CJD

While I think 'great deal' overdoes it, there certainly are words and even ideas that find their origin in Greek philosophy. But the mere use of the word isn't quite enough. What do you make of the DSS that employs similar language? We must be careful about assuming too much. John, like Paul, was presumably an Israelite, and it is within that context we must look first. When the prologue of gJohn is read as a prologue, we find that it retains its fundamental Jewish presuppositions.

In Genesis 1, we see god saying many words to create. Note Ps. 32:6 (LXX): "tô logô tou kuriou oi ouranoi estereôthêsan …." In short, god's word is creative, just as it is in John 1:3. See also Deut. 32:46–47 and compare with John 1:4, 13. See Pss. 19:8; 119:105, 130 and cp. John 1:7–9.

A few people still like to say it, but that's about all they do (the pertinent texts just don't support it).

Again, saying it doesn't make it so, especially when the fundamental presuppositions of the NT are primarily Jewish (and can be easily shown as such). While language may often reflect similarities, it's the meaning of what's being written that undermines your proposition above.

Whatever surface parallels you think you see, they immediately break down when closer attention is paid to the social construct of Palestinian Judaism(s) and its rituals and practices. Moreover, a brief study of the history of ideas would show you that attributing influence to mystery religions on Christianity is fundamentally flawed in that it is backwards. There are no mystery-religion parallels (outside Judaism) in the early first century to the essential beliefs and practices of Christianity because the mystery religions themselves were not around! Consider the possibility that it was Christian thought that influenced the mystery religions (it's just a thought). If you want to talk about early second-century Christianity, well, that's another matter. But the burden will be on the one showing that the language parallels are deeper than the surface, and it must be done without committing the logical fallacy of false cause.

I'm not sure how to respond. Is every story that involves a humble birth of a king, who happens to know his society's laws really well, and who received persecution from his own hometown somehow indebted to Plato's philosopher king? (I left the bit about "rebellion toward traditon" because that's questionable.)

Where are those two images conjoined in the NT?

Are you genuinely surprised that a teacher from an agrarian society would use agricultural metaphors to illustrate a point?

Another stretch. Why not quote the passage in question?

This, of course, goes as far back as the earliest portions of the TNK.

I am exasperated.

Truth be told, you have a better shot with those portions that are not word for word than you do with the portions that are.

No, not definitely. What you have is similar language. I'm trying to think of more, but I just can't.

Thanks, Beth, for your opinion.

CJD

Amaleq13

What about the symbolism of the eucharist? GJohn 6:47-66 describes "many" disciples leaving Jesus after he is depicted as explicitly emphasizing this imagery. Isn't that the expected Jewish response to such an idea and doesn't it result from the foreignness of it?

CJD

The Eucharist (or meal that Jesus gave his disciples) is inextricably tied to the Passover. In it, he is the passover lamb. Understood literally (which is how the people apparently understood it), John 6:47–59 would indeed be forbidden by Torah.

But the issue here in John 6 is not eucharistic; it is christological. A reference to the meal Jesus wanted his disciples to keep would not have made any sense to his listeners. Now, a eucharistic theology at this point may have made sense to the readers of gJohn, but, assuming for the sake of argument that this describes an actual event, Jesus talking about the eucharist here would have been incomprehensible. So, what's he saying?

He's saying if you eat and drink him, you will never be hungry or thirsty again. You will be satiated, because you will be in such intimate union with him. This, of course, is not a command to take up cannibalism (as his listeners apparently understood him), but a call to take part in his agenda (a la Isa. 55:1). He is saying, "I am the one who is the source and nourishment of life. Follow my way."

Just look at the flow of the passage: Jesus affirms his mission is one doing the Father's will (v. 38), and that he has come from the heavenly court to perform that will (v. 39). That will, incidentally, is that everyone who follows the Son may take part in the resurrected life (v. 40). He says this once again in v. 47 and then follows it up with "I am the bread of life."

Now comes where you missed the forest in spite of trees: Verses 49–51 describe the whole act of coming to Jesus and feeding on him in terms of the exodus. This ought not surprise most of us, though, for it is well-known that expectations for the messianic age would include a second exodus experience. The feeding of all those people the day before would have also been reminiscient of the manna feeding in the wilderness (John 6:1ff). Yet, the manna had limitations. Their fathers ate it and died. Not so with Jesus. Eat him and you will never die. Strikingly, and against all nationalistic sensibilities, this life-giving flesh is not for Israel alone; it is "for the life of the world" (6:51). Finally, many defected. But why? Because there is something inherent in Judaistic thought that was repulsed? Probably. Eating blood, or even meat with blood in it, was not allowed. But there were other things to be repulsed about as well, things that are not so easily described as "the expected Jewish response." Remember the day before, the crowd tried to make him king (6:15). He refused. Add to this his description of his messiahship in non-nationalistic and spiritual terms, and you've got a not too suprisingly skeptical response: "This guy's a joke. We need to overthrow these oppressive Romans, and he's talking about 'abiding in him' and 'resurrected life' ."

[edited to add: I take back "easily."]

Best,

CJD

Amaleq13

I'm not sure how my question can be said to have "missed the forest in spite of trees" since the above is the exact line of thought that lead to it.

Despite the above, the symbolism of consuming blood was used. That symbolism would appear to not be "primarily Jewish" so do you consider it not to represent a "fundamental presupposition"?

CJD

That's simple: the whole pericope is moved forward by its retelling of the exodus in messianic terms. That's not just a bit Jewish.

No, not despite (and that's the point). In light of the above, Amaleq13, in light of. You also have to keep in mind that this pericope in its 'original' setting was not eucharistic; that would not have any sense to the people listening to Jesus in the synagogue at Capernaum. The people wouldn't have taken offense if they weren't Jewish, and Jesus wouldn't have used the language (or the author of gJohn, if you will) if it wasn't in a Jewish context! When you read the word blood, you've got to read sacrifice. The rituals of Torah were bloody, indeed. By far when the word blood is used in the TNK it refers to violent death (often sacrificially ended). Remember, Jesus is voluntarily offering himself here (at the point where he first mentions the bread is his flesh, 6:51b). It is also vicarious (once again hearkening back to sacrificial rituals). I think it might be that the people didn't take him literally. Understanding him to be speaking figuratively, they began to argue amongst themselves in order to get at his meaning: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" (v. 52).

We have references in the TNK to drinking and tasting YHWH. I think that's the default starting point, and I don't think it's asking too much (in a book about a Jewish messiah, written by a Jew, etc.). What we are left with is the "flesh and blood," and we get at that by first looking at the Judaistic symbolism that may have informed it. But you've oversimplified my response. Again (more clearly this time):

They took umbrage with Jesus' teachings here because 1) they were more interested in getting their fill with free food again (6:26); political messianism (6:14–15); and manipulative miracles (vv. 30–31) than the spiritual realities to which his previous miracle (the feeding of the crowd) had pointed.

2. They were not willing to accept his teaching and therefore, his authority (vv. 41–46)

3. They were especially offended at his claim to be greater than Moses, sent by YHWH and authorized by him to give life (vv. 32ff., 58).

4. The extended metaphor of "bread" becomes especially offensive when it becomes a matter of "eating flesh" and "drinking blood."

This latter point cannot be ripped from the others and labeled non-Jewish (I don't even know what you'd replace it with. We have no real information on 'pagan' sacred meals of that time. Mithraism doesn't count; it doesn't show up until the end of the first century.) Finally, I think with "flesh and blood" it's best to stick with the sacrifical symbolism, as well as the life-giving and redemptive symbolism of Isa. 55:1 (among others).

CJD

Amaleq13

Of the four, John is the one that makes a point of depicting Jesus as the Passover lamb so that makes sense but is the author using existing symbolism in an apparently new way or do you understand Paul to have been using it in this same way?

I should have made it clear when I first posted that I tend to consider Paul as the one who introduced this symbolism, BTW, and do not consider the pericope in John to be relating something that actually happened.

Agreed.

Then why choose to use it? Why would someone deliberately choose symbolism of an inherently offensive nature?

Why do I need to replace it with anything except to recognize that it is symbolism that seems inherently offensive to Jewish sensibilities?

CJD

My guess is that you have the author taking bits from the TNK (and the Jewish social ethos) and pushing them to the limits (maybe in a 'new' way). Paul I think gets even deeper into the Passover/exodus symbolism when he writes of the meal Jesus gave his disciples to keep.

That very well could be …. Since I don't see an entirely different eucharistic theology proceeding from Paul, it is, for me, just a cosmetic question (as to which came first).

Well, of course you don't. But we do have a finished work here, and it would behoove us as readers of it to not just focus on reader-response criticism but to include some speculation as to the historical occasion, and what, if the event were real, it would have meant to the listeners in the synagogue at Capernaum. Late first-century readers (if that's when gJohn was being passed around), I would think, would also have been curious as to why the people were flummoxed.

That's a great question. One to which I must confess ignorance. Maybe it was to push those away who weren't intent on following his agenda? Not a very nice thing to do, is it? But then, on second thought, the stories about Jesus don't really reveal a teacher who tolerated tepidity, do they?

You don't, and thank you for not feeling the need to.

Best Regards,

CJD

Amaleq13

I don't understand why pretending the story describes actual events behooves us when there is no apparent reason to make such an assumption. It just seems to make the issue more confusing by adding a layer of interpretation based on speculation.

You don't think they would have understood why many of the disciples would have had a problem with the symbolism?

I vaguely recall an argument that most, if not all, of the sayings attributed to Jesus could be understood as similarly deliberately shocking or controversial in the choice of imagery. It certainly goes along with the warnings of families being torn apart, etc.

Thanks for your input.

SLD

There were no mystery religions in the First Century AD????!!!

What do you mean, mystery religions existed for at least hundreds of years before Christ: Eleusinian, Dionysian.

Certainly there are differences between these mystery religions and Christianity, but there are similarities as well that predate 1st Century AD. The Eucharist is even mentioned by Cicero. And long before Jesus, Dionysus was born of at least some kind of union between the head god and a mortal woman, and at least 400 years before Christ complained to one of his persecutors that it hurt when he was kicked against the goads. And while debatable, there is some indications that he turned water into wine before Jesus as well.

That's not to say that Jesus is merely a copycat Dionysus. There are of course a lot of differences and others have exagerrated the connections but to say there is simply no connection I think stretches it.

SLD

Beth Phillips

SLD, thank you.

CJD, I did not even try to defend that statement, or any other from my post, simply because it is evident that you don't want to see any other picture than the one that you want. I was, however, very tempted!! but chose not to waste my time and energy. :banghead: After years of that...I am too weary...

I will say to you CJD, from reading your posts, you sometimes appear to be well informed as to the greater Greco-Roman first century world---but you are so very selective in the way that you interpret scripture via that world that I am inclined to think that maybe you are not...your passion for your religion gives you away. You ultimately base most everything on the veracity of scripture and unfortunately, you are changing/rearranging history to support it. That won't, of course, work today; for discerning minds that is...

Instead of looking at the forest, you are looking for a tree...that was never there to begin with...it was a spiritual allegorical tradition...not real.

Beth