Greek question

[t68ware]

I had a discussion with two Greek professors (Protestant) about the use of the word “Trogo” as is used in the Gospel of John, where Jesus says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. I have heard many Catholic apologists say that is proof that Jesus meant it literally but the Greek professors said the context and use of the word makes it clear that Jesus was speaking in a very strong symbolic sense, since Trogo is used elsewhere in the NT. Can anybody give me any scholarly advise on this subject??

 

[midori]

Latin ate my lunch, so I never got to Greek-- but to point out until the better-educated arrive in the thread, Jesus had plenty of opportunity to make his intentions clear once everyone started grumbling. But instead of saying, “Hey, look at my figurative language!” he repeats himself very insistently.

So you start off with John 6:35:
Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

and they grumble. And Jesus tells them to stop grumbling and repeats in 6:48:

I am the bread of life.

and goes on to repeat in 6:51:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

and his audience thinks that’s crazy and start to argue amongst themselves. And rather than soothing their ruffled feathers, he follows up with 6:53 onward:

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

And they had enough of that kind of talk, and decided no one could put up with that kind of teaching. And instead of saying, “Wait, wait! Let me explain-- you didn’t understand!” he coolly asks if they’re offended by it. And a bunch of people did leave because they *were *offended.

So, yeah. While the Greek would be helpful in understanding nuance, it doesn’t seem like nuance was much in play for the conversation.

 

[steve53]

The High Priesthood took him literally enough.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Latin ate my lunch, so I never got to Greek-- but to point out until the better-educated arrive in the thread, Jesus had plenty of opportunity to make his intentions clear once everyone started grumbling. But instead of saying, “Hey, look at my figurative language!” he repeats himself very insistently.

Indeed, Jesus doesn’t try to correct the literal understanding of them, because He spoke literally.

 

[Byzman]

I had a discussion with two Greek professors (Protestant) about the use of the word “Trogo” as is used in the Gospel of John, where Jesus says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. I have heard many Catholic apologists say that is proof that Jesus meant it literally but the Greek professors said the context and use of the word makes it clear that Jesus was speaking in a very strong symbolic sense, since Trogo is used elsewhere in the NT. Can anybody give me any scholarly advise on this subject??

Yeah, these guys are making this stuff up. All you would have to do is look this up for yourself and realize that this word is never used once in the Septuagint nor the New Testament for any symbolical description.

In fact, this word is used in the strongest sense of the word for eating that the better translation actually would be to “chew.”

Now what is more actually descriptive…to eat it or to chew it?

 

[regression]

I had a discussion with two Greek professors (Protestant) about the use of the word “Trogo” as is used in the Gospel of John, where Jesus says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. I have heard many Catholic apologists say that is proof that Jesus meant it literally but the Greek professors said the context and use of the word makes it clear that Jesus was speaking in a very strong symbolic sense, since Trogo is used elsewhere in the NT. Can anybody give me any scholarly advise on this subject??

Can you ask them where else in the NT trogo is used?

 

[John7]

Can you ask them where else in the NT trogo is used?

Matt 24.38
John 6.54,56-58, & 13.18

Matthew 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were **eating **and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

John 13.18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that **eateth **bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.
(from Ps 41.9 LXX uses esthiwn)

 

[DavidPalm]

I had a discussion with two Greek professors (Protestant) about the use of the word “Trogo” as is used in the Gospel of John, where Jesus says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. I have heard many Catholic apologists say that is proof that Jesus meant it literally but the Greek professors said the context and use of the word makes it clear that Jesus was speaking in a very strong symbolic sense, since Trogo is used elsewhere in the NT. Can anybody give me any scholarly advise on this subject??

First, the argument that “Trogo is used elsewhere in the NT” therefore it is “clear that Jesus was speaking in a very strong symbolic sense” is a non sequitur. The argument I have deployed in the past and I believe is valid is that trogo is never used elsewhere in a figurative or symbolic sense. The two NT references cited above (Matt 24:38 and John 13:18) are both clearly literal. While this is not a conclusive argument by itself–trogo is a relatively rare word–it does at least lend support to seeing a literal meaning in John 6.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I had a discussion with two Greek professors (Protestant) about the use of the word “Trogo” as is used in the Gospel of John, where Jesus says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. I have heard many Catholic apologists say that is proof that Jesus meant it literally but the Greek professors said the context and use of the word makes it clear that Jesus was speaking in a very strong symbolic sense, since Trogo is used elsewhere in the NT. Can anybody give me any scholarly advise on this subject??

Herodotus (just as one example) clearly uses the word simply to mean “eat” in the usual human sense (a meal, fruit, vegetables, fish, etc.). E.g. see Histories 1.71, 2.37, 2.92.

The New Testament is a very small sample of extant literature composed in Greek. The use of trogo is evidence neither for or against a symbolic reading.

 

[DavidPalm]

Herodotus (just as one example) clearly uses the word simply to mean “eat” in the usual human sense (a meal, fruit, vegetables, fish, etc.). E.g. see Histories 1.71, 2.37, 2.92.

The New Testament is a very small sample of extant literature composed in Greek. The use of trogo is evidence neither for or against a symbolic reading.

I’m curious if you agree, Dave, that if it could be demonstrated that trogo was not used figuratively in any other context, it would at least lend support to its literal meaning in John 6? Afterall, related words usually aren’t strictly interchangeable in figurative contexts. For example, someone in a southern idiom might say to a little child, “Oh I could just eat you up” but substituting a synonym into the phrase renders it nonsensical, “Oh I could just munch/gnaw you up.”

Again, I don’t consider the argument to be conclusive, by any stretch, but it would seem that if trogo is used consistently with a literal meaning then this would lend support to seeing that meaning in John 6.

 

[CastingCrown]

Does it strengthen or weaken the case for Jesus speaking literally? I’m sure people will have opposing views, but what I think we can say objectively is that, in using the word “gnaw”, Jesus is strengthening the graphic nature of speech that we must consume His “body” and “blood”.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that in John 6 Jesus is speaking symbolically. All of the people who reject Him and walk away from the Son of God do so because they misunderstand His symbolic speech. What if Jesus had wanted to speak literally, how could He have done it? How would His speech look different from the account we have in John 6? What language could he have used that would have made this clear?

"I am the bread that came down from heaven…I am the bread of life…which anyone may eat and not die…I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world…unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever gnaws my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them…so the one who feeds on me will live because of me…This is the bread that came down from heaven…whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” - John 6

 

[spockrates]

I had a discussion with two Greek professors (Protestant) about the use of the word “Trogo” as is used in the Gospel of John, where Jesus says we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. I have heard many Catholic apologists say that is proof that Jesus meant it literally but the Greek professors said the context and use of the word makes it clear that Jesus was speaking in a very strong symbolic sense, since Trogo is used elsewhere in the NT. Can anybody give me any scholarly advise on this subject??

t68:

What did this Greek professor say the words, “eat my flesh” and “drink my blood” were metaphors for? Do you remember any of the passages where he claimed the word was used in a symbolic way?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I’m curious if you agree, Dave, that if it could be demonstrated that trogo was not used figuratively in any other context, it would at least lend support to its literal meaning in John 6? Afterall, related words usually aren’t strictly interchangeable in figurative contexts. For example, someone in a southern idiom might say to a little child, “Oh I could just eat you up” but substituting a synonym into the phrase renders it nonsensical, “Oh I could just munch/gnaw you up.”

Again, I don’t consider the argument to be conclusive, by any stretch, but it would seem that if trogo is used consistently with a literal meaning then this would lend support to seeing that meaning in John 6.

Maybe…negative evidence is not very good evidence, and I doubt anyone has ever perused all the examples in any event. And meanings and contextual usage change over time, so what might be an unusual usage of a word in one era might be an ordinary usage in another.

The more basic problem is that the word doesn’t necessarily mean “munch/gnaw” as has been claimed; It can (and more so in earlier texts rather than later ones like the N.T.) but it doesn’t have to–trogo can simply be used to indicate normal, everyday eating, or even in more sophisticated terms, “dining” (E.g., Demosthenes, On the False Embassy, 19.197). So I don’t see how the “Oh I could just munch/gnaw you up” example works.

Apologists sometimes present the word as some sort of dichotomous difference, similar to essen/fressen in German. That’s simply incorrect. People are reading a nuance that’s probably not there.

Much better arguments for a literal eating (imo) can be made using John’s anti-Platonic theology. This philological one is very, very weak and in the long run, probably does more harm than good.

 

[DavidPalm]

Much better arguments for a literal eating (imo) can be made using John’s anti-Platonic theology. This philological one is very, very weak and in the long run, probably does more harm than good.

Very interesting analysis. Thanks.