Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] ...And From Blood

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "RUSSELL BOOTH" <russbooth281 AT msn.com>
  • To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] ...And From Blood
  • Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 14:24:17 -0500

Tony Costa wrote: The proscriptions of Acts 15:29 reflect in fact the terms
of the Nohadic covenant which even rabbinic sources believed Gentiles should
observe. The prohibition to eat blood is also part of the Nohadic covenant
(Gen.9:2-4)and thus believed to be binding on all. Note that in Gen.9:2-4
the permission is given to eat all animals. It is only later with the Mosaic
law that certain animals are forbidden only for the Jews (Lev.11).

Russell Booth: I agree that Acts 15:29 is a partial restatement of the
Noahide or Nohadic Covenant. There are seven covenantal proscriptions for
non-Jews. The Jerusalem decree lists only three of them with the prohibition
of blood being repeated (strangled things contain blood). Blood is an
element of the Eucharist as described by Paul and would therefore be
prohibited to non-Jews by this decree unless the wine is not in any way
actually blood. Then the legal violation would be merely symbolic. Where is
the text that states the wine is not actually blood?

1 Cor 11:29 - "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body
eats and drinks judgment upon himself" (RSV) - would seem to preclude the
possibility that participants would not perceive the blood as in some way
actual blood. Such people should refrain from participating according to
Paul. This is an argument by extension, but I think it is valid. It is in
accordance with modern church doctrine - unless I have just not been able to
find any reference to the wine being only wine and not in any way actually
blood.

"(Thus He declared all foods clean.)" is a gloss, not a parenthetical
statement by the author of Mark. It is not found in the oldest manuscripts.
It was added during manuscript transmission by a copyist. Greek manuscripts
contained no punctuation. The key to symbols used in the NASB should be
found somewhere before Genesis 1:1. I don't have that version, but the RSV
and Jerusalem translations use the same notation. This gloss is evidence
that the effort to ascribe the lifting of covenantal proscriptions to Jesus
persisted beyond the original writing of Christian scripture.

I'm not sure why you would think this passage would not support my argument
unless you are asserting the extreme forgetfulness of Peter. If Jesus had
declared all foods clean to his Jewish listeners during his lifetime - and
hosted a meal featuring blood which is prohibited under both covenants - why
would Peter decree a continuation of an obsolete covenant?

Peter's vision of the sheet gave Peter permission to no longer observe the
Mosaic Covenant. (I presume we would agree that Peter was bound by the
Mosaic Covenant.) Why would he not take advantage of his new freedom? Why
would he not even be aware that he had been granted this new freedom if it
had originated with Jesus?

Paul taught that both old covenants were passing away and being combined
into a New Covenant. The Eucharist is given by Paul as a symbol of this
development in history. The body and blood elements can be traced by
historical-critical methods to Paul, but not to Jesus or his followers.

Many thanks for helping me test this proposition,

Russell Booth
Minneapolis, Minnesota
russbooth281 AT msn.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page