Jeffrey Gibson

I suggest you look up the word "Hellenic". I do not think this word means what you think it means.

Jeffrey

No Robots

This is attributed to Hillel, who is earlier than Christ. But I was responding to the claim that no Jew could so express himself, which I have proven false.

The Hebrew is in Brunner, Our Christ, p. 230. I don't have immediate access to a scanner, but you will find consider discussion if you Google the following: "ate him" Hezekiah Hillel.

Here is Brunner (Our Christ, p. 230) on the subject:

Was there then anything which he did not thoroughly change expressing the originality of his own nature, and whereby he always pointed to himself? And so he celebrated Passover with such innovation that nothing of Passover remained. He celebrates himself in the splendidly bold words of himself and of all. He thinks of himself, truly not of the Passover celebration, but as he thinks of himself, he thinks of everything, of the Passover-sacrifice, too, and he himself becomes the Passover sacrifice; the Passover-sacrifice immediately becomes the Messiah-sacrifice, and he is the Messiah! He, in his humanity, his "flesh and blood," as the Jews are wont to call a human being (XXX). His flesh and blood accomplished all this. It has and retains the tremendous significance of: this is my flesh, and this red wine is my blood! (Mt. 26:26). He is the Messiah, who is sacrificed, who sacrifices himself—he is the offering, which they eat. He also thinks about the eating of the Messiah, for this, too, is a Jewish expression (Sanh. 99a: XXXX and XXXX)*.

I put 'XXXX for the Hebrew.

aa5874

Marcionites and Cathlocism are all AFTER the Gospels. And there is no mention of various forms of Judaism in the Gospels.

Jeffrey Gibson

Ummm .. the Hillel spoken of in Sanhedrin 99a is specifically noted in the translation of Sanhedrin 99a that you adduced as the Hillel who was the brother to Judah II, a Jewish sage who lived in Tiberias in the middle of the third century CE. (Morton Smith locates this Hillel in the 4th century [see his Messiahs: Robbers, Jurists, Prophets, and Magicians] locatable via the Google serach you recommended below.). So the quote is not by any means pre-Christian.

Actually, you've done no such thing even if the Hillel mentioned in Sanhedrin 99a was the 1st century Hillel, since you have not yet demonstrated that he actually said "eat" the Messiah.

Why is having a scanner important? Can't you simply tell me what the Hebrew word that Brunner takes as "ate" (but which the translator of the translation of Sanhedrin 99a that you adduced for us renders "enjoy") is?

You do read Hebrew, don't you?

I'm not interested in the discussion I'll find if I do this. I'm interested in what the text of Sanhedrin 99a actually says and why anyone would think that a quote attributed to a 3rd century Rabbi which apparently does not speak of "eating" the Messiah and was apparently not understood by a famous Jewish Talmudic commentator as speaking of "eating the Messiah" is relevant for understanding the words of institution or Jn 6.

[/QUOTE]

How Brunner knows what was in Jesus' mind is beyond me. And in any case, if "eat the Messiah" does appear in Sanhedrin 99a, all it shows is that it was a third century Rabbi's expression, not a first century one.

Jeffrey

Toto

I did, and I found this:

Studies in the Cult of Yahweh (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Morton Smith, Shaye J. D. Cohen

google books p. 41:

"R. Hillel probably spoke in the fourth century, and his metaphor is so strange, that I think it might invoke a mocking reference to the Eucharist."

No Robots

At least one scholar attributes the quotation to the pre-Christian Hillel the Great: see New Testament Backgrounds By Craig A. Evans, Stanley E. Porter, p. 103, footnote 48.

This makes clear that the correct translation is "ate," and that other translations are glosses.

No Robots

Morton Smith? Puhleeze. Talk about strange (or via: amazon.co.uk).

For a discussion of how the metaphor of eating the Messiah is consistent with Judaism, see here.

No Robots

Oh, yeah, and you can read the Hebrew here.

Jeffrey Gibson

At least one? The footnote you cite say one and only one. Ernst Bammel. But no one has ever followed him in this. And certainly the translator of the translation of Sanhedrin 99a you adduced does not. Why is that?

Umm ... is that what this 1846 article says?

And I note you still haven't answered my question about what this verb actually is or whether you read Hebrew.

Why is that?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

And what is the verb that this 17th century work translates as "ate"?

Jeffrey