Corpus-Paul

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

Dear Bob,

Many thanks for your interesting letter, and for your appreciation of my
book RITUAL AND MORALITY.  As you say, you cover a great deal of ground, but
here are few
reactions from me.

1.  I think that circumcision does function as a kind of sacrifice in
Judaism.  I have written about this at length in another book THE SACRED
EXECUTIONER, which I think you would find interesting.  Here I argue that
circumcision was instituted as a substitute for human sacrifice, which
Judaism abolished (the chief narrative of this abolition being the
cancellation of the sacrifice of Isaac).  I take into consideration
particularly the strange story of the circumcision performed by Zipporah,
the wife of Moses (Exodus 4).  However, there is no mystique in Judaism
about the blood of circumcision, which does not figure in any rite, whether
in the Temple or outside it.  There is a legend, however (as pointed out by
Lawrence Hoffman in his COVENANT OF BLOOD, p. 100) that blood of
circumcision played a part in the exemption of the Israelites from the tenth
plague of Egypt.  This legend, however, appears only in one rather late
source, Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer, which also sees redemption from sins as
resulting from the first circumcision, that of Abraham.

2.  There is no etymological connection between OHEL  and MOHEL.  The two
words are derived from entirely different Hebrew roots (see BDB or any other
dictionary of Biblical Hebrew).

3.  Menstrual blood is regarded in OT as polluting, yet there are
indications, both in OT and Talmud, that it has aspects of holiness (see my
remarks on the sacrifice of the Red Cow - whose ashes, mixed with water are
called MEI NIDDAH, which means literally 'water of menstruation';  this
water is the chief instrument of purification).  Pollution is quite often an
ambivalent concept.

4.  I am glad you agree with me that Paul in 1 Cor. 11 is saying that he
received his information about the Eucharist directly from the heavenly
Christ, not from tradition. (There has been much argument about the correct
translation of his words on this.)  Paul's account of the institution of the
Eucharist at the Last Supper is the earliest testimony to this.  In my
opinion, the accounts given in the Synoptic Gospels are derived from Paul's
account, not from independent testimony.  The Synoptic Gospels reproduce
Paul's account in very contradictory ways (see my PAUL AND HELLENISM).
John's Gospel gives a long account of the Last Supper but omits all mention
of any Eucharistic words or institution.  In my opinion, the Last Supper did
take place, but Jesus did not say any Eucharistic words at it, though he did
have other important things to say at this climactic moment.  Paul's vision
of the Last Supper was just that - a vision.  I am not denying that Paul had
a visionary experience, but modern psychology has much to teach about such
experiences.

5.  I think that the evidence is strong that the Jerusalem Church did not
practise the Eucharist.

With all good wishes,

Hyam






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


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob MacDonald" <bobmacdonald AT shaw.ca>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 7:54 AM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: The blood of the covenant


> 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
>
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')