toejam wrote:^Good stuff. Thanks for the detailed reply.
I see a lot of your "probably nots" are based on a judgement call on what you expect Tertullian to have said if the verse was non-existent. I suppose I am less confident in our ability to make such judgements. Similarly, while I'm not one to just accept uncritically, as apologists do, that Marcion's omissions were all the result of deletions, that still can't be ruled out, partially or totally. Finally, if 1 Corinthians 11:23-27 goes back to the historical Paul, which, as far as I can see, all indicators are pointing towards, then I think that's a solid jab against the view that Paul didn't have an Earthly Jesus in mind.
Very true. Although, I did update my post with a paragraph on this passage.
It is a "jab." Can't really deny that it is jarring to us, especially in that it so closely matches what we see in the Gospels, especially Luke.
This really just leaves 1 Cor 11:23-27 to be considered. And what I can think about there, is the combined facts of (a) the Mithras-Apollos banquet as the institution of the ceremonial meal of the Mithraists [just god-to-god] and (b) the very founding-myth-esque motif of it, rampant in full-blast mythology (why do we do this? because, the Lord said so--better than 'I said so'), and (c) Doherty's suggestive argument that it is a received revelation by Paul from the Lord. If so then I'm just about ready to think it's a mystical vision-type thing, where Paul 'saw' and 'heard' the Lord and these exact words, which he writes down here. As much as I know that the "Do this in memory of me" doesn't make that much literalistic sense, as what the Lord had said that night (no disciples to hear it -- hence why, then, Paul needs to hear it from the Lord?), I'm not sure the author cared that much, and it could be this kind of visionary thing that was the germ of the developed mythology. Thus, while some have suggested an interpolation here (not just 'mythicists', mind you), I don't believe it's necessary to see it as one to reconcile it with a non-HJ view of the text.
Judgment calls abound, of course. It's sort of the business we're in here. But when several of the specialists study the text in depth, and see the same thing about the text, and not for the same purposes at all (in writing--i.e., they're not trying to find anything in particular like this), it's at least a little reassuring about the quality of the judgment call.
which, as far as I can see, all indicators are pointing towards
J. Magne, "Les paroles sur la coupe," argued for interpolation here, as did Loisy. I don't think they are mythicists. So did spin. I can perhaps translate the Magne article and the Loisy remarks some day (well, Google translate), but here's spin.
1 Cor 11:23-27 is an interpolation which disfigures Paul's discussion about his haber meal at Conrinth to such a degree that a later scribe felt he had to insert an extra "lord" into v.29 to (wrongly) make sense of the "body".
People keep naively citing 1 Cor 11:23-27 without analysing the full passage. Paul is dealing with the Corinthian abuse of the meal, getting drunk and scoffing all the food, leaving others to go hungry. The participation in the community is the essence, so that if you are hungry you should eat at home so that you don't make others miss out. It isn't the ritual eucharist. It is a communal meal, not a sacrament in itself.
Read the text without the interpolation and you will understand the discourse better than the scribe who felt the need to explain whose body he thought it was in v.29. Paul asks, "Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink?" which leads to "Let a man examine himself" and so eat at home, if necessary, rather than eating and driniking "judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly".
17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. 20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the lordly dinner, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you. 28 Let a man examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge rightly the body [of the lord]*. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. 31 But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. 34 If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come.
* Red not in early manuscripts. KJV v.29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
As with other interpolations there has to be some relevance of subject otherwise there would be no hook nor thought of inserting the notion. But it is not part of the argument of Paul.
It is however a citation of a few verses (vv.24-25) from Luke's version of the last supper tells us that it is post-Marcan in origin. It has been departicularized to more clearly represent the sacramental nature of the cited verses. Had the version been around in the letter couldn't the community of Mark have used it as is?
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which 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 He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the 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, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
The bridge that gets back to the original Pauline discourse, v.27, talks of being "guilty of the body and the blood of the lord". This is a rather strange concept, not guilty of a crime or deserving a punishment, but guilty of the body and the blood.... One then has to construct a sense around it so that the passage can get back to the problematic eating and drinking of Paul's Corinthians.
I guess rather than considering the implications of what is actually in the text we'll get "how convenient, an interpolation!" :whistle:
I have always had the suspicion that there was an interpolation within this passage on two grounds:
the details of the night of Jesus's last supper is uncharacteristically detailed; and
while accepting the notion that a sacred meal was a well-attested ritual within Judaism of the time (as seen in the DSS) and Paul can be seen talking about such a meal in 11:17-22 and then again from vv26-32, the intervening passage seems to interrupt that discussion.
If there has been an insertion, then the payload is vv23-26 with v27 as the glue to hold it in place. Verses 20-22 is pointing his reader at the problem and v28 is starting the process of dealing with it.
This approach partially depends on the significance of kurios in v20 and v32 indicating not Jesus, but god.
We can see interest in this passage is ongoing because marginal comments have crept into the passage in various manuscripts. One inserted "unworthy" into v29a, "all those unworthy who..." Though this doesn't effectively change much for us. another change is quite significant, in that it misinterprets the significance of the passage: "all those who eat and drink without discerning the Lord's body..." Paul originally seems to have been talking of the individual's body and their discernment of its state. Paul indicates that these meals are not for hunger: don't eat if it is only because your stomach is empty. The lord's body has nothing to do with Paul's argument about the right approach to the meal. In v28 he says, "examine yourselves", and continues in v32, "if we judge ourselves", ie we have to discern the state of our bodies. This latter marginal insertion has made it into the KJV.
The nitty-gritty of body and blood, referring to Jesus, is confined to 23-27. If this is god's meal rather than christ's, then there is no place for the body and the blood of christ.
If would be interesting to get further into analysing the passage considering the language and manuscript evidence, but I have no desire to get into one of those interminable conflicts about apologetics.
Not terribly much to go on. The textual relationship with gLuke, though, is interesting. It goes one way, or the other. Someone read the other, as there is direct verbal contact here. There is also the argument, also made by spin, that it is strange that the earliest gospel doesn't have this contact (Mark), if it were already known from the letters of Paul. Slightly suggestive, perhaps, but there is always the dictum that "interpolations are like cockroaches," when you see more than 3 or 4, with a possible theme also, it's time perhaps to be ready for slightly suggestive arguments. When we have redaction and multiple hands in the production of a document, all of whose work is represented in the archetype reconstructable from the manuscripts, the manuscript evidence becomes evidence that it was from *one* of those hands (the situation is better when we don't have any strong reasons to suggest interpolations without mss. support).
Still, it's one of the things I think about. Don't know long I've spent thinking just about 1 Cor 11:23-27, wondering if there might be a HJ in there somehow after all. It's to be taken seriously.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown