From: Ben Crick (ben.crick@argonet.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 16 1998 - 21:54:08 EST
On Mon 16 Mar 98 (07:34:54), cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu wrote:
>ÊI'll agree that we have a mixed metaphor here in that drinking is a
>Êsymbolic act used in different ways in the Biblical tradition: blood,
>Êgall, etc. I'd even sayÊthat one could readily understand TOUTO TO POTHRION
> as "this chaliceÊfullÊof blood" and still have TO EKCUNNOMENON as an
> attributive participleÊreferring back to POTHRION but with the "outpouring"
> having naturalÊreference to the shedding of blood. I guess what I want to
> insist on,ÊfromÊmy own point of view, is that what we think the intent of
> the author toÊbe should not alter the way we read the grammatical
> construction.
Feeling a bit like Elihu in Job 32, I have rather lurked and looked at this
thread. But as a mere preacher and pastor, I have always understood that TO
POTHRION in Luke's account of the Last Supper is consistently used as a
Metonymy for TO hAIMA: the Container for the Contents of the container. We
say a drunkard is "fond of the bottle" when we mean "fond of the
beer/wine/spirits" within any particular bottle. Or is it "pars pro toto", a
Synechdoche, "Cup" standing for "cup-and-contents"? The Romans misunderstood
the Christians to be practising cannibalism, with their talk of eating the
Body of Christ, and drinking his Blood; there is wisdom in Luke's metonymy.
Carl also wrote in a message on Mon 16 Mar 98 (06:01:47):
> I would say that the form of TO hUPER hUMWN EKCUNNOMENON is deliberately
> parallel to the form of TO hUPER hUMWN DIDOMENON, another attributive
> participial phrase which we translate as a relative clause in English.
I agree entirely, Carl.
-- Revd Ben Crick, BA CF <ben.crick@argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK) http://www.cnetwork.co.uk/crick.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:12 EDT