stephan huller

Back to reading the book. p. 135 the question over the meaning of the Greek epousion, a word not known outside the New Testament. I guess it all comes down to what the term means which isn't absolutely clear. Perhaps epi + ousia = “necessary for existence” is the most likely. Yet the original reading might have been 'tomorrow.' It has been argued to be a redundancy as semeron as at the end of the sentence.

The parallels between the Prayer and Gethsemane and Exodus 16 are striking I must admit. But is that all there is? To be certain Paul and the earliest Church Fathers took an interest in this entire section in Exodus. But Exodus 15 is clearly must have been connected with baptism. Marqe in Mimar Marqe II.7 starts with the first two words in Hebrew אָז יָשר and then in Greek τότε ᾖσε and then points out in how many different ways the number eight can be demonstrated as being present here starting with the Aramaic form of 'then' in the Targum טטעַ that this has a value of 88 (= 70 + 9 + 9). Then he points out that 'then' in Hebrew אָז has a value of 8 (= 7 + 1) and then that the whole phrase in Greek But the whole phrase 'then sang' in Greek actually adds up to the magical number 888 - 888 = τ (300) + o (70) + τ (300) + ε (5) + ᾖ (8) + σ (200) + ε (5) = 888. That the ogdoad is a symbol of baptism is well established in Christian writings.

If Exodus 15 (the Song of the Sea) introduces the manna incident, how is the 'bread' here merely bread of sustenance? It has to be 'bread of tomorrow' or heavenly bread of the world to come. To this end, I find it difficult to believe that we are just dealing with obedience to God and Israelite covenant practices. It has to be about something bigger and mystical. Paul includes Exodus 16 in his discussion 'the rock is Christ' (1 Cor 10:4) Justin continues to mine this section and speaks about the battle with the Amalekites as a mystical saying.

My suggestion is that the reinterpretation of Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread and Pentecost necessarily went 'outward' into mysticism at a very earlier date. Paul knew about it and probably invented it. If the Disciple's Prayer is argued to have come from Jesus and it is developed from Exodus 16, then surely Paul's mining of material is related. Did Paul know the Disciple's Prayer? And then there is the traditional Samaritan objection to linking baptism to the crossing of the sea - the Israelites never touched the water. Who then is being symbolically baptized? The Egyptians?

FWIW I find it difficult to believe that the Disciple's Prayer is 'just' a reinforcement of traditional Israelite covenant practices. It has to have been about something more than that. Jesus's ambiguous relationship with the Pentateuch (i.e. striking down utterances and radically interpreting others also has to be included here). Jesus isn't just reinforcing tradition he's necessarily reinterpreting and going beyond it.

Just a thought as I continue through this material.

Jeffrey Gibson

Where do I say that there are parallels between Gethsemane and Exodus 16?

Why are you shifting to Exodus 15?

Why on earth would I want to use Marqe, let alone gematria of the first words of an irrelevant text, as determinative for anything in the LP/DP?

But Exodus 15 doesn't introduce the manna incident. It's Exodus 16 that does. And there, the manna spoken of has nothing to do with bread from the world to come.

And apparently, that's because you haven't read the correct text or considered other OT traditions -- like Ps. 95 -- which speak of the same tradition and do so in terms of obedience to God and covenantal practices.

Only in your eyes, I'm afraid.

Jeffrey

stephan huller

p. 142 if we are going to use Exodus 16 - 17 as the paradigm for 'testing' it is impossible to escape the ultimate context of who the disciples represent i.e. the priesthood. Levi is celebrated in Deut 33:8-11 and associated with priesthood because God "tested [him] at Massah, with whom you [God] contended at the waters of Meribah," v. 7, referring by the names "Massah" and "Meribah" to the two incidents with water out of the rock, Ex 17:1 - 7 and Num 20:3 - 13. The disciples represent the new priesthood. As the Samaritan high priest Jacob ben Aaron noted some years ago:

FWIW the Samaritans don't attribute the temptation in the wilderness to Satan or an angelic power.

p. 143 excellent to incorporate Paul on this page. I wonder if the Patristic doctrine of redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις) is connected to these ideas of being delivered from evil.

I haven't read the Addendum yet but am finished the book up to that point. Have to run.

Jeffrey Gibson

The issue is not whom God tested, but who the biblical witness says put God to the test. And unless you want to engage in the sort of rank eisgesis and mis reading of what is said at Ex. 17, not to mention what I say and argue on p. 142, that you seem to want to engage in, the only conclusion that is impossible to escape is that you haven't read Ex. 17 or what I wrote carefully, and that you certainly don't know what you are talking about if you limit those whom Exod 17 and Numbers, let alone Deut 6-8 and in Ps. 95 say put God to the test to Aron and the tribe of Levi.

I't's not worth much since the writers of Ex. 17, Numbers, Deut. and Psalm 95 don' say this either. Why you are bringing this up is beyond me.

Leaving aside the question of whether there is only one Patristic doctrine of redemption, let lone one sense of those who speak of it in terms of what ἀπολύτρωσις entails, what on earth does this have to do with discovering what the aim of the LP was?

Please stop spouting these anachronisms!

Jeffrey

stephan huller

But the question in antiquity would be how were the readings divided. According to the Samaritan Liturgy discovered by Cowley http://www.archive.org/stream/samari...luoft_djvu.txt it would be read altogether on the third Sabbath from the beginning of reading Exodus:

I think your distinction is arbitrary and the 'lines' drawn up by Europeans don't hold up much when considering how ideas developed in the ancient world.

I like your book very much. For me it was traveling to a foreign country. I learned about my host (= you) and his culture (= traditional European/American interpretations of the 'Jewishness' of early Christianity). As someone who has traveled the world and enjoys things exotic, it was a remarkable, rewarding journey and I am richer and better for it. Thank you for sharing that with me.

stephan huller

I am reading some of your other papers at academia.edu. I am enjoying this one on Paul's Dying Formula http://www.academia.edu/3606098/Paul...d_Significance. You're a really good scholar. The work needs to be reformatted to make it easier to read. But it is very, very interesting. If we can quiet some of the nitwits down there is a lot for you to teach here. Everything you write is weighty. You build the arguments like you would a building made of granite. But it is very cool. We're lucky to have you around here.