Solo

As I pointed out in the thread on 1 Cor 15:3-11, the passages where Paul uses the word scripture in the plural all seem to come from passages of dubious authenticity, Rom 1:2, 15:4 and the disputed passage in the Corinthians. Also, Rom 16:26 uses δια τε γραφων προφητικων (by prophetic writings), again a turn of phrase otherwise unknown in the corpus.

On the face, it seems improbable that Paul would refer to the one and only supporting source for his revelations indifferently and in plural. The LXX was the only written authority that Paul refers to to support his ideas. On the other hand, I am ready to accept that the semantics might have actually invited the use of plural to refer to the sacred writings. I would like to see an argument

One thing that strikes me as too much of a coincidence is that Mark's Jesus uses the plural of scripture in a way that suggests reference to Paul's letters (I consider Mark as an allegorical narrative to vindicate Paul).

In Mk 12:24, Jesus scolds the Saducees saying they do not know the scriptures (and the power of God). But the OT speaks nowhere of a resurrected state, where those 'who rise neither marry nor are given in marriage'.

But we do know that Paul, (as an imitator of Christ), sighed off the lack of his charges' interest in that particular aspect of sainthood 1 Cr 7:7-8. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

Similarly in Mk 14:49, Jesus assents to his arrest saying ' let the scriptures be fulfilled' . Again, there is nothing in the OT which would even remotely a to Jesus a prophecy to follow, but for Paul of course the voluntary sacrifice of the Son was the centerpiece of his doctrine

Phl 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Rom 4:25 [Jesus] was delivered (παρεδoθη) for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Gal 2:20 I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Since the plural of scripture was made its way into dominical sayings by Mark it would not be surprising that the new usage was accepted and propagated in the communities. This would be one explanation for the apparent mismatch of reference to scripture in Paul's letters. Is there another ?

What do you think ?

Best,
Jiri

TedM

The obvious question to me is this: Our there any other places in which Paul doesn't quote the scripture but references it? I didn't find any. All references to 'scripture' give a specific passage. All references in the plural do not. The argument is simple: References to scriptures, plural, are general statements that presuppose the existence of more than one scripture as support. They, understandably, are found at the beginning and ending of epistles which are used to summarize basic concepts. The plural use in 1 Cor 15 is widely regarded to be contained within a creed. As such Paul wasn't the originator of the phrase. 'Scriptures' there are referring to ones that address the basic idea of Jesus' resurrection: There is plenty of evidence that early Christians were using multiple references to support a risen Savior, and one certainly wouldn't expect a creed to start to list out all of the references.

So I see nothing unusual about using the plural where he does, as they seem appropriate and there is a reasonable explanation for use of singular elsewhere: he quoted a specific verse.

Isaiah 53 is the opposite of remote--so much so that I could see the possibility of a crucified and resurrected Messiah having been created out of inspiration from that passage alone.


Ted

Solo

Thanks, Ted.

Jiri

aa5874

It is your argument that is "semantics". The LXX is NOT a single source it is a COMPILATION of sources.

Justin Martyr who did NOT mention "Paul" or the Pauline writing referred to passages found in the LXX as "Scriptures" OVER 50 times.

Theophilus of Antioch who did NOT mention "Paul" or the Pauline writings did refer to passages found in the LXX as "Holy Scriptures"

It simply cannot be shown that "Paul" would have referred to the LXX as "Scripture" when virtually ALL Church writers referred to passages found in the LXX as Scriptures even those who did NOT mention "Paul" and the Pauline writings.

Solo

To Justin Martyr the Septuagint would have been one Scripture and the "memoirs" another. So, his usage of plural for the sacred writings is not hard to figure out. Methinks, anyhow.


Ditto.

Virtually nothing, concerning the early Christianity, can be claimed with any degree of factual certainty. 1 Ti 5:18 quotes "the scripture" as saying "the labourer deserves his wages". The scripture quoted in this case is Luke 10:7, which of course Paul could not have known. So I don't think it is not something outrageous that I am proposing.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

It is NOT hard to figure out at all unless you are arguing "semantics". You should know the LXX contains the "WORDS of the Lord" from over TWELVE so-called Prophets.

Well, well, well, what BLATANT OUTRAGEOUS contradiction.

You just stated that VIRTUALLY NOTHING, concerning the early Christianity, can be claimed WITH ANY DEGREE of FACTUAL CERTAINTY but yet IMMEDIATELY state that "Paul" could NOT have known Luke 10:7.

Your proposal is indeed outrageous.

And, you have NOW CONFIRMED that in the Pauline writings the word "SCRIPTURE" May refer to gLuke and NOT Hebrew Scripture.

You should know that it was CLAIMED that "Paul" was AWARE of the Scripture in gLuke according to the Church. See "Church History" 3.4.8 and 6.25.

The phrase "the labourer is worthy" found ONLY in gLuke and the Pauline writings.

The phrase " this do in remembrance of me" is ALSO found ONLY in gLuke and the Pauline writings.

Lu 22:19 - 1Co 11:24 -
1. In the Pauline writings "Scripture" may mean gLuke.

2. In the Pauline writings "Paul" used words found ONLY in gLuke.

3. It was claimed by the Church that "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke.

4. "Paul" could have known gLuke.

avi

Thank you Jiri, for this excellent thread, so dear to my heart.

I am a keen observer of this question of "grafas", and whether or not, it ought to be translated as "scripture", rather than "writings", unless preceded by "holy", or "sacred".

Do you know of any place in the new testament, where "grafas" is preceded by either "holy" or "sacred"?

So, then the question you have posed is this: Does "prophetic writings" correspond to the Hebrew old testament (as 99% of the Christians believe), OR,
does it refer to some other texts, perhaps some no longer extant?

I don't know the answer.

I am too uneducated to follow this line of reasoning. Where does Paul cite some specific passage from LXX? So far as I am aware, he only writes:
"kata tas grafas", (1 Corinthians 15) i.e. "according to the writings", where "writings", i.e. "grafas", could refer to LXX, or to "memoirs of the Apostles", or to "Q", or to any one of the gospels, or to Diatessaron, or even to Marcion's writings. How do we know?

In other words, I think there is another issue, apart from singular/plural here. To which documents is Paul referring? That seems far more significant in discussing the origin of Christianity among peasants, Gallileans, Syrians, Hittites, fishermen, farmers, and a handful of gnostics, most of whom wouldn't have discriminated singular from plural, if lightning struck right at their doorstep.

I disagree, Jiri. It is the same old "grafas". Plural. We don't know to which book(s) this text refers. At least, I do not.....

I certainly would not use "grafas" as evidence that Mark KNEW of Paul's letters, any more than one could argue the converse, based upon this single word.

I again, am unable to follow this logic. "Grafas", writings, does not, in my mind, at least, if no one else's, NECESSARILY translate into "Hebrew old testament". So, in answer to your question, I would argue that we DON'T KNOW for sure, to which specific texts, Paul was referring, when he wrote "grafas".

I adopt an OVERLY simplistic view of human existence. I see a bunch of folks displaced by warfare from the Jewish-Roman conflict. Some of them are Jews, most are not. Most are itinerant. Most are homeless. Most are penniless. The Roman destruction of Jerusalem displaced many poor people from the slums. Most of them are illiterate.

In this miserable circumstance, someone comes along with a promise of eternal life in Paradise, and it COSTS NOTHING to procure a ticket, because nothing is what one possesses, and Paul want's everything that a person possesses to reach paradise, i.e. all of nothing, for most of them. In that setting, to my way of thinking, "grafas" refers to WRITTEN word, as opposed to the usual verbal hype delivered on the sermon circuit......"Grafas", is thus used, in my opinion, MERELY to emphasize the legitimacy of the legend. The supposed FACT, that the dogma appears in print, according to Paul, not simply as a hot air spiel from Paul, is a unique marketing device, which explains the incredible success of early Christianity. There would be, in other words, no need to read into "grafas", esoterica, like singular versus plural. The notion conveyed here, by Paul, i.e. his verbal spiel on the hustings, I believe, is this:

avi

maryhelena

I like that avi - I like it.....

And is that not where the power of the JC story lies today - in that simple gospel story. The power is not in 'Paul's fancy philosophical footwork - it's in the written gospel story. Sure, the early JC story was perhaps very simple - a wandering preacher of good news and promises - gets killed by those in power - his followers have visions (of whatever nature) and bobs your uncle - the promises are guaranteed! Well, something like that....and it's all there....recorded for you to keep by your side during the dark days of this earthly sojourn....It's not ideas that warm our hearts - it's the human interest story that strikes the cord that generates that emotional response....

(Yes, no historical gospel JC - just a very powerful story......)

aa5874

The Jesus story was a BIG JOKE in antiquity based on Justin Martyr's "First Apology".

Those Christians who did NOT ridicule and LAUGH at Jesus believers used to BLASPHEME the name of Jesus.

"Dialogue with Trypho" Even Christians over 1800 years ago did NOT ACCEPT the Jesus story based on Justin Martyr.

Solo

Romans 1:2 would be the only place with 'ta grafai hagia'. 1 Ti 3:15 has 'ta hiera grammata'.


I think the "prophetic writings" is a later scribe's reference to the OT.

Ok, avi I am not sure if I am making myself clear. I am asking if it is reasonable to think that Paul, living at a time where there was only one set of sacred Jewish writings, would refer to them sometimes as "scripture" and at another time as "scriptures". Would not the variant "scriptures" be an indication the text is later, coming from time when the church had another set - Paul's letters (and the gospel narratives) ?

I am interested in gauging if there perhaps was an idiomatic use of the plural in Greek for refering to the LXX which could explain the variant reference.

It is but one of many things, avi. Mark places in 10:19 a new commandment "do not defraud" (mh apostherhs) into Jesus mouth, which is not part of Moses' decalogue. Correct me if I am wrong but I am under the impression that it would have been a blasphemy extraordinaire for a first century Jew to mix God's commandments given to Moses with commands of some recently departed self-proclaimed tentmaker from Tarsus who used a Greek copy of the tanakh to make his own 'law'. ( Paul uses mh apostereite in 1 Cr 7:5). I do not believe for a minute that Mark was recording Jesus' saying in the incident. He was riling against the hypocrisy of the Petrines with respect to the law (as Paul did in the Galatians), in this instance poking at their lack of observance of filial piety. It would have been anathema to Paul to preach something like "if you don't hate your mother and father, you could not be the disciple of the Lord". Only someone whom God made look like sin could pretend such words were God's law or love.

Thanks, avi.

Best,
Jiri