Originally Posted by DCHindley

The JWs (I am not one, BTW) are famous for calling God "Jehovah" (the divine name JHVH with the vowels from Hebrew Adonai, "lord').

What they did was buy the printing plates for an old (and out-of-copyright) interlinear translation of the NT by Benjamin Wilson, The Emphatic Diaglott (1864), based on the critical Greek text of J J Griesbach (1796 & 1806). This they acquired from Wilson's estate after his death, and published in 1902, 1926 & 1942. This translation sometimes used the word "Jehovah" where the Greek text had κύριος (Lord).

Later the JWs developed their own interlinear translation of the NT, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (1969 & 1984) which used the 1881 Greek NT of Westcott & Hort. The interlinear English text is extremely literal, and consistently translated Greek words with the same English words and in accordance with the Greek' word's tense and mood. In fact, the Interlinear Greek-English part is excellent (and cheap, like $5-6 if you order it directly from them). FWIW, the Interlinear English does NOT translate κύριος as "Jehovah" but always as "lord" or "Lord". This interlinear does contain a very extensive introduction to the issue of how the term κύριος (lord) came to replace JHWH in the LXX over the ages, with plenty of examples from Oxyrhynchus and Fayoum Egypt. Very interesting reading.

This latter Interlinear does include another column with the JW's own New World Translation of the Greek Scriptures (NT published 1950), which besides the W-H 1881 Greek text and several others, also relied upon a number of translations of the NT into Hebrew, many of which used JHVH for κύριος in different places. They decided where they believed the NT text, as originally written, had the Tetragrammaton (the divine name of God, JHVH) like some ancient copies of the LXX did. Personally, I think their translation decisions regarding "Jehovah" vs. "Lord" are completely arbitrary.

See if your local library has a copy of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation. Of course, there are several competing Interlinear translations out there, most of which use English words from the KJV although there are others that use the RSV or NIV. I find encountering a word-for-word translation of NT Greek to be extremely informative, as Greek grammar is tied to prefixes and suffixes to word roots rather than the order of these words in the sentence. It is sort of how Yoda talks in Star Wars, which forces you to think how to understand it in normative English grammar. It also helps you understand why different English translations render the same Greek sentence differently.

Gotta go and make dinner.

DCH

Originally Posted by DCHindley

These are prayers in the Apostolic Constitutions that most of the scholars who have studied them believe are Jewish synagogal prayers from Alexandria or Syria, which have been touched up to make them represent the kind of prayer that the compiler thought early Christians might actually say.

Originally Posted by archibald

If, as you say, most of the scholars who have studied them believe them to be interpolations, what then do most scholars (or indeed experts in Classical Greek) think of your 'interpolated Paul'? Have you had any feedback?

Originally Posted by DCHindley

It still has to pass through that stage. I've run it across Mark Nanos and David Trobisch in a general way, and they have given cautious encouragement. Neither have indicated it will be an easy sell. Virtually everybody previously has treated the Christology as the heart of these letters, while I am suggesting that Christology was actually secondary, added to letters about gentile justification before the God of the Jews and their right to share in the promises God made to Abraham and his children.

Like most folks, I have a "real" job and a wife & 2 children, all of which makes it difficult to find the time and resources to make a formal presentation. My wife has given the green light to rent web space and set up a couple web pages with discussion boards (one for my theory and one for promoting my profession), but other issues keep getting in the way.

However, I think I can make a credible case, then announce the web page to the Corpus Paulinum and Crosstalk2 lists. Once I have worked through the feedback, I will write a technical article and see if I can get it accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. My humble aim is not to shoot down Christianity or criticize others, but to make a case that catches the attention of a bright graduate student (or two).

DCH (lunch break Guv'na)

Originally Posted by DCHindley

It still has to pass through that stage. I've run it across Mark Nanos and David Trobisch in a general way, and they have given cautious encouragement. Neither have indicated it will be an easy sell. Virtually everybody previously has treated the Christology as the heart of these letters, while I am suggesting that Christology was actually secondary, added to letters about gentile justification before the God of the Jews and their right to share in the promises God made to Abraham and his children.

Originally Posted by Notsri

DCH, one particularly important problem with your theory, in my opinion, is that it takes for granted the use of epistolary moral exhortation within the context of Judaism, when, to my knowledge, there is no evidence of that; your Paul would be completely anomalous in that regard. On the other hand, moral exhortation was of course a commonplace in early (and later) Christian letter writing; Paul's letters merely represent one link in the chain.

It strains credulity to think that Paul may actually represent the only known Jew, within Judaism, to use that type of epistolography, but the proof of that comes only once the distinctly Christian elements of his letters have been stripped away. The reasoning is circular.

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I propose that Paul was likely a retainer of a Herodian household, and that he came to appreciate those gentiles associated with these households (slaves and artisans), and argued that they too could inherit, along with Jews by birth, the promised blessed future in the land promised to Abraham's children.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I have long agreed with DCH on an original thouroghly Jewish basis for the original and genuine Pauline epistles.
The problem is that it was not just nomina sacra and a highly evolved 'christology' that was latter inserted, but entire chapters were forged and interpolated, and entire letters were latter forged in his name, containing ideas and doctrines that are utterly foreign to the original Paul.
I would estimate that less than 20% of the textual content of the so called Epistles of Paul actully originated with the original Paul.
It is likely that we will never be able determine how altered these writings are, unless unmolested contemporary exemplars are unearthed.

Building either a religion, or theories about "Paul's" life or religion, upon the premise of accepting the entire contents of these 'Pauline' epistles is like building a sand castle. You can while away your time, and build it any way you want, but eventually it is going to crumble, fall apart, and be washed away.