Gospel of John - Why no Emblems, no Bread and Wine?

by Greenpalmtreestillmine 42 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Leolaia

  Huh?

  It is sometimes very annoying talking with you because you criticize my posts as "not sufficiently substantiated" (and imply I am not "well informed") by launching some bizarre piece of exegesis out of left field that hardly has much to do with my post in the first place.

  1. Rather than respond to my specific points, you just point to your own arbitary OT exegesis, regard it as something that is really in the OT waiting to be discovered (e.g. employing the same circular type-antitype thinking that has no place in critical analysis), and somehow relate this vaguely to something I wrote without clearly explaining what it has to do with any of my points. Saying "Sorry, the NT references to the Messiah are well-founded in the OT tradition" and "NT references to OT ritual related to Christ" just leaves me confused, because I don't see how these vague statements refer to what I actually wrote.

  2. In this thread, I talked about the prayers of thanksgiving associated with the Jewish-Christian practice of the Eucharist (which had nothing to do with the transubstantionary theme of the bread and wine being Jesus' flesh and blood), and how these relate to the bread and wine motifs in the synoptic sapiential tradition (which again do not construe them as being Jesus' flesh and blood), plus the Philonic concept behind Jesus as the manna from heaven. How is this not "sufficiently substantiated"?

  3. Plus, as I already explained in another thread, the Eucharist is not derived from the Passover itself but most likely modifies the type of sabbatical (and pre-Passover) meal that was common in Pharisaic Judaism, which included the serving of bread and wine with thanksgiving, and the main change (as attested in the Didache) was that the benedictions were changed to refer to the gospel message of Jesus and the gathering of the church. Even if the Eucharist has anything to do with the OT exegetical tradition of the early church (e.g. viewing Jesus as the paschal lamb), your particular interpretation is not that of the NT writers. You are not entitled to argue that your particular interpretation is really there in the OT, as a real prophecy of a second coming (referring to, guess who, but yourself, JCanon), that can then be used as proof to argue against what certain early Christians said the bread and wine symbolized. I would even say that there is no one true meaning; the sacraments meant whatever they meant to each respective group.

  4. Finally, I never said the Eucharist was "late" (if this is what you mean by "NT references to an OT ritual related to Christ"). I view it as a smooth continuation of a pre-Christian practice. What I view as later relative to the Didache interpretation of the bread and wine is the consumption motif of the bread and wine being Jesus' flesh and blood, since the Didache interpretation fits much better overall with what bread and wine symbolized in the synoptic tradition, as well as the Great Commission theme, and stands between that of traditional Jewish benedictions and the transubstantiationary theme of Paul. But it is by no means late in absolute terms, if we accept Paul (as I do) as the oldest Christian documents we possess.
• 

  peacefulpete

  He calls it manna, that is, the divine Word (logos), oldest of beings" (Philo, Worse Attack the Better, 118)

  Very interesting piece Leolaia, do you then see parallel to Jesus' reference to his body(not just his teaching) being like bread (Luke 22:19a)? Philo of course was not suggesting a human sacrifice.
• 

  JCanon

  Hi Leolaia, sorry if you took this personally, I should have been more general:

  Saying "Sorry, the NT references to the Messiah are well-founded in the OT tradition" and "NT references to OT ritual related to Christ" just leaves me confused, because I don't see how these vague statements refer to what I actually wrote.

  What this means is that the Bible is studied by some and interpreted by them as a religious work, containing many "secrets" and complex meanings. This might conflict sometimes with someone taking it just as a literary work and only taking it for face value for the most part, even though you understand subtle comparison for sure.

  But sometimes the religious interpretation of texts limits certain persumptions or contradicts them. Case in point, the global flood. I believe it was real and it happened, but you might not "find sufficient evidence" of it. But you use your own lack of belief in the flood as a literal event to postulate alternative explanations for what the literary work presents. I've tried not to be dogmatic about my position since everybody believes what they want, but the "academic" point remains which marginalizes your position since it's based upon your own presumption there was no literal flood, a presumption that you, from a Biblicalists point of view, are not at option to make, though we understand it. In the meantime, understanding there was a literal flood, introduces an entirely different "school of thought" interpreting the same literary works under consideration. But the criticism remains that an argument is no stronger than it's weakest link.

  Same goes with the gospel speculations and how they developed. They sound reasonable from a literary point of view, I suppose, but having a different perspective, experiencing "holy spirit", having spoken directly with God himself and being part of many prophecies being fulfilled (including physical phenomenon such as the "sign of the son of man" which was photographed on a specific day and time, something a bit beyond my mental delusions, right? and the same imagery found in WTS subliminal art. So it's real..), the fact that the Bible requires that Paul and John survive down to our day and not die (the real reason I think the Templars are looking for the "holy grail" they are looking for John, who is the same royal blood line of Jesus) would dismiss your conclusions unequivocably. So I know they are incorrect on that basis.

  But, also being a "prophet" of scripture, perhaps being more aware than others how it all fits together, I understand these references are completely consistent with the original concepts of Jewish ritual and the sacrifices and what that meant and ALWAYS meant. The pouring out of blood, the eating of the sacrifices all representing the Messiah and how to partake of him is to gain life. It's FUNDAMENTAL in the fabric of Jewish doctrine. So to suggest that Paul or John are adding or extrapolating, which they might from your point of view, but aren't from mine is where the disadvantage is. You don't have the advantage of seeing past the "process" but I do.

  What else can I say. EVERYTHING is going exactly as God planned it, especially the chronology that he provided for certain events.

  Paul and John are not extrapolating anything that wasn't already there in the OT as far as I can see and since Eden was a real event that really happened, those stories from Noah are what we're seeing, distorted by Satan (a real person) in pagan tradition but also based upon real events and that is often the similarity you are seeing in Biblical comparison, EXCEPT in Esther, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon, which are, indeed, influenced by pagan thought in varying degrees. The NT Bible writers excluded these books for cross-quoting.

  Thanks, again, for your research, it's quite interesting.

  But, Leolaia: TWO WAVE OFFERINGS. The second is different than the first. There's a reason. That is answered not by literary examination or trying to find some Caananite counterpart. This is ORIGINAL JEWISH prophetic reference to their Messiah at the first and second coming. Something that is currently happening within this secret followers, and thus not having the option to deny much in scripture since they are experiencing these things. We just have more information than you.

  Sorry.

  JC
• 

  Leolaia
• 

  Leolaia

  PP....I would suspect that we have a convergence here between the sapiential identification of Jesus with Wisdom personified, and the "mystery cult" ritual of consuming the god in order to join with him. The Wisdom-christology of Jesus was carried to its fullest conclusion by John who drew on Philo (who also, incidentally, characterized the gender of Logos as male and even introduced the notion of the Paraclete), but also characterized the Logos as "made flesh" -- bearing human flesh (a notion foreign to Philo). So the notion in John is different from Philo, and the notion in Luke 22:19 may differ from John by drawing more on ritual mysteries.
• 

  peacefulpete

  For those (like me ) who are unfamiliar with the Diadache this an exerpt from the recovered text that deals with a Eucharist meal. The date forthe work is 50-150CE with a number of redactions evident.:

  Concerning the Eucharist [Thanksgiving] give thanks like this:

  First for the Cup: we give thanks to You, our Father, for Your holy vine of David, Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus, Your Servant. Glory to You forever.

  Concerning the broken bread: we give thanks to You, our Father, for the life and knowledge that You made known to us through Jesus, Your Servant. Glory to You forever.

  As this broken bread was scattered over the hills and was brought together becoming one, so gather Your Church from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom, for You have all power and glory forever through Jesus Christ.

  Do not let anyone eat or drink of your Eucharist meal except the ones who have been baptized into the name of the Lord. For the Lord said concerning this: do not give that which is holy to the dogs.

  After you are filled, give thanks like this:

  We thank You, Holy Father, for Your Holy Name which you made to dwell in our hearts, and for knowledge and faith and immortality as You made known to us through Jesus, Your Servant. Glory to You forever.

  You, Lord Almighty, created all things to show forth Your Name. You give both food and drink to man to enjoy, and everlasting life through Your Servant.

  Above all, we thank You because You are mighty. Glory to You forever.

  Remember Lord, Your Church, to deliver her from all evil and mature her in Your love. And gather her from the four winds, separated into Your kingdom which You have made for her, because You have the power and the glory forever.

  Let grace come and this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David! If anyone is holy, let him come. If anyone is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

  Allow the prophets to give thanks as they desire.
• 

  Leolaia

  Thanks for providing the text, PP. The prayers show many similarities with the Lord's Prayer, the Kiddush, and the Amidah, and the petition on behalf of the church is also reminiscent of the Qumran Hoyadot. It thus stands much closer to traditional Jewish thanksgiving than the Eucharist given in 1 Corinthians, Luke, and the Eucharistic interpolations found in John (as well as allusions to the Eucharist in Ignatius of Antioch, Romans 7:3; Smyrnaeans 6:2; Philadelphians 4:1; Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 66.3) which come right out of Mithraism:
  

  "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.... Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:53-54).
  

  "He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved" (Mithraic Prayer, pre-Christian inscription found in the Vatican, Rome)

  According to JD Crossan, the general Eucharistic prayer in Didache 10 is older than the prayers in ch. 9 which ritualize the bread and the wine, but even in the latter there is no reference to the death of Jesus, a Last Supper with his followers, or passion symbolism of broken body and blood. This also fits well with the Didache's provenience in Nazarene communities in Syria (among whom the Passion lacked the significance it had with Pauline Christians) and literary kinship with Q, which like the Gospel of Thomas also lacked a Passion narrative. Thus the wine in Didache 9:2 had nothing to do with the blood of Christ poured out on the cross, but simply meant that Jesus is of the "vine of David", i.e. the Messiah. Moreover, it is thought that the present form of the verse contains a duplication of paidos sou "your servant" which is absent in the paralleled prayer regarding the bread and which obscures the sense of Jesus revealing the "vine of David"; the original text would have read thus: "We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of David, which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant, to you be the glory forever". Since the "vine" is used as a metaphor for the kingdom in Q, Mark, and the Gospel of Thomas (cf. Mark 12:1-12; Matthew 20:1-16, 21:28-46; Luke 20:9-19; Gospel of Thomas 65), which is being given to the disciples as their inheritance, and since "vine" is a traditional symbol of Israel and the restored Messianic kingdom in Psalm 80:8-18; Isaiah 5:1-7; Jeremiah 2:21, the allusion in the Didache prayer would seem to be to the kingdom which Jesus revealed (which is also the dominant theme in Q). Likewise the bread of the Eucharistic meal did not symbolize Jesus' sacrificial flesh but rather indicated the "life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your servant" (Didache 9:3), drawing on the same bread=knowledge/life and wheat=gospel metaphors we see in Mark 2:25-26, 4:14-20, 6:30-44; Matthew 4:4. The following verse goes on the extend the symbolism to the church, symbolizing the way wheat which had been "scattered upon the mountains" and then formed into the unity of a loaf of bread, so the church likewise is "gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom" (Didache 9:4). The Eucharist ritual of early Jewish-Christians was thus one that centered on the coming eschatological kingdom (cf. 10:6), and the communial drinking of the wine and the distribution and consumption of the bread symbolized the "life and knowledge" of the kingdom that is being shared among all those in the church: "We give you thanks, Holy Father, ... for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you have made known to us through Jesus your servant ... to us you have graciously given spiritual food and drink, and eternal life through your servant" (10:2-3).

  Very different from the Mithraic-type formulae of Paul and the Last Supper narrative of Luke, though the focus on salvation is common to both. However, Luke might preserve a fragment of the original proto-Markan account of the Last Supper, for there are actually two separate utterances about the wine, one given before the bread and one given after (Luke 14:17-18, 20), and while the second is reproduced in 1 Corinthians 11:25, the first has no direct parallel in Paul: "And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, 'Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes' " (14:17-18). If we recognize this as part of the earliest strata of the Last Supper narrative, we can readily see that each of the individual gospels has interpolated the Pauline material in different places: In Mark (= Secret Mark redaction?), the Pauline formula about "my blood of the covenant" is inserted after the disciples drank the wine (Mark 14:22-25), in Matthew the Pauline formula is inserted into Jesus' command to drink from the wine, while he was distributing it to his disciples (Matthew 26:26-29), and in Luke the Pauline formula is inserted after both the first cup and bread, as an "after-supper" cup (in agreement with 1 Corinthians 11:25). In all three gospel accounts (after removing the anomalous Pauline formula), the utterance about drinking the "fruit of the vine" occurs just after Jesus "giving thanks" over the cup (Mark 14:23; Matthew 26:27; Luke 22:17), which would be expected if it constitutes the earliest layer to the Last Supper narrative. Moreover, it is echoed in a positive form by Paul who says "whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26), suggesting a more primitive version of the text in Luke 14:17-18 that refers to Christians drinking from the Eucharist cup in anticipation of the eschatological kingdom, e.g. "May you drink from the fruit of the vine of David and proclaim the kingdom of God until it comes", which was then adapted in different ways by Paul and Luke (and also Mark and Matthew) to refer to Jesus' death instead of the kingdom. The references to the "fruit of the vine" and the "kingdom of God" in Luke 14:17-18 are two literary features that link the passage with the Didache prayer which also likely associates the vine itself with the kingdom.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Very interesting, I was just rereading Ehrman's comments in Orth Corr of Script about Luke22(which btw you mistyped as 14 in your last post, oops)he reasons out how nonLukan the sacrificial theme is in 19-20. He made a statement to the effect that Luke appears to have gone to pains to remove the attonment idea in other passages from Mark (assuming he used Gmark not some UrMark). If you see Mark 14:22-24 as an interpolation, how about 10:45 that Luke avoids altogether? Or are you just arguing the wording of the Eucharist meal not the theology of attonment by the death of Jesus? BTW I can't edit from work or my new computer at home, is anyone else having this problem? An error message appears.
• 

  Leolaia

  Very good observation re Mark 10:45. But it is not clear whether this quasi-Pauline atonement idea is something that Luke intentionally excluded in his gospel, or whether Luke simply used a version of Mark which did not yet include the whole "sons of Zebedee" passage (Mark 10:35-45). The textual history of this passage is quite complex; note how the allusions to baptism (a very Pauline notion of baptism in death, cf. Romans 6:2-6) in Mark 10:38-39 are later accretions to the text, as they are missing in the parallel text in Matthew 20:20-23 and are thematically connected with other Secret Mark redactional material (cf. the earlier discussion on this subject). There is also textual evidence of Luke 22:19b-20 as a Pauline interpolation, as the original text lacking the interpolation is preserved in D. But stripping away the post-Markan redactional material from Mark and the interpolation from Luke, we are still left with ransom idea in Mark 10:45 and the repeated assocation of the "cup" with "death" in Mark 10:38-39, 14:25, 36, so I would definitely concur that in early Mark (at least the Mark known to Matthew and Luke) there is a mystical connection between Jesus' death, the "cup" of wine, and the ransom, as the connection is clear even in the application of the fragment in Luke 22:17-18. Perhaps what I meant is a pre-Markan liturgical version of the saying in Luke (derived from early Mark, which refers not to Jesus' death but to the kingdom), which is paralleled in quite a different form in 1 Corinthians 11:26 (which does refer to Jesus' death). The Lukan omission of the allusion to the Son of Man's life as a lutros "ransom" in Mark does not necessarily mean that the author was trying to remove such Markan references to the redemption; the verse was a small part of a much larger text that was not included. Indeed, in the special material to Luke, we find that the Lord "has come and has ransomed (lutrosin) his people" (1:68), people were "looking forward to the redemption (lutrosin) of Jerusalem" (2:38), and Jesus was said to be "the one who was going to ransom (lutrousthai) Israel, and it is the third day since all this took place" (24:21). The main difference with Paul is that Luke uses the term in more of an OT Messianic (or even nationalistic) sense, while Paul refers more generally to a redemption or ransoming of humankind from sin in a specific theory of atonement. I'm not sure whether we find the Pauline notion explicit in Mark 10:45, or whether it just draws on the OT concept in Isaiah 53:19-12; the mention of the Son of Man "not coming to be served but to serve" in Mark 10:45 seems to indeed allude to the "servant" in the Deutero-Isaiah passage. See also 4 Maccabees 17:21-22 which has a similar notion of martyrs bearing the sins of the nation as a "ransom".
• 

  peacefulpete

  there is a mystical connection between Jesus' death, the "cup" of wine, and the ransom, as the connection is clear even in the application of the fragment in Luke 22:17-18.

  I don't see the connection being made, am I missing it? The kingdom and his betrayal seem to be the topic not a sacrificial death as ransom.

  Also Ehrman sees as significant that adjustment Luke made to the Markan story about the temple curtain being rent in two at Jesus death(implying a ransom was no longer needed), Luke has it occur before his death (implying displeasure with the role of the Priests in Jesus death). If he is right this might represent another example of Luke's discomfort with the idea of human sacrifice as ransom for sins.