Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 10-07-2012, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And there is always the distinct possibility that any passage in Paul's letters has been interpolated.

Sure. With or without evidence. Go ahead and claim interpolation here if you want. Just don't say the passage is unclear, or poetic--thus making the plain reading confusing.

The difference between the two translations is whether the word εὐλογητὸς (blessed) is related to θεὸς (God) or to Χριστὸς (Christ).

In the former case, the phrase translates something like "5 to them belong the patriarchs, and out of whom, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen."

In the latter case, the passage would be translated something like "5 to them belong the patriarchs, and out of whom, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

DCH

How does this difference matter to how Christ was related to the patriarchs according to the flesh? Does this impact my argument regarding verse 3?

I would further argue that if Paul was referring to a metaphorical relationship between Christ and the patriarchs he would have done so in verse 5 in order to tie in to the metaphorical relationship of believing 'children of promise' in the following verses--ie both Jews and Gentiles The fact that he doesn't do so further supports the plain reading of a literal biological relationship.

sotto voce · 10-07-2012, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And there is always the distinct possibility that any passage in Paul's letters has been interpolated.

Sure. With or without evidence. Go ahead and claim interpolation here if you want. Just don't say the passage is unclear, or poetic--thus making the plain reading confusing.

The difference between the two translations is whether the word εὐλογητὸς (blessed) is related to θεὸς (God) or to Χριστὸς (Christ).

Not according to #27.

Do we now admit that the author wrote that Jesus was descended from Judah, then?

Toto · 10-07-2012, 02:56 PM

Look at Young's Literal Translation:

9 Truth I say in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing testimony with me in the Holy Spirit,

2 that I have great grief and unceasing pain in my heart --

3 for I was wishing, I myself, to be anathema from the Christ -- for my brethren, my kindred, according to the flesh,

4 who are Israelites, whose [is] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the lawgiving, and the service, and the promises,

5 whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen.

Nothing there about human ancestry of the Christ - just that he is Jewish "in the flesh."

sotto voce · 10-07-2012, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Look at Young's Literal Translation:

9 Truth I say in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing testimony with me in the Holy Spirit,

2 that I have great grief and unceasing pain in my heart --

3 for I was wishing, I myself, to be anathema from the Christ -- for my brethren, my kindred, according to the flesh,

4 who are Israelites, whose [is] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the lawgiving, and the service, and the promises,

5 whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen.

Nothing there about human ancestry of the Christ - just that he is Jewish "in the flesh."

That's what 'in the flesh' means. As everyone thought, pre-Doherty.

TedM · 10-07-2012, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

That's what 'in the flesh' means. As everyone thought, pre-Doherty.

I don't see the difference either. Paul is saying Christ came from the Israelite fathers. That normally would mean human ancestry. Of course it can be interpreted differently, metaphorically, etc..But there is nothing in the passage that would lead one to do so, and the way in which it is written--ie the other references to the flesh and the order in which he goes from biological to metaphorical most reasonably lead one NOT to do so.

Sheshbazzar · 10-07-2012, 04:32 PM

Like it makes any difference. 'Paul' never met, or knew any 'in the flesh' human Jebus.
'Paul' is no witness to the existence of any human Jebus.
'Paul's' Jebus had -levitated- off into the clouds long before he joined the cult.

'Paul' had no more acquaintance with any such 'in the flesh' human Jebus than you or I have.

sotto voce · 10-07-2012, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

That's what 'in the flesh' means. As everyone thought, pre-Doherty.

I don't see the difference either. Paul is saying Christ came from the Israelite fathers. That normally would mean human ancestry.

Of course. It cannot possibly have meant 'flesh' in the sinful sense, which is the only other sense used by Paul, or anyone. Not that the Jews followed Jesus in any sense. There is only one possible sense.

We are expected to believe that an ex-Pharisee did not know what every Jew and almost every Gentile in the known world knew, that the Jews expected a Messiah from and of their own people. Maybe the next idea is that Paul was from Mars. Watch this space.

Duvduv · 10-09-2012, 05:31 PM

DCH, I am intrigued by how the Greek is structured and can be mistranslated or rendered not to make any sense.
Does the way I rewrote the English below make any sense?
And how do you view the passage in the original Greek and in light of the possibility of an interpolation into a pre-existing Jewish-friendly sermon or letter from some other source adopted by Christians?

So how about this then the way I rework it:
The Patriarchs belong to them, and Christ, who came in the flesh from them, is exalted above all.
God is blessed throughout the ages. Amen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Thanks for this clarification, DCHindley. It seems like the translators of the version I found were getting pretty creative, and deliberately trying to avoid using "according to the flesh."

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

It was in my earlier post, Sotto, which you may have overlooked when you reacted to "convenient interpolations."

5 ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.

5 to them belong the patriarchs, and out of whom, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.

ὧν	of whom
οἱ	the
πατέρες	fathers
καὶ	and
ἐξ	out of
ὧν	whom
ὁ	the
Χριστὸς	Christ
τὸ	the (thing)
κατὰ	according
σάρκα,	to flesh
ὁ	the (one)
ὢν	being
ἐπὶ	upon (usually indicating contact)
πάντων	all things
θεὸς	God
(ἐστιν)	(be) verb is often omitted in Koine Greek
εὐλογητὸς	blessed
εἰς	into
τοὺς	the
αἰῶνας,	ages
ἀμήν	amen

The OP asked for an accurate rendering of this section, especially vs 5. It is based on the RSV, which itself translates it as:

RSV Romans 9:5 to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all (be) blessed for ever. Amen.

The KJV renders it:

KJV Romans 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

And the 1885 English Revised Version:

ERV Romans 9:5 whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

And the 2007 English Standard Version:

ESV Romans 9:5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who (is) God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

The blessing that appears in Psalm 41:13 (40:14 in Lxx) is like this:

RSV Psalm 41:13 Blessed (be) LORD (i.e., YHWH), the God of Israel, from everlasting to everlasting! Amen and Amen. (following the Hebrew)

LXA Psalm 40:14 Blessed (be) the Lord God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting. So be it, so be it. (following the Lxx)

BGT Psalm 40:14 εὐλογητὸς (ἐστιν) κύριος ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα γένοιτο γένοιτο

DCH

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

10-07-2012, 02:56 PM	#43
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Look at Young's Literal Translation: 9 Truth I say in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing testimony with me in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great grief and unceasing pain in my heart -- 3 for I was wishing, I myself, to be anathema from the Christ -- for my brethren, my kindred, according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, whose [is] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the lawgiving, and the service, and the promises, 5 whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen. Nothing there about human ancestry of the Christ - just that he is Jewish "in the flesh."

10-07-2012, 04:32 PM	#46
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Like it makes any difference. 'Paul' never met, or knew any 'in the flesh' human Jebus. 'Paul' is no witness to the existence of any human Jebus. 'Paul's' Jebus had -levitated- off into the clouds long before he joined the cult. 'Paul' had no more acquaintance with any such 'in the flesh' human Jebus than you or I have.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.