|
Originally Posted by http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/dohertycircle.html
Last Supper Call
In 1 Cor. 11:23-26, Paul presents us with these words:
"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes."
An obvious reference to the historical event we call the "Last Supper" - except in the Sand Castle Realm, of course. What does Doherty make of this passage?
His answer is in part reliant on his arguments relative to the uses of the words "gospel" and "received" elsewhere in 1 Corinthians - and that argument, we have shown in this series and elsewhere, to be misplaced. Doherty supposes here that we can see this material as revealed to Paul in a vision, and hence suppose further that this was not an earthly event, but one done in the nether-regions of imaginary spheres of existence. But again, we have seen that these arguments to not bear out under scrutiny.
A second argument - actually a counter to an argument in favor of the earthly interpretation - refers to what Doherty calls "the battle of the prepositions." Noting that the phrase here, "For I received from the Lord" is apo tou kuriou in Greek, Doherty writes:
"In the Greek of the time, when someone speaks of information received from another as the immediate, direct source, the preposition "para" is most often used. On the other hand, the preposition "apo" is most often used to signify the remote, or ultimate source of a piece of information. Thus Paul, they say, if he had meant to say that Jesus had delivered this information to him personally, would have used para. As it is, in using apo, he is referring to Jesus as the originator of these words, as if to say, "these words came ultimately from the Lord himself." "
This argument, which Doherty lifts from the International Critical Commentary without credit, seems quite sound on its face. But does Doherty agree? Not so; he registers two objections:
"Unfortunately for this argument, these different usages were not strict. (See Moulton: A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 1 Prolegomena, p. 237.) Even the New Testament contains apo used in the opposite sense (Colossians 1:17, "as you learned from Epaphras," and Matthew 11:29, "learn from me.") Thus, there was no guarantee that the Corinthians would have understood such a "remote antecedent" meaning, or that Paul intended it. "
Unfortunately, I must here, again, reprimand Doherty for not reporting his source material properly. Moulton indicates that there is evidence showing that "in daily speech" the preposition was not used with exactness of distinction. Paul, having (as Doherty acknowledges) a much more precise and intelligent mind than the average person, would be unlikely to suffer from such inexactness of speech, regardless of what his Corinthian readers thought.
As for the two verses - let's look at them. First, what the Strong-man has to say about apo:
"575. apo, apo'; a prim. particle; "off," i.e. away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; lit. or fig.):--(X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.
Now to the verses. The first is actually Colossians 1:7, not 1:17 -:
Col. 1:6b-7 All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth. You learned it from Epaphras, our dear fellow servant, who is a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf..."
Doherty perhaps wishes to argue that the Colossians learned of the gospel directly from Epaphras, and so apo here does not indicate distance. But one might suggest here that apo, in accordance with its other usages, means that the Colossians learned of the gospel first from Epaphras, so that this passage allows that others have taught the Colossians about the gospel since then! It may also mean that Epaphras was some sort of "missionary in chief" who directed someone else to teach the Colossians. Whatever the case, any answer is necessarily speculative, but there is certainly no reason here not to think that apo means anything other than what we would argue in does in 1 Cor. 11:23.
Now to the second verse:
Matt. 11:29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Here again, however, we have an "inlet" which indicates a past action of some sort. This verse comes after the end of a mini-sermon by Jesus in which he has denounced the cities of Korazin and Bethsaida for not repenting in the face of his miracles. Jesus then goes on to praise the Father for having revealed the truth to "little children". The passage would seem to indicate that Jesus is telling the listeners to learn from past actions of his - in this case, a proper exegetical suggestion would be, that very truth which Jesus has previously revealed. Once again, we have a suggestion of distance, and nothing but support for our interpretation of 1 Cor. 11:23.
Bottom line: While most scholars since the ICC have not been so bold as to engage the "battle of the prepositions" so directly - preferring instead to say that the use of apo neither proves nor disproves our argument - we would suggest that the data, both the use of the word and in light of Paul's precision, does indeed fit our argument better than it does Doherty's.
Now to the second objection, which reads rather peculiarly:
"Besides, if Jesus were being referred to only in the sense that he is the ultimate source of the words, this gives Paul's statement another less than logical cast. If he is going to go on to say that Jesus spoke certain words, why preface it with a separate statement which identifies Jesus as the source of these words? This is at best a very awkward redundancy. "
Once again, I find Doherty's clarity somewhat lacking here, but will presume that his point is that this statement would be awkward in the same sense that an English phrase like "Here's what I heard about Joe: That Joe said..." would be awkward. True enough: That phrase might earn a red mark on an English paper according to modern stylistic notions; but then again, Paul was obviously not an expert in English "stylism". We may suggest, further, than if Paul is quoting a formulaic tradition here starting with the words "The Lord Jesus...", then the "awkward redundancy" is quite explicable. Whatever the case, there is no support for Doherty's notion of a non-earthly tradition; and then again, even if Paul were indicating a direct revelation from the Lord, then the redundancy remains quite as "awkward" as it did otherwise!
|
09-27-2005, 11:23 AM
