Corpus-Paul

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

Dear Troels Hansen,

You wrote:

>(1First, 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' Ch 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.)<

You appear to have consulted dictionaries of the Bible, but not any
dictionary of post-biblical Hebrew.  If you consult, say, Jastrow's
dictionary of post-biblical Hebrew, you will find that the word for 'body'
is GUF, which is what we are concerned with at the time of Jesus.  In
Aramaic, we find the word GUFA, with the same meaning of 'body'.  Both words
are very common in rabbinic literature.  The translation of either of these
two words into Greek would be SOMA, not SARX.  Thus Ben-Chorin's attempt to
relate the expression SOMA to the common post-biblical expression BASAR
VE-DAM fails, since the Greek for this is SARX KAI HAIMA.
I am inclined to agree that Paul read the Bible in Greek, but this is not
relevant to the present topic.

Regards,

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


----- Original Message -----
From: "TROELS HANSEN" <tkmh AT get2net.dk>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 9:53 AM
Subject: [corpus-paul] More blood/Maccoby


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.

(1First, 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' Ch 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



---
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')