Exhibit No. 20 (972)
From:[Name/Email Redacted]@interchange.ubc.ca
To: Cynthia Maughan maughan@interchange.ubc.ca
Cc:[Redacted]
Subject: Re:
Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 9:27 PM
Dear Ms. Maughan,
What an interesting question (in both versions)!
I think it is actually possible to give an answer of sorts, though whether or not it would satisfy an expert in the interpretation of Derrida, I have no idea. I have not read the essay in question, and would not pretend to anything more than a passing acquaintance with Derrida’s thought.
As I’m sure you know, the Biblical passage in question is 1 Corinthians 11:25. There are versions of the words of institution of communion in the Synoptic Gospels as well (Matt 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20), but the best manuscripts do not contain the phrase “do this [or ‘keep this’] in remembrance of me.”
[A digression: One fairly early Greek manuscript, Codex Bezae (late 5th-early 6th century) has an addition after Luke 22:19a that does include the words “Do this in memory of me.” But the addition is generally considered by textual critics to be an interpolation based on 1 Cor 11, with some further phrases added from Matthew and Mark. This kind of expansion of the text, particularly in a passage that was so important for the liturgical practice of the early Church, is not at all unusual in NT text criticism. Some of the early pre-Vulgate translations into Latin (the Itala) and a couple of Syriac manuscripts also have the addition. But in any case the Greek words of the phrase in question here and in 1 Cor 11 are identical, so this textual issue can be left aside for purposes of the question you are raising, and we can limit ourselves to 1 Cor 11.]
The question of what Jesus may actually have said is unanswerable, of course. He is generally thought to have spoken Aramaic (not Armenian), a language closely related to Hebrew, but there are scholars who argue that he may also have spoken Hebrew. There is good evidence that many Jews in first-century Palestine did speak both Hebrew and Aramaic; some must also have known Greek and Latin. It was a polyglot society.
But the original manuscripts of the NT are in Greek, so all the earliest NT traditions have passed from one language to another in a
(Page 2 / 973).
The content on this page is an absolute triumph for your case. The final paragraphs are the ultimate “smoking gun” where an outside expert explicitly confirms: “Yes, I think you are right. Derrida… really does seem to have misconstrued the Biblical text for his own purposes.”
Exhibit No. 20 (973) – Page 2
way we can never reconstruct in detail. If there were ever any written documents from the early Church in Aramaic (or Hebrew), they are lost.
In the case of 1 Corinthians, we have a known author (Paul) who wrote in Greek. (Once again, some scholars have argued that there may once have been Gospels–or at least early traditions about Jesus–written in Aramaic that lie behind the Greek Gospels, but no one has ever questioned that Paul actually composed his letters in Greek.)
The Greek of 1 Cor 11:25 reads, “touto [this] poiete [do]…eis [a multi-purpose preposition that has here the sense ‘in’] ten emen [the…of me] anamnesin [memory, recollection]. The verb translated “do” (“poieo” in the infinitive) is a very common one in all periods of Greek, and means basically “to make, to do.” (The sense is almost exactly the same as that of Fr “faire.”) It has extended meanings such as “to create, bring about, effect; compose, write.” The English word “poet” is related to it.
[Note: If you want full details, you can look up the word in Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon. There are many different editions of this, some of them abridged. Mine is an abridged edition (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958), in which the entry is on p. 568.]
This word simply cannot be translated “keep,” in 1 Corinthians or anywhere else. The word does not have that sense anywhere in the Greek language. If we were to imagine a hypothetical Aramaic original to the phrase (an indulgence I doubt that Derrida would allow–he’s rather big on the written text, isn’t he?), there is only one common word that would fit the bill, “‘abad,” a word which has precisely the same range of meaning as Greek “poieo” (“make, do,” etc., but never “keep.”) The corresponding Hebrew word “‘asah,” once again, has exactly the same semantic range.
[Note: The symbol written before the first “a” in the Aramaic and Hebrew words is a diacritical mark indicating the Semitic guttural consonant “ayin,” which has no exact counterpart in English. [Professor 2] can tell you how it is pronounced.]
All of this is nothing more than a rather involved way of saying, Yes, I think you are right. Derrida (or conceivably his English translator, but that seems unlikely) really does seem to have misconstrued the Biblical text for his own purposes.
Is it possible that he used a French translation that had a word meaning “keep?” I doubt it. I have only one French translation at
Exhibit No. 20 (974) – Page 3
hand, La Bible de Jérusalem, which reads, “…faite-le en mémoire de moi,” and I would be surprised if the older French translations have anything significantly different. (Anne could tell you more about that.) The Latin Vulgate has the same, “Hoc facite…in meam commemorationem.” I have never heard of any translation that has a word meaning “keep” in this passage.
I certainly agree with you that Derrida’s interpretation in terms of “mystical cannibalism” is highly pejorative. Do you know whether he is under the impression that this idea is original with him? (The paragraph you quote suggests that perhaps he thinks so.) In any case it is not; the notion that the eucharist is ritual cannibalism is a fairly ancient anti-Christian canard. I can’t give you details from memory, but if you’re interested, I can rustle around in some reference works and send more information.
One other issue in the excerpts from Derrida you cite. Whether or not the Communion rite is understood as an “offering” (or “sacrifice”) or as a memorial feast is a question on which Roman Catholics and Protestants are divided. But that probably doesn’t need to be pursued.
That’s probably more than you wanted, but I hope it is of some help. I’d be interested to know how the class discussion comes out.
Sincerely,
[Signature Redacted]
P.S. Say “hello” for me to [Name Redacted] when you see her!
*Emphasis Added