Corpus-Paul

["TROELS HANSEN" <tkmh AT get2net.dk>]

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