface.
Summary: Jesus communicating through Paul or Jesus speaking with his disciples did not successfully clear the hurdles of
First:
Leviticus 17: 10
If anyone from the house of Israel or a foreigner living among them eats any blood, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from among his people.
Second:
Leviticus 16: 29
Leviticus 16:29 mandates establishment of [Yom Kippur] this holy day on the tenth day of the seventh month as the day of atonement for sins. It calls it the Sabbath of Sabbaths and a day upon which one must afflict one’s soul. Leviticus 23:27 decrees that Yom Kippur is a strict day of rest.
= = =
So, if Jesus self-claims he’s making himself a sacrifice for the remission of sins, he needs to avoid the charge of leading people astray from the Torah.
I am leaving open the possibility that the Lord’s Supper is a Trojan Horse of self destruction: do this in remembrance of me and get separated from God and let the people be divided. Reason: destroy Jewish worship and religion as prescribed by the Torah because the motivation of zealotry and Jewish revolt was the Torah and the Jewish god. The Romans did not take an atheistic stance toward the god whose presence was in the Holy of Holies, they took that religion seriously enough (to even have sacrifices at the Temple made for the well-being of the emperor). Furthermore, let’s get rid of this religion that bred Revolt.
1. Romans wanted the Jewish God dead and the followers of that God lost from that God.
2. Jewish apocalypticism failed, and larger than that, Temple was demolished and the religion, Temple Judaism, had to end–people lost their religion and wanted to destroy the god and religion that let them down for the last time. Furthermore, let’s get rid of this religion that bred so much horror (The Jewish Civil War, the famine and cannibalism, the defeat at the Battle of Galilee, a Zechariah who was murdered at the Temple, high priests Ananus and Jesus who were murdered and then their buddies were stepped on (desecrating the dead), the demolition of Temple, the end of Temple Judaism, and Jerusalem being converted to Aelia Capitolina
Remember the 1975 Tony best play and 1977 movie Equus: the boy stabbed the horses blind screaming, “…God sees nothing!”
Basically, a passionate believer in an object of worship can try to kill the object of worship. So, we probably have the Jewish input in the Greco-Roman gospels being an attempt to make the Lord’s Supper a program virus of self-destruction: Do this in remembrance of me and God and religion self-destructs at Leviticus 17: 10 and to a lesser extent at Leviticus 16: 29.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
= = =
The revolt affected Judaea’s economic and social environment, as well as, to a lesser extent, the Jewish world at large. Due to the influx of pilgrims and wealth from the Roman and Parthian Empires, which concentrated vast wealth in Jerusalem, the Second Temple had developed into a massive economy by the first century, but the destruction of the city and the temple brought this establishment to an end. Additionally, according to Josephus and other scholars, the Romans confiscated and auctioned off all Jewish land or all land held by Jews who had participated in the insurrection.
Jerusalem was turned into a pagan city called Aelia Capitolina and the Jews were forbidden to live there. They were permitted to enter only on the 9th of Av to mourn their losses in the revolt. Hadrian changed the country’s name from Judea to Syria Palestina.
Robert said
The language of Galatians is very different and Paul’s ‘gospel’ in that context has nothing to do with relating stories about the earthly Jesus. Nor is he speaking about his authority, apostleship, or his gospel in 1 Cor 11. A much better comparison would be the similar language Paul uses here in 1 Cor 11 with the same language he uses in 1 Cor 15.
I don’t dispute the similarity between I Cor. 11 and 15, but I’d note that 1 Cor 15 is very explicitly dealing with the absolute heart of Paul’s gospel. If he is wrong about that then he is wrong about, literally, everything and his preaching is in vain, and indeed, Paul is not just mistaken about some human testimony but misrepresenting *God*.
Porphyry
I’d note that 1 Cor 15 is very explicitly dealing with the absolute heart of Paul’s gospel. If he is wrong about that then he is wrong about, literally, everything and his preaching is in vain, and indeed, Paul is not just mistaken about some human testimony but misrepresenting *God*.
Steefen
Paul is wrong about some things. Remember, Josephus in the second passage after the Testimonium Flavianum, Josephus alluded to Paul taking advantage of (exploiting) the pious. Someone who exploits the pious can be trusted about holy things ? ? ? Certainly not.
His preaching is not totally in vain. Paul has some inspiring passages.
For example, from the Authentic Letter of Paul: Philippians
Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.
Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead,
I press on toward the goal to win the prize of God’s heavenly calling in Christ Jesus.
All of us who are mature should embrace this point of view. And if you think differently about some issue, God will reveal this to you as well.
Nevertheless, we must live up to what we have already attained.
= = =
Yes, Paul does misrepresent God, but to be fair the god of Temple Judaism made Paul a false prophet with Jewish Apocalypticism being a failed hypothesis:
Repent, Prepare Ye the Way of the Lord, Judgement and Tribulation, followed by Glorious Jewish Kingdom headed by a Jewish Son of Man.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)