Corpus-Paul

["Tony Costa" <tmcos AT rogers.com>]

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?

Tony Costa responds: I think the context is clearly metaphorical in 1 Cor.11 
just as much as baptism is a metaphor of one's identification in the death 
and resurrection of Christ. In baptism one is buried with Christ, is this 
literal? I think the answer is obvious.



Russell Booth: "(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.

Tony Costa responds: I would have to disagree. Who said this text was a 
"gloss"? All commentators maintain this is indeed a parenthetical remark by 
Mark. It is found in the oldest mansucripts. Which of the oldest mansucripts 
do not have this reading?

Tony Costa, PhD (cand)
Toronto, Canada