Sheshbazzar

The texts say what they say. As a student and scholar of these texts I read and interpret them along the lines that the writers wrote and intended.
That does not entail that I uncritically accept everything they say as being of historical fact.

The texts as constructed make it clearly evident that the understanding of the Bibles writers was that the written Torah and the detailed Jewish regulations and ordinances were not introduced until the time of the Exodus when they were first given by Yahweh and written down by Moses.

I do not dispute the validity of Genesis 26:5, Abraham would have kept whatever it was that his Elohim had revealed to him, whatever that may have consisted of is nowhere clearly defined.
And such verses as this are by most textual scholars recognized as being latter inserted Deuteronical or Levitical redactions.
I do not believe that the Torah delivered by any Yahweh, or was ever written down by any real Moses. But that is how the narrative goes.

The narrative texts of 'Paul' or about 'Paul' likewise contain what they contain. You may mock it, and you may dispute it, but that will not change what it is that these narratives and Epistles relate.

The Books of The Bible as we have them are the only texts on these matters that we have to go by, it is only sensible to take them as they are and analyze their contents from there.
No one has any authority to edit their contents to fit personal conceptions. While one may do so, there is no inherent authority in any such edited and so mutilated and compromised texts.

If you want to hold a different reading, you best go out and start excavating until you can turn up an authentic earlier editions that read the way you want.
Until you do, the standard texts that we actually have, -with all of their contents intact- are what we must work with.

Duvduv

That would be hard to argue since there is norhing independent to corroborate anything about the existence or beliefs of Marcion at all.
In all likelihood the letters are simply composites of preexisting monotheism-friendly letters with some Christian references injected into prepositional phrases.

spin

This is an interesting issue in that the subject of the verb ויחשבה (= "he reckoned him") has two possible antecedents, Abram or god. It's not clear from the immediate context which is the correct subject, but if we look at the next clause

ויאמר אליו אני יהוה
And he said to him "I am Yahweh"

It is obvious that the subject of the verb ויאמר resolves to god, suggesting that the previous subject was also god. This seems to me to be the easiest resolution of the ambiguity in Gen 15:6. I have difficulty with the rhetorical value of Abram reckoning god to be righteous: it would seem totally unnecessary in the context. So, count me in with those who think that the reckoner is god and that Abram is reckoned to be righteous. It would follow from the acknowledgement of Abram's belief. There is both grammatical and logic support for god reckoning Abram to be righteous.

sotto voce

So Abram had obeyed a deity of whom he held doubts?

sotto voce

The idea of justification by faith, from the events of John 6 onward, has been met with negative personal reactions, from simple rejection to the most extremely violent attempts to suppress it; as well as the most ingenious attempts to by-pass it. So it seems to have merit just on those accounts. It would appear that 'all the king's horses, and all the king's men' have been insufficient to overcome this interpretation.

Sheshbazzar

Please elucidate. Where in any of this do you find anything that would indicate Abram held any doubts about his Elohim?

Sheshbazzar

Thank you sotto, that observation is consistent with what I previously pointed out in Post #18, that the doctrine of justification by faith without Judaisms legalism was strongly imputed in the many human stories and Promises made in both the Torah and in the Prophets.
Anyone thoroughly familiar with Torah and Prophetic material, and not simply ensnared into over-interpreting minutiae of legalisms, as insular 'Judaism' had became,_
(and somehow deluded or blinded into a false conception that the Kingdom of Elohim to come would be made up exclusively of JEWS practicing legalistic Judaism)
_would able to recognize that for these Promises given in The Torah and Prophets to ever come to fruition there would need to be a exchange of that Covenant made with Moses in the wilderness for 'a New Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, One NOT conforming to the Covenant that was made with their fathers in the day that they came out out of the land of Egypt (cf Jer 31:31-32)
Which former Covenant by its very nature was an exclusionary Covenant applying to only one single nation out of all the nations on earth.
But the Promises made by Yahweh to Abraham, and often reiterated in the Prophets pointed to a time when by Divine mercy this former Covenant would pass away, making way for a New Covenant to come into effect, that unlike that former covenant, would henceforth embrace all of the nations of the earth, calling the Gentiles 'My people' whom under that former covenant were not of His people, being excluded by the Laws peculiar to that Covenant.
The Jewish Prophet Jeremiah understood and taught this hundreds of years before Paul further expounded upon the same matter.

sotto voce

Elucidate? What could possibly require elucidation? If Abram recognised his deity as righteous only after being promised many offspring, what did he suppose his deity was until then?

Sheshbazzar

That promise of many offspring had already been made to Abram long before the statement of Gen 15:6. Thus this statement was not contingent upon Abram here hearing this promise. He had already heard it years before, way back in Gen 12:3 & 13:16

Gen 15:6 is only written acknowledgment of an already long existing relationship, not as though that it was only at that particular point in time Abram finally decided that his Elohim was righteous.

Abram from his first introduction to us in Gen 12:1 of the Scriptural narrative is presented as a person of integrity and one obedient to the voice of Yahweh that speaks to him saying; 'Get you out of your country, and from your kindred, and from your father's house, unto a land that I will shew you:
And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing:
And I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curse you: and in you shall all families of the earth be blessed.'

There is no reason to expect that Abram would have responded to or followed directions from a voice or Elohim that he accounted as being unrighteous or unworthy of his trust.
Abram trusts the words of promise that Yahweh has spoken to him, even above the words of his own father, of his family, above all of the priests of the city of Ur, and of Babylon.
From the very first Abram trusts the words of Yahweh his Elohim to guide all his steps in the right direction.
Abram sets forth on his journey and walks by faith in the voice of Yahweh his Elohim that guides him on the way.


Lest it should sound to much like I am preaching. No I do not accept that this is any actual historical account. It is an ancient narrative dealing with the ethical issues of trust and of having foresight, and of confidently acting on ones personal ethical convictions. Even in the face of great and opposing traditions and powers.
That is what separates any true 'Hebrew' from the mass opinions held by those around him. The guts to turn ones back on the glories of 'Babylon' the present age and situations, and on family pressures, and popular opinions, and to walk confidently directed by that inner Voice that speaks into ones conscience saying;
'This is the Way. Walk ye in it.'

Onias

I suggest you read Ramban's Commentery. It is available at any synagogue or at Amazon

Ramban - Bereishis Vol. 1: The Torah with Ramban's commentary translated, annotated, and Elucidated (or via: amazon.co.uk)



Please look at pages 347-352