Summary of text [comment] pages 80 and 81

[What are we to make of this twist in oppositions between the Old and the New Testaments?

For one, between the two Testaments, the symbolic order of language transformed.

The difference between ‘flesh’ and ‘blood and bones’ was, in the early Old Testament symbolic order, a difference in the essential aspects of humans. The imagery is vibrant, especially to anyone who has butchered an animal.

The flesh gets work done. It is where the nourishment goes. If one does not eat, one loses muscle and strength.

The bones scaffold and anchor the flesh. The bones have the consistency of stone.

Yet, the bones also have something to do with nourishment. The marrow is alive. Animal bones go into soup.

The blood is the fluid of life. It is the liquid complement of the bones. The blood, too, may be used for food under certain ritual circumstances.

Food proscriptions reinforced the metaphor.

Flesh was to be separated from the blood and the bones.]