Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - More blood/Maccoby

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "TROELS HANSEN" <tkmh AT get2net.dk>
  • To: "corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: More blood/Maccoby
  • Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 10:53:23 +0200


Aarhus, Denmark, 2. September 2002



Dear Sirs - especially Dr.Hyam Maccoby!


Thank you for your answer! Now, you are of course quite right in pointing out
that "Ben-Chorin's theory depends on identifying Jesus' alleged phrase at the
Last Supper about his 'body and blood' with the Hebrew expression 'flesh and
blood' (BASAR VE-DAM)." This identifying involves some speculation - not to
say 'guesswork' - on our behalf, but where I may be ignorant you seem to me
to take matters too lightly.

First, you say that the "Hebrew for body is GUF." That is only partially
true. There is no such word as GUF in Hebrew, but there is another word,
GUFH, which means 'corpse' (1Ch 10,12 - its only occurrence according to
Gesenius-Buhl - in Greek: SWMA) and there is the word GUJH, that may mean
'corpse' (Jdg 14,8;9; 1Sam 31,10;12; Psa 110,6; Nah 3,3 - Greek: PTWMA and
SWMA) but also means '(living) bodies' (Gen 47,18; Neh 9,37; Eze 1,11;23; Dan
10,6 - Greek: SWMA). And though it is true that "there is no such expression
in Hebrew as GUF VE-DAM", I don't see the relevance of the Pauline usage of
SARX and SWMA. Now, it may be a strange quirk of mine, but I doubt that Paul
read his OT in Hebrew - although he may have spoken that language. He used
the Greek Septuagint instead which may be seen from his usage of DIAQHKH in
Gal 3,15 where that word as in Heb 9,15 must mean 'last will', something that
the Hebrew 'BRYT' couldn't possibly mean. (See Strack-Billerbeck to that
verse.)
Secondly, - forgive me for not having read your book but I find it very, very
hard to believe that Paul could have been the originator of anything as new
as the Eucharistic words. On the contrary, he seems to me to be very, very
cautious that anything he says should be in accordance with the OT. He may
very well have been the originator of new interpretations of the OT - and
indeed he must have been - but the idea of his being the originator of
anything not in accordance with his OT must be rejected. And the drinking of
blood is not in accordance with the OT. So though Ben-Chorin might not have
been right in his "Verwörtlichung-theory", he is surely right when writing
that "das Trinken des Blutes ist eine Vorstellung, die in das Judentum Jesu
nicht integrierbar scheint, da der Blutgenuss im Judentum streng verpönt ist
(Gen 9,4; Lev 3,17; 17,10-11; Deut 12,16 u. 23; Apg 15,20 u. 29)" which
leaves us with speculations and guesswork.
Now, the language of Our Lord was Aramaic, not Greek, and so anything He
might have said on the evening of The Last Supper is known - if at all -
through translation. And so my question still stands - even if answering it
might mean guesswork: Could Ben-Chorin be right?


Yours
Troels Hansen
tkmh AT get2net.dk






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page