Corpus-Paul

["Hyam Maccoby" <h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk>]

> How's
this for a possibility? --
   Luke did not know Paul's letters, but he did know
Paul's preaching.  >

A difficulty for this theory is that it does not account for the existence
of a eucharistic element in the accounts of the Last Supper given by Mark
and Matthew.  The authors of these Gospels are unlikely to have met Paul.
    Another possible theory, however, is that Paul (having received the
eucharistic narrative in a vision of Jesus, as he states in 1 Cor. 11:23a)
embodied it in a liturgical form which circulated in the Gentile Christian
Church, and thus reached all three Gospel-writers.
    Jeremias argued that Paul's formulation contained a liturgical element;
but he argued (wrongly in my opinion) that Paul's account and all three
Synoptic versions were derived from a common liturgical source and that the
eucharistic words derive ultimately from Jesus.  If there was a liturgical
source, it was probably composed by Paul, following his vision.

  The most likely theory, however, remains that all three Synoptic accounts
derived their  Eucharistic aspect directly from 1. Cor. 11, building it in
different ways into their narrative.

Hyam Maccoby

Dr. Hyam Maccoby
Research Professor
Centre for Jewish Studies
University of Leeds
Leeds.LS2
Direct lines: tel. +44 (0)113 268 1972
                   fax +44 (0)113 225 9927
e-mail: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
               hyam.maccoby AT btopenworld.com

----- Original Message -----
From: <stephen.finlan AT durham.ac.uk>
To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2003 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Did Luke know Paul's letters?


> I tend to think that verses 19b and 20 (the "body given"
> and "covenant in my blood" verses) were added later,
> patterned after 1 Cor 11:24-25.  Of course, this is
> the view of Hort, Ehrmann, and others.
>
> VV. 19b-20 are missing from all the oldest Latin and
> Syriac, and some of the Bohairic mss., and also from
> the oldest Western Greek ms. [D].  Luke's account
> hangs together literarily without them, being
> focused on his drinking again with them when the
> kingdom of God comes, and on the fact that his
> betrayer is at the table with them.
>
> Now, I want to go back to the main subject.  How's
> this for a possibility? --
>    Luke did not know Paul's letters, but he did know
> Paul's preaching.  This is shown by the fact that the
> only place in Acts where there is mention of
> redemption in blood, the words are uttered by Paul,
> when he says God obtained the chruch with the blood of
> his own Son (20:28), which IS distinctly Pauline,
> to my ear.
>
> "Obtained" (PERIEPOIHSATO) is a redemption/purchase word,
> like (EX)AGORAZW and other words Paul uses (Gal 3:13,
> etc), and "blood" summons up both the martyr image
> and the sacrifice image.
>
>
> Stephen Finlan
> University of Durham
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul