jakejonesiv

Hi Ben,

That is a good point. I will put forward the argument with more vigor. (I will leave aside for now the question of what the Septuagint consisted of in the alleged time of Paul.)

It is written of the arguably fictional Paul that,
"I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city [Jerusalem] at the feet of Gamaliel, I taught according to the strictness of our fathers' law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today." (Acts 22:3).

If that were true, Paul would have learned the Hebrew scriptures and memorized from them. It is not merely a matter of translation, there are substantive differences with the Septuagint, and the alleged Paul falls to the Greek side. (e.g. Genesis 22:18, Galatians 3:8)

"Paul" misquotes the prophets either deliberately or by using a Greek translation. This is appalling obvious in the quotes from Isaiah in Romans. Romans 2.24/Isaiah 52.5, Romans 9.27-28/Isaiah 10.22-23, Romans 10.20/Isaiah 65.1, Romans 11.26-27/Isaiah 59.20-21, Romans 15.12/Isaiah 11.10.
It indicates that the author was not reading the original Hebrew, as any true student of Gamaliel would have done. (As for Gamaliel's alleged comment about leaving the Nazarenes alone, Acts 5:38-39, that is unlikely. At any rate it is contradictory to Paul's alleged persecutions).

OK, Andrew Criddle is correct that this claim is made in Acts. Anything similar in the alleged epistles?

"Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." (Philippians 3:5-6)

The claim here is that "Paul" had worshiped at Hebrew-speaking congregations, as opposed to Hellenists who spoke, worshiped, and read the scriptures in Greek. The same objection applies, "Paul" is a Hellenist. If this is true, one of the main historical claims about Paul is fiction, and undercuts the historicity of this character.

Jake Jones

TedM

I'm new to the "Paul was ficticious" claim, so am interested in seeing how the arguments address the kinds of things I mentioned. Some of Paul's writings sure sound like letters to me--written with very important objectives. The greetings and personal notes all sound authentic, but of course they could be for effect, I guess. I don't see why someone would write so many of them though. Why not put everything he wants to say into 2 or 3 "letters"? Why not spell out the issues of dispute, including opponent arguments more clearly? It seems to me that someone inventing Paul would have not so many issues unexplained. The best explanation is that his readers existed and knew what he was talking about.

jakejonesiv

Hi Julian,

You are asking the right questions!

The Marcionite version, recreated from quotes in the church fathers, is not an abbreviated revision of the cannonical version as has generally accepted, but the result of the extensive editorship of an originally Marconite text by catholic redactors.

The most extensive work on this has historically been on Galatians. (Marcion’s Apostolikon begins with Galatians). It is claimed that the Marconite version is smoother and more intelligible. IMHO, this is correct. ymmv.

WC van Manen: http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Galatian.htm
Detering: http://www.radikalkritik.de/DetGalExpl.pdf
http://www.radikalkritik.de/rmt.txt

In a recent study of Romans, Dr. Detering has claimed that the linguistic, theological, and textual evidence all agree, the Marconite layer is more original. You will need some German to get through the following links.

http://www.radikalkritik.de/roem_einl.htm
http://www.radikalkritik.de/Vergleich.htm
http://www.radikalkritik.de/RoemSpr.htm

Jake Jones

Julian

Thanks. It will take me some time to read through all that material. Luckily, my German is fairly decent still.

Just a quick question before I dive in. Is Detering's position that Marcion wrote the shorter and more coherent letters and that catholic redactors added material to them? Doesn't Tertullian accuse Marcion of exegesis with a knife? Not that I consider Tertullian a reliable source, mind you.

Julian

Amaleq13

Does Paul ever use the LXX despite it being "egregiously wrong"?

Ben C Smith

The assumption that our extant Hebrew text is more correct (by which I presume more original is meant) than our extant LXX translation is not one that I am not at present prepared to grant wholesale. See, for example, the thread started by Yuri on the original arrangement of Ezekiel (and Jeremiah). I think we are stuck with determining relative originality case by case when it comes to the Masoretic and the LXX, and even the Qumran scrolls, for that matter.

Furthermore, utilizing an already prepared Greek translation is simply a lot easier than translating each and every Hebrew passage. And if the gentiles and diaspora Jews to whom Paul was writing themselves used the LXX, well, it would hardly be surprising to find Paul using their own available text for their sake. Especially given 1 Corinthians 9.20-23.

Ben.

darstec

Since there were no Masoretic Texts at that time, they would not be a consideration. We are then left with Hebrew (possibly the same contained in DDS). If Paul were an expert in Hebrew then he would plainly see the difference. Of course that still leaves the problem that there were differing Hebrew versions as demonstrated by the finds at Qumran.

What Greek source would he have used when quoting that which was not in the Pentateuch?

I'm afraid I can't agree. I know I do not use the KJV where it is plainly incorrect. It Paul had been studied in the Hebrew then it seems that quoting something he knows to be wrong would have infuriated him. If it didn't that could be a point in his favor that he did not know Hebrew.

What Greek did Paul use for those parts of the Septuagint that hadn't been translated by the mid first century? His quotes seem remarkably the exact translation of the future LXX. My, my what a coincidence. I never liked coincidences of that nature. So we are left with later interpolations or a later Paul.

We know from the thread about righteousness that Paul was not quoting the LXX. So he either translated from the Hebrew, or there was some other Greek version now lost to us that was floating around.

Ben C Smith

I was unclear. What I intended to signify was that it is possible that the LXX (sometimes, usually?) is a better representation of the original Hebrew than the Masoretic, in which case there might be very little difference for Paul to see.

So be it. You and I obviously have very different sensibilities on the matter. I myself rarely use the KJV, but, if I were trying to make a separate point to an individual believer or an entire church that was either KJV-only or simply used the KJV by traditional default, I would probably use the KJV. Or, perhaps more on point, if I were a missionary coming into an area of Africa that had only one Swahili translation of the Bible, and it happened to be based on the textus receptus, I would probably still quote from it for the sake of the local African congregation.

As for the dating of the rest of the LXX, I really cannot speak to that. Yes, if the LXX did not exist by the fifth decade of the era, then the Pauline quotes may well pose a problem. If it did exist by then, no problem at all.

Ben.

judge

Interesting. Can you elaborate on what this conflicts with in other "pauline" letters?

thanks

judge

Only a fool would believe in inerrancy.


Ok ...well I doubt that any two people here have the same assumptions about the NT, but in order to communicate we must make some. I am happy to not make this assumption. There are other examples where "paul" does not quote the LXX.