N
Nigel7
Guest
Having an online discussion with a protestant who says…
Thanks.
Strange semantics there. How would you respond??
Thanks.
"This is my body...blood".. Greek and Latin Vulgate. Protestant argument
- Status
S
sousley
Guest
I usually respond by saying that the early disciples, who spoke Greek and/or Latin as a native language, very clearly understood what Jesus meant given the preponderance of consistent writings by the early fathers and continuous living tradition by the Church. For me, it’s always kind of been “can’t see the forest through the trees” argument. Today, we are so quick to jump on google translate, etc. and grab a word study to begin dissecting scripture that sometimes we forget that there have been centuries of disciples that understood their own language very well. It may be a better idea to just ask them. After years of early fathers writing about the Real Presence, centuries of teaching about the Real Presence, not to mention that the disciples in John 6 that left Jesus understood it pretty well too, there really isn’t much likelihood that a fresh new protestant linguistics argument will glean new revelation.
po18guy
Well-known member
Ask them which language our Lord was speaking. Could it be Aramaic? Yes, it could. What does that have to do with word gender and construction in Greek or Latin? Nothing. Is this another lame argument like the one where the unlearned and unstable claim that Jesus was pointing to Himself when He said “on this rock I found My Church”? Pure nonsense. It shows the danger of reverse-engineering faith history from the partial and incomplete written record. It is the same as driving your car in reverse until the odometer reads zero, then claiming you are at the factory.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Well, I don’t think it’s even necessary to address his assertion. Instead, I would smile and say, “You don’t know Koine Greek, do you? Whoever convinced you of this… well, he doesn’t, either…”
Here’s the Greek of Mt 26:26:
Ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον καὶ εὐλογήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ δοὺς τοῖς μαθηταῖς εἶπεν· λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτο ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα μου.
The word for ‘bread’ here is ἄρτον. It’s a neuter noun (and in this instance, it’s in the accusative case). (By the way, the word for ‘body’ (σῶμα) is also neuter.) The form of ‘this’ that’s used here, τοῦτο, is (yes, you guessed it)… neuter.
Let’s look at verses 27 and 28:
καὶ λαβὼν ποτήριον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες,
Here, we have Jesus taking a ‘cup’ (ποτήριον – neuter), and he gives ‘it’ (αὐτοῦ – neuter) to them.
τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμα μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
‘This’ (τοῦτο – neuter) is my ‘blood’ (αἷμα – neuter).
So, no matter what case he wants to make about grammatical agreement… the agreement just plain works! Neuter nouns, neuter demonstratives! On the face of it, his argument fails, since there’s grammatical agreement. In every case he points to, the demonstrative (“this”) matches not only the noun in the respective sentence (‘body’, ‘blood’), but also the physical thing he’s pointing to (‘bread’, ‘cup’). No matter what he’s attempting to say, the data just doesn’t support his contention!
(OK: I can’t resist – I’ll address his assertion, too: Demonstratives usually take on the neuter gender. Sometimes, in Koine, there are cases in which the demonstratives seem to act like personal pronouns, so there are also occasions where ‘this’ takes on the gender of the thing pointed to. However, as a general rule, asserting the theological import of the institution narrative is mistaken, based on the fact that the form of ‘this’ is neuter… well, that’s just silly!
If he objects to this argument, point him to Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics – the section on demonstrative pronouns begins on page 325.)
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I don’t follow the argument. Is it trying to suggest that when Jesus said “this” he was speaking of something other than bread or wine? What do they suggest “this” is?
Anyway, quickly looking up the phrase on biblegateway.com, and looking at the Greek notes, says that both “body” and “blood” are neuter. Which means using neuter “this” is just good grammar.
Anyway, quickly looking up the phrase on biblegateway.com, and looking at the Greek notes, says that both “body” and “blood” are neuter. Which means using neuter “this” is just good grammar.
P
ProVobis
Guest
It’s half right and it’s not strange at all. In the English the demonstrative is very vague.
Some say it’s coincidental, but many believe it’s intentional in both the Greek and Latin.
Hoc est corpus meum.
(the neuter Hoc refers to the neuter corpus, not panem which would be masculine. It is no longer bread but His body.)
Hic est calix sanguinis…
(The masculine Hic agrees with to sanguinis in gender, therefore it has become His blood, no longer vinum which would be neuter.)
Geogias has pointed out that in Greek the demonstative is neuter in both body and blood.
P
pablope
Guest
The first Christians understood the Bible, the gospels, the ancient writings…through the instructions of the Apostles and their successors, not through dissecting the written words at the tiniest bit and trying to ascrible a meaning to the disected words.
Ask them how can they tell if their interpretation is correct? Who decides if their interpretation is correct…them or someone else?
Then share this passage to them…from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
The passage says “listens”…not read a writing.
Then cite the example of St. Paul…Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.
This is the Biblical way. Ask them if their method is biblical.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Here’s the Greek of Mt 26:26:
λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτο ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα μου.
The word for ‘body’ here is σῶμα, and it’s neuter. The form of ‘this’ that’s used here, τοῦτο, is (yes, you guessed it)… neuter.
Let’s look at verse 28:
τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμα μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
‘This’ (τοῦτο – neuter) is my ‘blood’ (αἷμα – neuter).
So, no matter what case he wants to make about grammatical agreement… the agreement just plain works! Neuter nouns, neuter demonstratives! On the face of it, his argument fails, since there’s grammatical agreement. In every case he points to, the demonstrative (“this”) matches the noun in the respective sentence (‘body’, ‘blood’). No matter what he’s attempting to say, the data just doesn’t support his contention!
(OK: I can’t resist – I’ll address his assertion, too: Demonstratives usually take on the neuter gender. Sometimes, in Koine, there are cases in which the demonstratives seem to act like personal pronouns, so there are also occasions where ‘this’ takes on the gender of the thing pointed to. However, as a general rule, asserting the theological import of the institution narrative is mistaken, based on the fact that the form of ‘this’ is neuter… well, that’s just silly!
If he objects to this argument, point him to Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics – the section on demonstrative pronouns begins on page 325.)
F
Farsight001
Guest
I would respond by pointing out that “I” is a neuter pronoun too, but no one says its strange when Jesus uses it.
G
Gorgias
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
Here’s the Greek of Mt 26:26:
λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτο ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα μου.
The word for ‘body’ here is σῶμα, and it’s neuter. The form of ‘this’ that’s used here, τοῦτο, is (yes, you guessed it)… neuter.
Let’s look at verse 28:
τοῦτο γὰρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμα μου τῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν.
‘This’ (τοῦτο – neuter) is my ‘blood’ (αἷμα – neuter).
So, no matter what case he wants to make about grammatical agreement… the agreement just plain works! Neuter nouns, neuter demonstratives! On the face of it, his argument fails, since there’s grammatical agreement. In every case he points to, the demonstrative (“this”) matches the noun in the respective sentence (‘body’, ‘blood’). No matter what he’s attempting to say, the data just doesn’t support his contention!
(OK: I can’t resist – I’ll address his assertion, too: Demonstratives usually take on the neuter gender. Sometimes, in Koine, there are cases in which the demonstratives seem to act like personal pronouns, so there are also occasions where ‘this’ takes on the gender of the thing pointed to. However, as a general rule, asserting the theological import of the institution narrative is mistaken, based on the fact that the form of ‘this’ is neuter… well, that’s just silly!
F
Farsight001
Guest
“not inflected for gender” is usually what neuter means. Or am I missing some grammatical distinction?
Umm… no? “I” (ἐγώ) isn’t neuter; rather, it’s not inflected for gender…
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hmm…
I see the case you’re making. However, wouldn’t you say that there’s a difference between “it” (3rd person neuter) and “I” (or “you”), which isn’t inflected?
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to, perhaps…
F
Farsight001
Guest
Only a distinction we psychologically construct in our minds from the words we associate “it” and “I” with.Hmm…
I see the case you’re making. However, wouldn’t you say that there’s a difference between “it” (3rd person neuter) and “I” (or “you”), which isn’t inflected?
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to, perhaps…
N
Nigel7
Guest
Thanks everyone.
Gorgias, that was excellent.
Gorgias, that was excellent.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Quick correction: hic corresponds to calix.
Well for one, the pronoun is neuter because the noun referred to is neuter. That’s basic and I’m not sure where he concocted this argument from.
Second, the gender of a noun has nothing to to do with the sex of a person. That’s one of the first things we learn when studying Greek nouns.
P
ProVobis
Guest
In gender hic can agree with calix or sanguinis, which are both masculine. The emphasis, however, is on the blood. What’s the theological significance of stating “this is the chalice(or cup)”?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Same with Latin, Spanish, and many other languages. But there usually is a pattern.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
It’s not a theological matter. It’s purely grammatical. What is being said is not “this is my blood,” but rather “this is the cup (of my blood).” You are correct that calix and sanguis are both masculine words, but in this particular sentence, the word used is “sanguinis,” which is the same word in the genitive case, modifying cup (calix), which is the predicate nominative. You are correct that the intended significance of the sentence is that the blood is being offered, but this is indicated indirectly. Directly, if the sentence is considered in the context of the Last Supper, Jesus is offering the cup which contains his blood in it.
- Status