Robert said
Apologies for temporarily abandoning this thread. I’m home for a few days and then on the road again. Now that my busy time of year has started, I’m not sure how much in depth stuff I’ll be able to post for a while.
Welcome back, and safe travels on your way out and back again.
Robert said
I’m still only part-way through the extant Greek syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus and I haven’t gotten back to it in the past week or so. He is sometimes used in support of the traditional, Lutheran objective genitive reading of πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis xristou), but I’m not yet ready to pronounce upon Apollonius’ views of the genitive. In the meantime, I did come across ** you do not have permission to see this link ** by Douglas A Campbell, a major Pauline scholar, who refutes this appeal to Apollonius.
I for one will be curious to hear where you come down on the Apollonius genitive issue. In the interim, DA Campbell will have to fill the gap. Ha. Thanks for the reading rec.
Robert said
In general I don’t think the genitive should always be too precisely defined or always consistently described in every use of this particular phrase of Paul as always subjective or always objective. I have sometimes tended to think of the more general genitive of origin as perhaps being able to explain both nuances. In other words, when Paul speaks of ‘the righteous of God being revealed from faith into faith’ (Rom 1,17), he is thinking globally of our response to the faithfulness and righteousness of God as shown already by the faithfulness of Abraham, of Christ, and eventually by our own faithfulness, in imitation of the faithfulness of Abraham, of Christ, of Paul, and of other churches. The faith of Christ, for Paul, is the new messianic faith that originated with Jesus the Christ, and which we are now drawn into, even gentiles. This type of messianic faith and faithfulness originated with Christ, but we are to participate in it. I’m certainly not sure that this works in ever passage, and sometimes the nuance of an objective interpretation of the genitive seems predominant, while in other passages the subjective nuance may be more apparent. Both Jews and gentiles who have faith in Christ and are faithful to him can only do so in response to the faithfulness of Christ.
So, to make sure I have your view right in my head: Paul’s dominant usage would be the (rough equivalent of) generic genitive (capturing a more global/expansive extension packed into the genitive), with certain cases sometimes skewing towards the (modern distinction of) objective and others sometimes towards the subjective, depending on context. That roughly accurate?
Robert said
I don’t know that the word order specifically would have been operative, perhaps just merely the fact that an adjectival sense of the Hebrew construct syntax, when translated in Jewish Greek with a genitive construction might have increased the frequency in which Jewish Greek speakers, familiar with the Greek translation of their scriptures, would have been likely to imitate or otherwise use this type of genitive construction when speaking or writing in Greek.
Ah. More that, in Hebrew there is an adjectival genitive, and that sense may have infiltrated the Septuagint-esque Greek. Got it, thank you.
Robert said
It’s certainly true that the verb ‘to be’ would not be needed in a retro-translation of the so-called ‘words of institution’ into Aramaic or Hebrew. That too might discourage us from trying to debate various possible meanings of ‘to be’ in translations into English or other languages. I would stop short of saying that this necessitates a symbolic interpretation since the meaning of ‘to be’ needs to be supplied in English or other languages when translating obviously nonsymbolic Hebrew or Aramaic.
To make sure I understand this, I need to parse it a bit – thanks for the patience.
If one wanted to make a metaphor in Aramaic – say, “This bread is [like] my body” – would said metaphor use a verb?
Robert said
No, but one could use the preposition כ to make a metaphorical comparison explicit.
Ah, ok – but a (legitimate) metaphor could still take no verb (This bread [is [like]] my body)? As could a literal identity/equation (This bread [is] my lunch)?
If that is correct, the absence of verb would seem to closely track the English verb “is” (obviously, since that’s what translators pick…) in the current context – which would be suggestive that the Aramaic lack of verb would admit roughly the same amount of metaphorical/literal vagueness as English’s “is”. Which wouldn’t generate any further explanatory power for the (hypothetical) underlying Aramaic being potentially more ambiguous (or figurative) in nature than the Greek or English. Which would in turn serve to shut down that line of thought I was exploring… Bummer.
Robert said
The Syriac is not as explicitly metaphorical as this, but they do introduce the verb ‘broken’ into the words of institution in Paul and elsewhere, so just as Jesus ‘broke’ the bread, he also presents the bread as his ‘broken’ body. This is presumably built upon the words of institution in Mark, where Jesus says that his blood, like the wine, is being ‘poured out’ (ἐκχύννω). To me that has more of the character of the meal being a symbolic event illustrating Jesus coming death. I’m not saying that Jesus used these words, but I think it may indicate that the earliest translation of the Greek into Syriac was aware of this symbolic sense even ‘though they also provided something comparable to the Greek verb ‘to be’.
I like the potential for having evidence of a figurative interpretation in the (later) Syriac, even after it was back-sprinkled with the Markan language. Roughly when in time was the Syriac translation? I ask to determine how much time/space there was for it leave the initial Jewish milieu and to hit the gentile ear (which is not pro-cannibalism, but would surely be less against an equation, symbolic or otherwise, of food stuffs to the savior’s corporeality than the initial Jewish strata) and yet still be desired to bend toward the figurative.
Robert said
Yes, the symbolic interpretation is still most likely, in my opinion, even without the preposition. The Old Syriac translation of the gospels probably dates to the very early 2nd century, perhaps the first decade. We only have copies of Paul in Syriac in a standardized version known as the Peshitta, which was standardized sometime in the 4th/5th century, but this would be a revision and standardization of previously existing translations probably also dating back to the 2nd century.
That would seem (to me at least) to suggest that, even substantially removed in time (decades) from the initial Jewish milieu, the predominantly gentile population preferred a figurative / symbolic (rather than equation) interpretation, to such an extent that it tampered with the text to ensure the figurativism/symbolism.
This is very interesting indeed – and it’s been fun trip to get here…
Robert said
fefferdan said
I’m not convinced. To me it seems to be splitting hairs. I’m not fluent in Greek though, so I’d be interested why you see this is convincing. ...
Of course, aside from Hurtado’s point about the nuances that can be derived from the prepositions and cases used by Paul, the more fundamental and substantive argument remains the technical language of receiving and passing on human tradition (παραδίδωμι/παραλαμβάνω) that Paul uses here (and in 15,3). Hans Conzelmann and Joseph Fitzmyer both emphasize this in their Herneneia and Anchor-Yale commentaries on 1 Corinthians. Conzelmann goes into greater detail about the Hebrew, hellenistic Jewish, and pagan Greek use of this terminology with plenty of references that show this interpretation is the dominant interpretation among scholars. Even Lietzmann, who emphasizes the more spiritual meaning of the Lord’s supper that Paul derives from his direct experience of the Lord, nonetheless affirms that Paul is speaking of that which he has received through church tradition.
Steefen
Paul did not get 1 Cor, 11:23-25 from church tradition.
James Tabor
** you do not have permission to see this link **
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is [broken] for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:23-25).
The precise verbal similarities between these two accounts are quite remarkable considering that Paul’s version was written at least twenty years earlier than Mark’s. Where would Paul have gotten such a detailed description of what Jesus had said on the night he was betrayed? The common assumption has been that this core tradition, so central to the original Jesus movement, had circulated orally for decades in the various Christian communities. Paul could have received it directly from Peter or James, on his first visit to Jerusalem around A.D. 40, or learned it from the Christian congregation in Antioch, where, according to the book of Acts, he first established himself (Acts 11:25).
What Paul plainly says is easy to overlook: “For I received from the Lord what I handed on to you.” His language is clear and unequivocal. He is not saying, “I received it from one of the apostles, and thus indirectly it came from the Lord,” or “I learned it in Antioch, but they had gotten it by tradition from the Lord.” Paul uses precisely the same language to defend the revelation of his Gospel and how it came to him. He says he did not receive it from any man, nor was he taught it, but swears with an oath, “I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-12). This means that what Paul passes on here regarding the Lord’s Supper, including the words of Jesus over the bread and the wine, comes to us from Paul and Paul alone!
Robert said
Steefen, it would be better for you to learn the underlying Greek involved before jumping to conclusions.
We agree to disagree.
Your reply is not persuasive to me and it does not defeat what James Tabor put forth. The statement of James Tabor still stands.
Second, orthodox Jews contemporary to gospel times would have found the Last Supper objectionable, especially as Passover and Yom Kippur were celebrated at the Temple before AD 70. There was no Jerusalem Church tradition of recreating the Last Supper of Jesus.
Now, maybe over in the cult of Julius Caesar of the religious practices concerning Julius Caesar combined with the imperial cult of Augustus Caesar, Julius Caesar’s last supper was re-enacted with one who betrayed him present at that last supper.
Robert said
Steefen said
We agree to disagree.
Your reply is not persuasive to me …
Of course not. As long as you remain completely ignorant of the Greek, you cannot even begin to form an informed opinion let alone be persuaded of anything wothwhile regarding the Greek text.
SteefenProf Tabor saidThe precise verbal similarities between these two accounts are quite remarkable considering that Paul’s version was written at least twenty years earlier than Mark’s.
If you look at the underlying Greek, you will see that the similarities are not nearly as precise as you think (as I’ve mentioned before).
Paul uses precisely the same language to defend the revelation of his Gospel and how it came to him.
This is not true,
Steefen, Prof. Tabor, but if you do not look at the underlying Greek you cannot make an accurate statement about the precise language. Your choice. Choose to be informed or make ill-informed statements out of complete ignorance.
what? no translators have translated correctly? no scholars, such as Prof. Tabor have a correct English translation?
I disagree.
you are not persuasive. u have not even put forward a diff translation of (** you do not have permission to see this link **)
you may not find Tabor persuasive.
we agree to disagree.
Robert said
If you were able to read the Greek, Steefen, you would not need to rely upon translations. Its pointless for you to speak of ‘remarkable verbal similarities’ or ‘precisely the same language’ since you are not even able to read the actual language. Your statements are based on nothing more than ignorance. Go back to school if you want to become able to speak intelligently about these matters.
You cannot hang with Dr. Tabor. Your opinion has no credibility.
And more to the point. You cannot articulate the benefit of your ability to translate Greek into English.
Where is your translation of (** you do not have permission to see this link **) since it is so different from what Professor Tabor is using?
The goal of this part of the website is not to see who can translate Greek. We are having discussions in English.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)