Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 06-21-2009, 08:59 AM

Arnoldo,

While the quality of your posts have improved significantly over time, there are times I am not sure where you stand on issues. Sometimes you seem to be evangelical Christian, sometimes liberal Christian.

Here, I am surprised you are so uncritically mixing apples (Pauline letters) and oranges (Acts of the Apostles), as if they are of equal value as well as independent sources. While I personally think Acts and the Pauline letters were written independently of one another (I mean the letters did not DIRECTLY influence the writing of Acts or vice versa, although I allow for them to have been influenced by common legends about Paul), there is more than enough reason for some to suspect that Acts is dependent to a degree upon statements found in the letters, or that some of the persons and places mentioned in the letters were dependent upon Acts. This has been discussed in this board in the past year or so.

Among historians, letters generally have greater weight as historical sources than do secondary sources such as books of history (or apologies, if this is what function Acts originally served). Even among letters, personal letters are not the same as letters of instruction, persuasion or praise intended for public reading. In addition, occasional letters in general circulations are usually edited for publication (there are many examples of such letters from Latin and Greek speaking elites).

Alternately, the other more literary category of works intended for public reading are almost universally edited after an initial trial reading (meaning it is read to a group of friends and associates for their feedback) in order to improve the style or effectiveness of arguments, and only formally published (released to the public).

If memory hasn't failed me, a detailed discussion of this publication process, including the editing step, can be found in Harry Gamble's Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. There is also more on the publication process and how it affects circulated texts in David Trobisch's The First Edition of the New Testament and Paul's Letter Collection. This has also been discussed on this board in the past.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Despite the opinion of an individual in this thread, Paul was a well educated individual and took advantage of all the learning available to him and was not in the least autodidactic. Throughout Paul's writings there is references to greco-roman maxims and other nuances which give a fair indication of his primary, secondary, and possible post secondary education. In reference to the topic of this thread Ronald F Hock (in the book previously cited) writes;

Quote:

Evidence of Paul's secondary education is also evident, alhough more obviously in his ability to cite and interpret literary texts-which were, in his case, the Greek Jewish scriptures, or Septuagint-than in the more technical study of grammar. Still, some signs of grammatical study appear, such as Paul's careful distinction between the singlular nad plural of a word in his understanding of the promise to Abraham (Gal 3:16) . . . But it is Paul's many quotations from the Septuagint--almost ninety explicit quotations...that mark him as a product of the secondary curriculum and indeed as an educated person. Paul's familiarity with the Septuagint allowed him, as needed, to quote apt passages that would add persuasiveness and grace to his arguments. It is in this context that Paul's quoting of the maxim from Euripides or Menander in 1 Cor 15:33 should again be seen, as well as Luke's portrait of Paul in Athens, in which he has the apostle quote briefly from the philospher Epimenides and the poet Aratus (Acts 17:23). . .

judge · 06-22-2009, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

Can the Hebrew really be construed to support Paul's argument that since Genesis does not say "seeds" but "seed" it was meant to indicate a singular heir and not decedents as the context seems to be saying?

Hi Zenaphobe, I dont know if you are still around to see this. This post has had me thinking still and today I came across something interesting, a quote from the dead sea scrolls.
I don't know too much about the DSS but came across a quote from them apparently. The quote is from what seems to be an apologetic site and unfortunately it does not reference where the quote comes from precisely.

Quote:

In a commentary on the Last Days, one Qumran Scroll from Cave 4

However here it is.

Quote:

The Lord declares to you that He will build you a House. I will raise up your seed after you. I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father and he shall be my son. He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law to rule in Zion at the end of time. As it is written, I will raise up the tent of David that is fallen. That is to say, the fallen tent of David is he who shall arise to save Israel

It would be helpful to see the previous context (if there is much) but from the portion just quoted (in english) it seems to see the "seed" as being singular.
It also seems to see the fallen tent of David as referring to a messianic figure too.
I dont know how good the english translation is, but on the surface it appears to suggest that people around the time of christ (or just before) were aware of interpretations that saw not only the seed of Abraham being a messainic figure but other portions of the HB in the same light.

DCHindley · 06-23-2009, 05:04 AM

"Seed" here is clearly meant to represent the Jewish people, not the "Branch pf David." After aall, doesn't a ruler have to have subjects?

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

Can the Hebrew really be construed to support Paul's argument that since Genesis does not say "seeds" but "seed" it was meant to indicate a singular heir and not decedents as the context seems to be saying?

Hi Zenaphobe, I dont know if you are still around to see this. This post has had me thinking still and today I came across something interesting, a quote from the dead sea scrolls.
I don't know too much about the DSS but came across a quote from them apparently. The quote is from what seems to be an apologetic site and unfortunately it does not reference where the quote comes from precisely.

However here it is.

Quote:

The Lord declares to you that He will build you a House. I will raise up your seed after you. I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father and he shall be my son. He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law to rule in Zion at the end of time. As it is written, I will raise up the tent of David that is fallen. That is to say, the fallen tent of David is he who shall arise to save Israel

It would be helpful to see the previous context (if there is much) but from the portion just quoted (in english) it seems to see the "seed" as being singular.
It also seems to see the fallen tent of David as referring to a messianic figure too.
I dont know how good the english translation is, but on the surface it appears to suggest that people around the time of christ (or just before) were aware of interpretations that saw not only the seed of Abraham being a messainic figure but other portions of the HB in the same light.

judge · 06-23-2009, 06:13 AM

Here is the full fragment (in English)

Quote:

. . . [I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them in order that they may dwell there and no more be troubled by their] enemies. No son of iniquity [will afflict them again] as before, from the day that 2 [I set judges] over my people Israel (2 Sam 7:10). This is the house which [ in the] last days according as it is written in the book 3 [ the sanctuary, O Lord,] which your hands have established, Yahweh shall reign for ever and ever (Exod 15:17-18) This is the house in which [ ] shall not enter there 4 [ f]orever, nor the Ammonite, the Moabite, nor the bastard, nor the foreigner, nor the stranger forever because there shall be the ones who bear the holy name 5 [f]orever. Continually it will appear above it. And strangers will no longer destroy it as they previously destroyed 6 the sanctuary of Israel because of its sins. He commanded that a sanctuary of men be built for himself in order to offer up to him like the smoke of incense 7 the works of the Law And according to his words to David, (2 "And I [will give] you [rest] from all your enemies" (2 Sam 7:11). This means that he will give them rest from a[ll] 8 the sons of Belial, who cause them to stumble to destroy them [ ] according as they come with a plan of [B]el[i]al to cause the s[ons of] 9 light to stumble, to think upon them wicked plans in order to deli[ver] his [s]oul to Belial in their w[ic]ked error. 10 [And] Yahweh has [de]clared to you that he will build you a house (2 Sam 7:11c). I will raise up your seed after you (2 Sam 7:12). I will establish the throne of his kingdom 11 f[orever] (2 Sam 7:13). I wi[ll be] a father to me and he shall be a son to me (2 Sam 7:14). He is the branch of David who will arise with the interpreter of the Law who 12 [ ] in Zi[on in the la]st days according as it is written: "I will raise up the tent of 13 David that has falle[n] (Amos 9:11), who will arise to save Israel. 14 An in[ter]pretation of "Blessed is [the] man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked" (Ps 1:1). Interpretation of the wor[d concerns] those who depart from the way [ ] 15 which is written in the Book of Isaiah the prophet for the last [d]ays, "It happened that with a strong [hand he turned me aside from walking on the path] of 16 this people" (Isa 8:11). And they are those about whom it is written in the Book of Ezekiel the prophet, "[They should] not [defile themselves any longer with all] 17 their idols (Ezek 37:23; see 44:10). These are the sons of Zadok and the m[e]n of his his cou[ns]el [ ] after them to the council of the community. 18 "[Why] do the nations [rag]e and the people im[agine] a vain thing? [Kings of the earth] ris[e up] and [and p]rinces conspire together against Yahweh and against [his anointed] (Ps 2:1-2). 19 [In]terpretation of the saying [concerns na]tions and th[ey ] the chosen of Israel in the last days.

judge · 06-23-2009, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

"Seed" here is clearly meant to represent the Jewish people, not the "Branch pf David."

Well it does not seem clear to me, from reading the english translation. The immediate subsequent references seem to be to he or him.

this may be a function of the translation though.

Quote:

I will raise up your seed after you . I will establish the throne of his kingdom f[orever] ). I wi[ll be] a father to me and he shall be a son to me . He is the branch of David who will arise with the interpreter of the Law who [ ] in Zi[on in the la]st days according as it is written: "I will raise up the tent of David that has falle[n] , who will arise to save Israel.

Toto · 06-23-2009, 09:41 AM

I couldn't stand it any more - I edited the thread title from Galations to Galatians.

Carry on.

Susan2 · 06-23-2009, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I couldn't stand it any more - I edited the thread title from Galations to Galatians.

Carry on.

A little OCD goin on there?

Chill, just teasing.......

manwithdream · 06-23-2009, 12:41 PM

Maybe Paul said the quote does not say seed (singular) referring to many, but seed (singular) referring to one, and a later scribe thought it made no sense and fixed it to say seeds and seed. Maybe the scribe did not know that it should be singular both times.

Manwith dream

arnoldo · 06-24-2009, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manwithdream

Maybe Paul said the quote does not say seed (singular) referring to many, but seed (singular) referring to one, and a later scribe thought it made no sense and fixed it to say seeds and seed. Maybe the scribe did not know that it should be singular both times.

Manwith dream

Your hypothesis re. scribal error is just as plausible as the hypothesis that Paul was bipolar or that there were six or seven ghostwriters for the Pauline letters. What do you think of Paul rhetorically claiming to be of the "seed of abraham" in 2 Corinthians 11:21-23?

storytime · 06-24-2009, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

"Seed" here is clearly meant to represent the Jewish people, not the "Branch pf David."

Well it does not seem clear to me, from reading the english translation. The immediate subsequent references seem to be to he or him.

this may be a function of the translation though.

Quote:

I will raise up your seed after you . I will establish the throne of his kingdom f[orever] ). I wi[ll be] a father to me and he shall be a son to me . He is the branch of David who will arise with the interpreter of the Law who [ ] in Zi[on in the la]st days according as it is written: "I will raise up the tent of David that has falle[n] , who will arise to save Israel.

"he" and "him" most prominently distinquished in the name Jacob. Jacob became known as Israel. Israel the one "seed" as predistined to the promise.

"in Isaac shall thy seed be called". Remembering that there were two brothers born to Isaac, Jacob and Esau. God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Esau lost his birthright. Jacob became the sole heir of the promise and the one seed to whom the promise came.

The son Jacob remained in his heritage. Esau broke away into another people called Edomites. Esau and Edomites were hated, and God did not call Edomites "my people".

The "seed" of Isaac is Jacob, meaning Israel. The Jews as the seed complete because Judah maintained the place and city of God for authorized worship. The ten northern tribes did not honor God by returning to Jerusalem in yearly pilgrimage but worshipped false gods in their high places via leadership of Jerobaom. Jesus comes along centuries later and tells the Samaritan woman at the well, "ye know not what ye worship, but we Jews know what we worship, because salvation is of the Jews".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-23-2009, 09:41 AM	#56
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I couldn't stand it any more - I edited the thread title from Galations to Galatians. Carry on.

06-23-2009, 12:41 PM	#58
manwithdream Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: united states Posts: 156	Maybe Paul said the quote does not say seed (singular) referring to many, but seed (singular) referring to one, and a later scribe thought it made no sense and fixed it to say seeds and seed. Maybe the scribe did not know that it should be singular both times. Manwith dream

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.