Corpus-Paul

[Bob MacDonald <bobmacdonald AT shaw.ca>]

Dear Hyam,

Thank you for the response. I wondered whether to post this on list of off.
It almost seems like an article in process. It spans subjects on several
lists and I hope to pursue it further. It also links several threads from
the past few weeks. Finally I post it here - hoping it is not too long.

It is clear that we disagree on some issues. I am fine with this. In Ritual
(1999), I am most impressed as you reveal Talmudic thought. How deep you
take us into the love of the tradition. In Mythmakers (1986), I am not so
happy, because the result of the thesis leaves me with a shaky foundation
for faith. I think however that all the evidence is not yet in.

You wrote: >>I can only point out that the drinking of any kind of blood and
especially the blood of a sacrifice is forbidden in Jewish law. The basic
text is Genesis 9:4 <<

I agree with you on this. It is very clear from many Torah texts. One
wonders why would there have been so many instructions not to do it. There
must have been strong temptations to do it - much as there were temptations
recorded throughout Torah and the history chronicles that Israel, or her
kings at least, often wanted to be like the other nations and follow their
religious practices.

Though Paul never claims to be Pharisee (and I agree with you that the
Pharisees get poor press if the texts are read without the acceptance of
intense intra-Jewish dialogue), he does say he was strict with himself and
followed this pattern of life. As such, I expect he was thoroughly familiar,
whether trained in Jerusalem or not, with the purity issues that you examine
so clearly in Ritual. So your Rabbinic interpretations, which you suppose
were current in the first century though documented in later ones (p 27),
are an insight into some of the thoughts of that time.

Texts sometimes do not communicate tone of voice well. The gospel
anti-Pharisee texts are a particular problem. But an intense dialogue can be
carried on with respect (and sometimes we get carried away by our rhetoric
too). I will read Mythmakers with this in mind. I hope what I write can also
be read this way.

In 1 Corinthians 10, 11 and gospel parallels, the chapters on drinking the
blood of the covenant, sacramentally, I read a tone of enormous tenderness
in Paul's description, though coupled with warnings also. The rite of the
Eucharist that has arisen is a rite of love. The blood of the covenant is
not just the blood of the sacrifice that was thrown against the altar and
accumulated below it, but is even more suitably associated with the blood of
circumcision. The deutero-Pauline epistle of Colossians (2:11) makes this
connection explicitly as does the earlier cited Talmudic reference (Mishna
Nedarim 3:11 - thanks to Mark for the reference). As Don Garlington pointed
out in an earlier post, this is a remarkable connection. (You, Hyam, also
are correct, I think, in seeing the effrontery implied in John's gospel,
though a discussion here perhaps belongs on the Johanine list.)

I have asked on the Biblical Studies list but have yet no reply on the
connections between tent ('ohel) impurity and the mohel from an etymological
point of view. You do not deal with the symbolic use of 'ohel as tent and
tabernacle in both TNK and NT. It seems to me there is a strong possible
connection in the covering of impurity and the concept of the body (tent) of
Christ (even granted the Rabbinic disallowing of the human body as
covering). I wonder if the overshadowing of the Spirit is connected also.

Again, you wrote

>>I do not believe that Jesus ever announced a doctrine of salvation through
drinking his blood, whether literally or metaphorically.

We have the testimony of the gospels, of course. One might discount this if
one believes that the only source is Paul. What could Jesus have meant if he
did say this in the context of a Paschal meal? What tone would he have said
it with? The question is out of scope for this list.

But in scope is what could Paul have meant when he said "I delivered to you
what I received from the Lord" (1 Corinthians 11:23)? In normal times and
ways, he could not have received anything 'from the Lord' directly - for by
our understanding they did not meet in the flesh (though this is not
impossible since their lives overlapped perhaps by as much as 25 years). I
assume he means the risen Lord Jesus - and as a non-believer, I could not
accept this as evidence. As a believer, I could, but it would not have
common currency with non-believers and so is not open to scholarly inquiry.
As a scholar, I would prefer more evidence of the origins and growth of the
rite. But all this aside, 'receiving from the Lord' has common currency
within Israel, for Paul puts himself into the tradition of the prophets of
Israel who received the word of the Lord and proclaimed it. What was their
means of reception? Is Paul legitimate in putting himself forth as prophet?
The proof is (I think out loud) in the eating. Taste and see that the Lord
is good... (Psalm 34).

I don't mean this as a joke - If Paul had not been numerically successful,
we would not be studying his thoughts 1950 years later. Was he a prophet? If
so, we can in the tradition of Israel take him seriously. I take him
seriously and as some would say - religiously - because for me his
instruction (Torah) has brought me life. I do not mean this purely as
confessional - all life could have also a 100% human explanation (at least
as far as we are able). Such is the character of the divine - if we once had
God under our control as it were, it would not be God.

As it is we have Paul's statement: God was in Christ reconciling the world
to himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). I almost wonder with a stretch whether
there is an image of God as mohel. This is a new creation of all in Christ
(2 Corinthians 5:17), the Spirit overshadowing ('ohel) and purifying. (see
for example the remarkable image by Andrea del Castagno
http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/a/andrea/castagno/3_1450s/05trinit.jpg)

(I am getting carried away - correct me or let me fall as you will - ...)
But could this not be an allusion to the impossibility of creation without
circumcision - the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world?


respectfully,

Bob

mailto::BobMacDonald AT shaw.ca
+ + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

Catch the foxes for us,
   the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
for our vineyards are in flower.   (Song 2.15)
http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca