Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Paul and John on the Eucharist

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: Brian Trafford To: Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:39 PM Subject: [XTalk] Paul and John on
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Brian Trafford" <bj_traff@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:39 PM
      Subject: [XTalk] Paul and John on the Eucharist


      > --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@h...> wrote:
      > > Just as Jewish literary styles and genres, such as midrash and
      > >pesher, are misunderstood in gentile contexts...keeping in mind that
      > >I am the "follow the Aramaic" guy.....so also is the Aramaic idiom.
      > >Idiom is a cultural nuance to language which rarely crosses culrural
      > >barriers. In 1st century Aramaic "lachma" (bread) and "hamara"
      > >(wine) are idioms for teaching. Drinking and eating, in Aramaic, are
      > >idioms for learning from a teacher whose teachings are "bread and
      > >wine." This imagery abounds in Jesus'
      > >sayings with such phrases as:
      > >
      > > Feed my sheep
      > > I am the bread of life
      > >What goes in the mouth (whet you are taught) does not defile but
      > >what comes out of the mouth (what you teach) can defile you.
      > >Give us the bread (instruction) we need day to day (the Lord's
      > Prayer)
      > >It is not meet to take the children's (Jews) bread (teachings) and
      > >cast it to the dogs (gentiles).
      >
      > Hi Jack
      >
      > Thanks for the contribution, but I do wonder, as your argument
      > appears to depend upon there being a Aramaic source for each of these
      > sayings (in fact, that they probably go back to the historical Jesus
      > himself), are you suggesting that there was an Aramaic source for all
      > of these sayings, as well as for the Gospels themselves (especially
      > for John)?

      I am suggesting that genuine Yeshuine material did indeed have an Aramaic
      source...the vox Iesu..and subsequent oral and written anthologia. In fact,
      I consider Aramaic retroversion a valuable tool that has been unexcusably
      neglected in HJ research because of bias due to academic overinvestment in
      Greek. The hagiographers used "Jesus said.." material that was either in
      Greek translation (Matthew) or translated by the author himself(Luke). The
      canonical gospels and New Testament works were written in Greek for Greek
      speaking audiences and claims for "Hebrew" or "Aramaic originals" are, IMO,
      specious, but there were Aramaic source materials, both oral and written or
      in translation. An obvious Aramaic stratum to a "Jesus said.." however,
      does not prove that the saying is genuine to the HJ. Retroversion needs to
      be used along with the toolkit for determining possible authenticity. Such
      toolkit and its methodologies has been discussed by every serious member of
      this list with contributions in our seminars by Crossan or online by Mahlon
      Smith. As for 4G, I am convinced that a much smaller Aramaic "proto-John"
      did exist and was used, in Greek translation, as a "skeleton" upon which the
      larger Greek work was fleshed, even prior to extensive redaction, glossing,
      editing and chapter shuffling.

      >
      > Moreover, does your argument not also suggest that the evangelists
      > themselves did not understand the nature, and purpose, of these
      > Aramaisms?

      No..my argument suggests that latter Gentile Christiians did not...I am also
      leaning toward the Matthean scribe being Greek speaking without any
      competence at all in Hebrew OR Aramaic.

      >
      > >In Matthew 16:11 the "leaven" of the Pharisees and Sadducees
      > >pollutes the "bread" (teaching).
      > >And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to
      > >me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never
      > >thirst.
      >
      > This argument depends upon a level of harmonization (or even
      > dependence) between John and Matthew that is tenuous at best.

      No..no harmonization or dependence is necessary to see the idiom used in
      different contexts.

      >
      > > Jesus' body/bread and blood/wine are his teachings.
      >
      > Again, this statement seems to depend upon both harmonization of the
      > Gospels, and a belief that they come from original Aramaic sayings.

      If they were from the lips of Jesus, they were Aramaic.

      > Is that your contention here, and if so, why do you think that the
      > evangelists and Paul did not seem to understand the function of these
      > Aramaisms (or at least, explain them more clearly to their
      > Hellenistic readers)?

      Paul was not interested in what Jesus said but the Aramaic speaking Luke
      does explain idiom more cllearly to his Hellenistic audience. It is Luke
      who clarifies the Aramaic debt/sin idiom for xowbyn/OFEILH where Matthew
      does not.

      >
      > Thanks again Jack, as I find your comments to be very interesting,
      > and would like to see you expand on them further.

      Any specific direction?

      Jack
    • Brian Trafford
      ... Would this skeleton source include the Bread of Life sayings found in John 6? ... I am not sure that I am following you yet. Did the authors of the
      Message 2 of 3 , Aug 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@h...> wrote:
        > As for 4G, I am convinced that a much smaller Aramaic "proto-John"
        > did exist and was used, in Greek translation, as a "skeleton" upon
        > which the larger Greek work was fleshed, even prior to extensive
        > redaction, glossing, editing and chapter shuffling.

        Would this "skeleton" source include the "Bread of Life" sayings
        found in John 6?

        I asked:
        > > Moreover, does your argument not also suggest that the evangelists
        > > themselves did not understand the nature, and purpose, of these
        > > Aramaisms?

        Jack replied:
        >No..my argument suggests that latter Gentile Christiians did not...I
        >am also leaning toward the Matthean scribe being Greek speaking
        >without any competence at all in Hebrew OR Aramaic.

        I am not sure that I am following you yet. Did the authors of
        the Canonical Gospels, as we have them now, misunderstand the
        Aramaisms beind their writings? If they did understand them, then at
        what point did they become lost to their future readers?

        Jack had said:
        >In Matthew 16:11 the "leaven" of the Pharisees and Sadducees
        >pollutes the "bread" (teaching).
        >And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to
        >me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never
        >thirst.

        I commented:
        > > This argument depends upon a level of harmonization (or even
        > > dependence) between John and Matthew that is tenuous at best.

        Jack responded:
        >No..no harmonization or dependence is necessary to see the idiom
        >used in different contexts.

        So you are saying that John did not have to know about Matthew's use
        of the word "bread" as teaching in order for him to be using it in
        the same way (though far more obliquely)? Moreover, Matthew's
        understanding of the Eucharistic forumula is being informed by the
        connection of bread=teaching, though he does not explicitly spell it
        out? Or is this a connection that got lost somewhere between the
        composition of the forumula, and Matthew's recording it in his Gospel?

        Jack
        > > > Jesus' body/bread and blood/wine are his teachings.

        Me:
        > Again, this statement seems to depend upon both harmonization of the
        > Gospels, and a belief that they come from original Aramaic sayings.

        Jack again:
        > If they were from the lips of Jesus, they were Aramaic.

        At what point between Jesus saying it, and the composition of the
        Canonical Gospels did the proper understanding of the saying get lost?

        I then asked:
        >Is that your contention here, and if so, why do you think that the
        >evangelists and Paul did not seem to understand the function of these
        >Aramaisms (or at least, explain them more clearly to their
        >Hellenistic readers)?

        Jack replied:
        >Paul was not interested in what Jesus said but the Aramaic speaking
        >Luke does explain idiom more cllearly to his Hellenistic audience.
        >It is Luke who clarifies the Aramaic debt/sin idiom for
        >xowbyn/OFEILH where Matthew does not.

        But we are talking about the Eucharistic forumula here, not the
        Lord's Supper. What clarification do you find in Luke that is not
        present in Matthew, nor in Paul, John or Mark?

        Peace,

        Brian Trafford
        Calgary, AB, Canada
      • Brian Trafford
        ... I meant here, the Lord s Prayer, not the Lord s Supper. My apologies for any confusion this might have caused. Brian Trafford Calgary, AB, Canada
        Message 3 of 3 , Aug 5, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Trafford" <bj_traff@h...>
          wrote:
          > But we are talking about the Eucharistic forumula here, not the
          > Lord's Supper. What clarification do you find in Luke that is not
          > present in Matthew, nor in Paul, John or Mark?

          I meant here, the Lord's Prayer, not the Lord's Supper. My apologies
          for any confusion this might have caused.

          Brian Trafford
          Calgary, AB, Canada
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.