Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 09-15-2011, 01:29 PM

Hi Stephan

Many of these interesting references seem to be claiming that when Jesus said "this is my body" he meant "this is the type of my body".

What references are there to a claim that Jesus actually said "this is the type of my body" ?

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller · 09-15-2011, 02:35 PM

Well to be honest, it all comes down to the interpretation of von Harnack as to how the Marcionite gospel read, or better yet - what Tertullian meant when he made this ambiguous statement against Marcion:

Quote:

Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei.

von Harnack argues this is a scriptural reading from the Marcionite New Testament. I personally agree with von Harnack and McGowan. I think it is (or was) the Marcionite reading. My reasons for this are other examples of such a substitution. For instance in the original Old Latin version of Phil, ii 6 (as quoted in Cyprian Testimonia ii 23, iii 39, and in an anonymous commentary on the Nicene Creed ', cad 365-380) : ' in figura Dei constitutus [ = Gr. εν μορφη θεου υπαρχων ) non rapinam non rapinam arbitratus est esse se sequalem Deo, sed semetipsum exinanivit.

The alternative explanation is that the reading was limited to the ancient liturgy. Yet this doesn't preclude the liturgy reflecting the original reading. Look at the number of times fire or light being present at the baptism of Jesus are found in early liturgies and Patristic references. They go back of course to the baptism description in the Jewish-Christian gospels which are now lost.

von Harnack is enough to take the claim seriously. I can't help but think this is yet another example where Tertullian or his source agree on the gospel reading and fight over its implications. Consider what is written later in Book Five: "And further, I have already,1 in discussing the gospel, by the sacrament of the Bread and the Cup, given proof of the verity of our Lord's Body and Blood, as opposed to Marcion's phantasm." It the Marcionite reading was simply "this is my body" the passage doesn't make sense. How could the Marcionites have claimed that Jesus had no material substance unless their passage had 'figura' in it?

And besides it fits better with Exodus 3:12 - 15. I have a very difficult time with the idea of Jewish converts to Christianity believing that 'things' (i.e. objects in the world) actually were God or gods. It just smacks of the vulgarest expression of paganism resurfacing in Christianity. Philo and the early Alexandrian tradition would have known better. Another curious thing is how rarely the expression "This is my body" actually appears in the early Fathers. They seem to avoid the discussion completely. Very curious.

stephan huller · 09-15-2011, 09:26 PM

von Harnack's original references in Fremden Gott:

Quote:

(a footnote to Megethius, Dial. I, 7 zu Luke 6.22) Auch sonst sah sich M. an einigen wenigen Stellen des Evangeliums genötigt, sie allegorisch zu verstehen; so bemerkte er zum " Großen Abendmahl": "Caeleste convivium spiritalis saturitatis et iocunditatis " (IV, 31 zu Luk. 14, 16 ff.), und '"hoc est corpus meum" deutete er in "figura corporis mei" um ( IV, 40)

Marcion allegorias non vult in prophetis habuisse forma" (Tert. V, 18); dasselbe leugnete er in bezug auf das Gesetz (s. Irenäus 1. c. V, 7); vgl. ferner II, 21; III, 5.14; IV, 20: die AT-lichen Prophezeiungen haben sich entweder schon in der jüdischen Geschichte erfüllt oder werden sich in der Zeit des jüdischen Messias, des Antichrists, erfüllen. Auch das Evangelium ist nicht νoητόv, sondern ψιλόv; nur sofern es Parabeln enthält und Ausdrücke, die sich von selbst als figurae erklären, sind sie auszudeuten (Megethius im Dial. I, 7; das Brot Lilie 22, 19 ist "figura corporis". Tert. IV, 40) p. 260

Zu Luk. 22, 19: Tert. IV, 40: "Hoc est corpus meum, i.e. figura corporis mei' ". "Ein Gleichnis" (Ephraem, Lied 47, 1). Wahrscheinlich gebühren M. die Worte: "Propterea Christus panem sibi corpus finxit, quia corporis carebat veritate " (IV, 40). Ephraem, Evang. Conc. Expos. p. 122 f.: "Et corpus suum dedit eis ad manducandum, ut magnitudinem suam absconderet et opinionem eis inderet, se esse corporalem, quia eum nondum poter ant intelligere'". Ob echt ? p. 305

It is worth noting that Harnack (p. 312) found a parallel to the Old Latin reading of Phil 2.6 in Marcion's Apostolikon thanks to a reference in Tertullian 5.20 and another Chrysostom. Once again, this 'figura' strengthened the argument for figura in Luke 22.19.

It should be noted that this comment which von Harnack cites in the Latin translation - "Et corpus suum dedit eis ad manducandum, ut magnitudinem suam absconderet et opinionem eis inderet, se esse corporalem, quia eum nondum poterant intelligere" - is said by a marginal note to have come from Marcion himself. McCarthy translates the original text as "What was the purpose of the appearance of his body and his nourishment? [Marcion] said, "That he might hide his greatness and make them believe that he was corporeal, because they were not capable of [grasping] it." von Harnack's point is that this piece of evidence seems to support the idea that the Marcionite text said that the bread was 'the type of my flesh'

stephan huller · 09-16-2011, 12:01 AM

Apparently the debate over the proper reading or meaning of the passage is very old indeed. From Martin Luther's That these words of Christ, ‘This is my body’, etc.,still stand firm against the fanatics [E.G. Rupp and Benjamin Drewery, Martin Luther (London: Arnold, 1970), 132-5]:

Quote:

It is precisely the same devil who now assails us through the fanatics by blaspheming the holy and venerable sacrament of our Lord Jesus Christ, out of which they would like to make mere bread and wine as a symbol or memorial sign of Christians, in whatever way their dream or fancy dictates. They will not grant that the Lord's body and blood are present, even though the plain, clear words stand right there: ‘Eat, this is my body.’ Yet those words still stand firm and invulnerable against them ... Let us take up the saying of Christ, which Matthew and Mark record: ‘He took bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you.” ...

Now, here stands the text, stating clearly and lucidly that Christ gives his body to eat when he distributes the bread. On this we take our stand, and we also believe and teach that in the Supper we eat and take to ourselves Christ's body truly and physically. But how this takes place or how he is in the bread, we do not know and are not meant to know. God's Word we should believe without setting bounds or measure to it. The bread we see with our eyes, but we hear with our ears that Christ’s body is present...

But listen, I ask you, how they remove our interpretation from this saying of Christ and bring in their own. They say, ‘The word “is” must mean the same as the word “represents”’, as Zwingli writes; and the expression ‘my body’ must mean the same as the expression ‘sign of my body’, as Oecolampadius writes. So Christ’s Word and meaning according to Zwingli’s text would read ‘Take, eat; this represents my body’ or according to Oecolampadius’ text, ‘Take and eat; this is a sign of my body.’... Then at once they boast that we have no passage from scripture which says that Christ’s body is in the Supper... Whoever read the scriptures that ‘body’ means the same as ‘sign of the body’, and ‘is’ means the same as ‘represents’? Indeed, what language in all the world has ever expressed itself so?

Interestingly, we learn the following about Johannes Œcolampadius from Wikipedia:

Johannes Œcolampadius (or Œkolampad) (1482 – 24 November 1531) was a German religious reformerHe was born in Weinsberg, then part of the Electoral Palatinate. He attended school at Weinsberg and Heilbronn, and then, intending to study law, he went to Bologna, but soon returned to Heidelberg and took up theology. Enthusiastic about the new learning, he passed from the study of Greek to that of Hebrew, taking his bachelor's degree in 1503. He became cathedral preacher at Basel in 1515, serving under Christoph von Utenheim, the humanist bishop of Basel. In Basel Oecolampadius became an editorial assistant and Hebrew consultant to Erasmus' first edition of the Greek New Testament, and wrote that edition's epilogue in praise of his master

That these Protestant theologians also thought that Jesus uttered the words 'this is the sign of my flesh' is quite interesting. More about the controversy is developed here (for those who can read German)

http://books.google.com/books?id=zT3...arnack&f=false

Another quote from Luther against these men (and Calvin I presume):

Quote:

"We have Bibles in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and German," wrote Luther to his followers in Frankfort, " let the Swiss, then, show us any version in which it is written, ' This is the sign of My body.' If they cannot do this, let them be silent!" [source]

Iskander · 09-16-2011, 04:17 AM

Yes, Christianity is 2000 years old and an object of interest in the mind of billions of men and women spread over the span of five continents.

Huon · 09-16-2011, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei.

"figura" is a name, its origin is the verb "fingo, fingere":

fingo, fingere :
1 - compose, create, invent
2 - imagine
3 - mold, form, shape
4 - produce
5 - adapt, transform

figura :
1 - beauty
2 - figure of speech
3 - shape, form, figure, image
4 - style

Why not translate :
this is the image of my body ?

Juststeve · 09-16-2011, 08:00 AM

Even those of us who think Jesus was likely an historical figure are at a loss to explain how we can have verbatim quotes of what he said. No stenographers, no audio tape, only reports long after the event based on traditions about what he said. See the Sermon On The Mount as rendered in a very funny scene from the Life Of Brian.

For that reason I regard it as silly to parse unreliable quotes to find out exactly what Jesus meant when we can't even reliably reproduce exactly what he said. Navel gazing posing as deep thought, theology at its worst. I expect this from theologians, but not from folks who style themselves as careful thinkers.

Steve

stephan huller · 09-16-2011, 08:57 AM

With regards to the question of why the Marcionites would have had a gospel which speaks of Christ's flesh as a 'figure' von Harnack draws our attention to this passage from the Dialogues of Adamantius, which I have reproduced from Pretty's translation. Eutropius (Eutr.) is the judge of the debate, Megethius (Meg.) is the Marcionite, Adamantius (Adam.) is the Catholic:

Quote:

EUTR. You said that what has been written must be taken as it stands. How is it, then, that He is Son of God when He calls Himself Son of Man?

MEG. He spoke figuratively (παραβολή) when He called Himself Son of Man.

EUTR. Is a figure to be understood in a spiritual sense, or in its natural sense?

MEG. In a spiritual sense.

EUTR. How is it then, that you said the Scriptures are to be understood in the literal sense? They are, thus, to be taken in the spritual, and not in the literal sense, [and where the words seems to be contradictory, the same meaning is found](1).

MEG. Some passages are to be taken in the spiritual sense, and some in the literal.

EUTR. You seem to me to be guided by a fickle opinion.

MEG. Where figurative language has been used, the passages are to be taken in the spiritual sense; but the literal sense is to be accepted in the other ones.

AD. You maintain, then, that figurative language has been used in regard to the term "Son of Man"? Do grasp the fact that figurative language has not been used here. [How then do you show that He is Son of God? — for you will admit one of the two terms!] By your theory, either Christ is found to be a liar because He calls Himself "Son of Man", although He is not man; or all the Holy Scriptures are to be understood in the spritual sense, even if figurative language has not been used. Their agreement is found to be in the meaning, and what was written literally is not the real and true content.

(1) The words in angle brackets are not given by Rufinus, but are probably original, for they help to complete the thought in the mind of Eutropius. Bakhuyzen thinks that Rufinus may have abbreviated here.
(2) The Latin of Rufinus does not contain the enclosed passage, but in this case it is not easy to determine whether the words were in the original text or not.
(3) What Adamantius says here may seem to suggest that he endorses the allegorical method especially favoured by the Alexandrian School. The fact is, however, that very little evidence of its use is found in the Dialogue. [p. 45]

Iskander · 09-16-2011, 12:05 PM

HISTORY OF DOGMA
BY
DR. ADOLPH HARNACK
ORDINARY PROF. OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNIVERSITY, AND FELLOW OF
THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, BERLIN
_TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION_
BY
NEIL BUCHANAN
VOL. II.
BOSTON
LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY
1901
CONTENTS

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/19613/pg19613.txt

Quote:

We now know that before the violent conflict with Gnosticism short formulated summaries of the faith had already grown out of the missionary practice of the Church (catechising).

The shortest formula was that which defined the Christian faith as belief in the Father, Son, and Spirit.[24] It appears to have been universally current in Christendom about the year 150.

In the solemn transactions of the Church, therefore especially in baptism, in the great prayer of the Lord's Supper, as well as in the exorcism of demons,[25] fixed formulæ were used. They embraced also such articles as contained the most important facts in the history of Jesus.[26]

We know definitely that not later than about the middle of the second century (about 140 A.D.) the Roman Church possessed a fixed creed, which every candidate for baptism had to profess;[27].

The Christians had formulated by 140 AD a fixed creed and Marcion was an inventor of stories and nothing more than that.

Iskander · 09-16-2011, 12:38 PM

The problem facing Christianity—from Harnack’s

Quote:

This gave rise to the mockery of the heathen, the theological art of the Gnostics, and the radical reconstruction of tradition as attempted by Marcion.

With the freedom that still prevailed Christianity was in danger of being resolved into a motley mass of philosophic speculations or of being completely detached from its original conditions. It was admitted on all sides that Christianity had its starting-point in certain facts and sayings; but if any and every interpretation of those facts and sayings was possible, if any system of philosophy might be taught into which the words that expressed them might be woven, it is clear that there could be but little cohesion between the members of the Christian communities.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-15-2011, 01:29 PM	#21
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Hi Stephan Many of these interesting references seem to be claiming that when Jesus said "this is my body" he meant "this is the type of my body". What references are there to a claim that Jesus actually said "this is the type of my body" ? Andrew Criddle

09-16-2011, 04:17 AM	#25
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	Yes, Christianity is 2000 years old and an object of interest in the mind of billions of men and women spread over the span of five continents.

09-16-2011, 08:00 AM	#27
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Even those of us who think Jesus was likely an historical figure are at a loss to explain how we can have verbatim quotes of what he said. No stenographers, no audio tape, only reports long after the event based on traditions about what he said. See the Sermon On The Mount as rendered in a very funny scene from the Life Of Brian. For that reason I regard it as silly to parse unreliable quotes to find out exactly what Jesus meant when we can't even reliably reproduce exactly what he said. Navel gazing posing as deep thought, theology at its worst. I expect this from theologians, but not from folks who style themselves as careful thinkers. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.