Robert said
… unless he did.

There’s the rub. We can only go so far in being able to predict what someone would or should have done based on our understanding of their background and context. 

Agree.  It’s also often very hard to understand people within our own backgrounds and contexts.

Robert said

In the end, we are left with texts and our best attempts to reconstruct their historical context.  That’s why, for me, the interpretation texts can be a subject of relatively disciplined study, but Leben Jesu Forschung (Life of Jesus Research) is more of a fun hobby to be discussed on Internet forums.  

But it is fun, ain’t it?

Robert said

I think this works in the Greek or in any underlying Aramaic, not because of any special meaning or connotation of the Greek.

Excellent.

I did not mean to imply that the Greek itself had some special quality;  only that the Greek verb, like the English equivalent, would also admit of a figurative connotation (making sure I’m not trying to shoehorn the nuances of English’s “to be” into Koine where it doesn’t apply).  That it would also work for Aramaic is a double bonus (and where one would want to go next).

Robert said

I think this is implicit in what we were already saying about the meal being understood as a symbolic participation in the divine life of the resurrected Christ for Paul or possibly earlier as a prophetic gesture by Jesus referring to his death.  

My apologies (again for the tardiness of thought) – it may have been implicit in how you were thinking about it in those two contexts of the thought experiments, but it was not so in the way I was interpreting those self-same contexts.  

This figurative mode of interpretation is consistent with both (a) your words around these contexts as well as (b) your perspective of not being as bugged by the taboo aspect – but it would be (and was) inconsistent with the way I was previously seeing it.  In my mind, your words were also consistent with “they looked at it as a symbolic consumption” (which is the way I was reading what you were saying, clearly wrongly in retrospect).  In this (new to me) figurative reading, it would *not* be saying this bread/wine is symbolically Jesus’s body/blood, but more along the lines of the bread/wine are reminiscent images to call one’s attention to Jesus’s body/blood, to be reminders (not as symbolic consumption items).  I think you probably were thinking that, and wondering why I was so hung up on the taboo. But I was not thinking of it as only reminiscent imagery, but as symbolic consumption, which is why I was so in the thrall of the taboo problem.

I’m not sure I’m doing a great job of explaining the distinction…  Be that as it may, it’s a subtle modal shift that seemingly has a huge impact on whether taboo even comes into play (if this figurative mode is correct, the taboo would melt away).  And it’s one that I wasn’t grasping until now.  Better late than never, I guess.  Thanks for the patience.

Robert said

Suffice it to say that for Paul the symbolism of the Eucharist, and likewise Baptism, only have value insofar as they allow his communities to spiritually participate in the death and resurrection of the Messiah. In this way, faith in Christ is also based on the faithfulness of Christ. Thus it has nothing to do even with symbolic cannibalism or vampires, but it has everything to do with being joined with Christ and continuing to partake in communal meals with him. 

Yeah, though I hate that the detachment from taboo turns on what the definition of “is” is.  Understood and agreed on Paul.  I think about it in three concentric circles:

– Paul as the outer circle

– Peter as the middle circle

– Jesus as the inner circle 

A consumption taboo would make it unlikely any of the three would invent it, but seemingly the issue with the taboo would be worse the nearer one moves towards the center of the concentric circles.  Case in point, we have direct textual evidence that it’s okay with the outer ring (Paul).

But if one sidesteps the taboo entirely, it opens up the probabilities that one of the three (though not limited only to them) could have generated it.  

Taking stock, to date we’ve argued:

A) Paul

– He didn’t invent it

– He says himself he received it

– It would be nuts to make it up if touching Petrine influenced communities or Peter himself

B) Peter

– Peter’s fingerprints are likely on it

– It is unlikely he would invent it out of whole cloth. Previously I had argued this was due to the taboo – in a figurative “to be” world, that no longer holds.  However, he is circulating (and the tradition is) in communities that presumably had other insiders who could have called foul

– It is likely he would have come to it by trying to make sense of something Jesus said or did

– It may also be that there was a strong need to show Jesus foresaw the events that immediately followed

C) Jesus

– He probably didn’t say this exactly (for the reasons you state above)

– He likely did or said something that could (in the best possible sense) be conflated into this after the fact

So, after taking stock, we’re roughly at the stage of what was said or done that would get Peter to this conflated recollection.  Hence your positing of potential for a prophetic gesture as well as themes of a Godly life being the food and drink of those who aim for the Kingdom.  I’ve finally now arrived at this stage alongside you, so I hope to help bat this about.

Two questions:  

– Are there other key themes that come to mind from Jesus’s ministry that could also bear on the conflation?

– Would you unpack the faith/faithfulness of Christ point above?  I’m not grasping fully what you are meaning to convey.  And we’ve gone this far having sidestepped this particular debate, so probably time to grapple with it…

Robert said

Still I understand how it could be confused with taboo practices by some, thus for example by some former disciples in John’s setting. 

Yep – I can attest personally that it’s pretty easy to do, if “is” connotes a non-figurative sense.  And I’m a 21st century gentile!

What’s the story here (my naïveté) with taboo in John’s setting?  

Robert said

This is essentially aligned with Jesus possibly using a prophetic gesture to symbolize his imminent death but I would not imagine that he also had a singular resurrection in mind, ‘though as a good apocalyptic Jew he would have presumably believed in some kind of general resurrection of the dead and, an imminent final judgment, and a messianic banquet in the Kingdom of God. 

How would you envision a prophetic  scene would have gone down, if one wanted to reenact the speech?  Something like:  “Things are getting pretty dire.  My body, like this bread, may be broken.  My blood may be spilled like wine.  If that comes to pass, remember tonight as our last meal together and that, no matter what occurs, one must always live for the Kingdom.  Living for the Kingdom is our food and our drink.”

I know it’s all speculation…  But there seemingly is a limited range of things that could be said/done that would (a) fit the context and (b) result in what we have in 1 Cor.

Robert said

I used to assume this as the more likely extreme case, but I no longer think this should necessarily be assumed. Still, if EP Sanders has specific arguments for this, I’m always willing to revert.

Would that he unpacked it…

“The second confrontation occurred in the church in Antioch, which was Paul’s home base. The church there consisted of both Jewish and Gentile members, who were accustomed to eating together, probably commemorating the Lord’s last supper.”

— Paul: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions Book 42) by E. P. Sanders

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Robert said

If we only had Paul’s letter to the Romans, I’d be more inclined to accept this, but he’s pretty damn angry in his letter to his own converts in Galatians.

Given I lack the ability to quote the entirety of Paul’s oeuvre at will, I’m having to rely on how Sanders put it, with his Pauline verse citations.  I’m not intending to pit you against EP Sanders – I just cannot pull together the citations unaided.

“Let us suppose that one of Paul’s converts spoke to him as follows:

‘Paul, I have long been attracted to the Jewish way of life, and I responded to your preaching because I was persuaded that Jesus was indeed the promised Anointed One of Israel. Now that I have been baptized and have become a member of the body of Christ, I know that I am truly a descendant of Abraham. I am now motivated, though, to complete my commitment to the God of Israel by becoming an Israelite, and I wish to undergo circumcision and to accept the major points of Jewish law. Since you are Jewish, this would make me also a closer imitator of you, who are my father in the faith.’

Paul, I imagine, would have replied,

‘This is not in any way a necessary step. God intends to bring Gentiles to salvation precisely as Gentiles. Further, the time is short, and I would have everyone remain in the same state. There is no point in becoming Jewish, any more than in divorcing or marrying. None of these things matters. However, if you wish circumcision, it does you no harm, except for the minor and temporary pain, and I see no objection to your following your own desire. Just be sure that you are circumcised to the glory of the Lord, not to gratify those who are “of the flesh”.’

This imaginary reply draws on Galatians 5: 6; 6: 15; 1 Corinthians 7: 19; and Romans 14.”

— Paul: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions Book 42) by E. P. Sanders

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Robert said

Always possible, but that can also be a way to substitute one’s own ideas for Paul’s unexpressed ideas.

Entirely fair.  I just found the point interesting, in the context of how hard it is to tease out Paul’s thoughts in an internally consistent manner (which I maintain he could do if we had him in a room with us).

Robert said

Neither ‘solution’ works perfectly everywhere and in many places a more organic whole is at least implied. Luckily, ancient Greek grammarians provide the original solution that predates by a couple of millennia our modern attempts to over-define partial solutions. The very faith that originates with Jesus inspires every Christian’s faith in Christ. 

There’s a solution based solely on the ancient Greek grammarians?  Man, I’d  have loved to know that before getting sucked into an NT Wright and LT Johnson vortex…

Any good reading you’d point me to? [Since it obviously won’t be on audiobook…]

Robert said 

I’m just referring to what I said above about the Johannine bread-of-life discourse (cf Post # 24). 

Was that really 171 posts ago?…  I don’t know whether to be proud or embarrassed about that.

So, do you mean that the source/evangelist/redactor of John felt that the taboo was palpable enough to relocate this portion of the story to another part of the gospel narrative and reword it in a way that doesn’t run the risk of equating the symbolic table stuffs with aspects of Jesus’s corporeality, which would then be consumed?  Or, is what you mean, that some of his disciples in John’s setting believed Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and that’s (obviously) taboo?  I’m still a bit unclear as to how to interpret this one sentence about confusion, taboo and John’s setting:

“Still I understand how it could be confused with taboo practices by some, thus for example by some former disciples in John’s setting.”