DCHindley

Considering this forum's infatuation of the literary confusion of Chrestianos and Christianos, I thought the following would be interesting.

While working on my Greek-English analysis of Romans yesterday, I noticed an interesting thing in Romans 3:10 where Paul is quoting Psalms 14:1.

Verse	GNT or Old Greek (Lxx)	RSV or Brenton's Translation
Romans 3:10	KAQWS GEGRAPTAI OTI OUK ESTIN DIKAIOS OUDE EIS	as it is written: "None is righteous, (no,) not one
Psalm 14:1	OUK ESTIN POIWN CRHSTOTHTA OUK ESTIN EWS ENOS	there is none that does goodness, there is not even (so much as) one.

What that means is that Paul (or whoever wrote Rom 3:10) equated "righteous" with "(one who) does goodness", and the latter word (from Ps 14:1) is ChrEstotEta ("morally good/honest"). In Hebrew, "en hoseh-tob" (excuse the transliteration) also equates with "none that does good".

I have to wonder whether Paul's followers might have been nicknamed "ChrEstianoi" (i.e., "honest ones") by others while the followers themselves called themselves "righteous ones", on the basis of this kind of equation of terms. We don't know if Paul here used an otherwise lost Greek translation of Psalms that had the term Paul quotes.

It is thin, but interesting.

DCH

Andykiwi

Small point...
It's Psalm 14:v 3 that is being quoted there, not v 1

Is your concern to do with the difference between "righteous" and "good"?

stephan huller

Very interesting DCH

I have a lot of things going on behind me as I write this but the Marcionite identification of Jesus as 'Chrestos' clearly might have a role here. I guess there are a number of things to consider including whether there were more than one Greek translations that Paul could have been citing. In other words, is Paul doing the substituting or was it in his Greek translation.

For what it's worth the Aramaic substitute for צדקים (righteous) is zakai (blameless, clear) and which is the root of the gospel figure 'Zacchaeus' and a class of gnostic baptists associated with so-called Borborites (i.e. 'the Zacchaeans' cf. Epiphanius's Panarion entry for Borborites)

Also Keil and Delitzsch, in their comments on Psalm 14:3, say:

The citations of the apostle which follow his quotation of the Psalm...were early incorporated in the [Koine] of the LXX. They appear as an integral part of it in the Cod. Alex. [and he lists a few more odd places where it is found in text or margin -SMR]...Origen rightly excluded this apostolic Mosaic work of Old Testament quotations from his text of the Psalm, and the true representation of the matter is to be found in Jerome, in the preface to the xvi. book of his commentary on Isaiah.

Lastly I submit Douglas Moo's opinion (from his NICNT commentary, The Epistle To the Romans (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996):

The inclusion of Romans 3:13-18 in several MSS of the LXX of Psalm 14 is a striking example of the influence of Christian scribes on the transmission of the LXX. (See S-H for a thorough discussion). (p. 203, fn. 28) [S-H refers to A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, by William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam (ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902)]
What Moo's is saying, explicitly -- as Origen implicitly, K&D concurring -- is that the LXX's reading in Psalm 14:3 came from Romans via Christian scribes, and not the other way around, i.e., from the LXX into Romans.

my son is attacking me but I found this

Cege

I can see where the "quote" is from Psalm 13:1-3 but my question is how is Paul actually "quoting" when the verses don't match up. They are similar, but not direct quotation.

DCHindley

If you look closer, Ps. 14:3 is quoted in vs 3:12. In fact, 3:10-12 corresponds to Ps 14:1-3, at least according to UBS. Vs 11 & 12 are almost verbatum quotes of Ps 14:2-3. Romans 3:10 is more of a paraphrase of Ps 14:1. Even Ecclesiastes 7:20, which uses both "righteous" and "doer of good" in a similar manner seems derived from Ps 14:1-3. Maybe this is where Paul got the equation, by way of summarization. However, the idea of "not even one (has not sinned)" is clearly 14:1, OUK ESTIN EWS ENOS.

Romans 3	Romans 3	Psalm 14	Psalm 14
10 as it is written: "None is righteous, (no,) not one	10 KAQWS GEGRAPTAI OTI OUK ESTIN DIKAIOS OUDE EIS	1 there is none that does goodness, there is not even (so much as) one.	1 OUK ESTIN POIWN CRHSTOTHTA OUK ESTIN EWS ENOS
11 no one understands, no one seeks for God	11 OUK ESTIN O SUNIWN OUK ESTIN O EKZHTWN TON QEON	2 to see if there were any that understood, or sought after god.	2 EI ESTIN SUNIWN H EKZHTWN TON QEON
12 All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, *not even* one"	12 PANTES EXEKLINAN AMA HCREWQHSAN OUK ESTIN O POIWN CRHSTOTHTA *[OUK ESTIN]* EWS ENOS	3 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become good for nothing, there is none that does good, no not one.	3 PANTES EXEKLINAN AMA HCREWQHSAN OUK ESTIN POIWN CRHSTOTHTA OUK ESTIN EWS ENOS

DCH

Ecclesiastes 7:20 For there is not a righteous man in the earth, who will do good, and not sin

Andykiwi

So, Psalm 14 says "good" twice, while in Romans it replaces one of the "good" with "righteous".
...Probably because Romans is interested in promoting a new kind of righteousness - ref Romans 3:21

stephan huller

Oops. I didn't see that my comments WERE published earlier. Sorry. I think what I posted is very significant as it shows - what is evident to any reader of Philo - the text which claims to be the LXX is not the LXX. It is a Christian interpolation (I recognize that no one thinks that 'the seventy' translated the Greek version of Psalms but the point stands). An effort was made in late antiquity to displace the earliest Greek translations of the Bible. This is especially significant with regards to Daniel but it is interesting that there is so much evidence to point to Christian editing of the surviving Greek translations.

DCHindley

Stephen,

Why is it that every time someone asserts that we know something about some sort of evidence, someone else attempts to demonstrate that we don't know anything. Is everyone here a nihlist?*

That some Christian copies of Psalm 14 insert the other citations from Psalms & Isaiah in the text of Romans 13:13-18 (13 = Ps. 5:9 & 140:3; 14 = Ps 10:7; 15-17 = Isa 59:7-8; 18 = 36:1) is no proof that Psalms 14 has been contaminated by Rom 13:13-18 and cannot be trusted. Addition of text after 14:1-3 does not mean that 14:1-3 is contaminated, only supplemented. Is vs 14:1-3 exactly like Rom 13:10-12 in the mss in which Rom 13:13-18 is added to Psalm 14? Even if so, what does that really mean? Some have it like Rom 13:10-12, but most do not. The fact is, in most mss they are a bit different, whoop de do! The OP is all about contrasting the difference.

If you look into your UBS or GNT you'll see the whole of vs 10-18 as if one giant quotation, and perhaps this is exactly how many Christians saw it in antiquity. It doesn't even dawn on many that it is actually drawn from many Psalms and from Isaiah. They just think "them evil Jews musta have cut this out of scripture ... well, we'll show 'em, an' put 'em back whar they belong."

And what does all this have to do with righteousness being equated with doing of good, or whether POIWN CRHSTOTHTA has anything to do with the nickname "Christians"?

From MY oh so surely misguided and clearly wrong POV, Paul's kind may have been known as CRHSTIANOI (those who are upright), while Jesus' followers were known as CRISTIANOI (after their anointed king). In time, they merge into one in the common mind, and their fates were intermingled, much to Paul's follower's sorrow. However, as "Christ" later morphed into a cosmic savior, even they too were absorbed into the Christ movement.

DCH

* (look it up folks)

mountainman

This is an interesting observation in "Paul", about the "ChrEstianoi" (i.e., "honest ones") - thanks DCH.

Paul may have not had much time for Apollo, but Eusebius reports that in the late 3rd or early 4th century Apollo himself declared that the "righteous men on earth were a bar to his speaking the truth", and that one of his priesthood decares these "righteous ones" to be "the Christians". This reference may be too late to be of any relevance, nevertheless, it is an interesting fact.

stephan huller

My observation is merely that most commentators view the citation in Romans 3:10-18 as something developed by the author (or editor) of Romans 3:10 - 17. It is not a reflection of what originally appeared in the Greek translation of Psalm 14. It is something developed by 'Paul' and 'helper' or editor of the Christian canon and then inserted into the accepted Christian translation of the Psalms.

It was a Christian of the first or second century which created the unique catena here (Ps. 14:1-3; Ps. 10:7; Isa. 59:7, 8; Ps. 36:1) not necessarily Paul.

There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good, not even one.[Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Eccles. 7:20]
Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.[Psalm 5:9]
The poison of vipers is on their lips.[Psalm 140:3]
Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[Psalm 10:7 LXX]
Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know.[Isaiah 59:7,8]
There is no fear of God before their eyes [Psalm 36:1]

My guess is that it was not in the Marcionite Apostolikon. There is no reference in Tertullian to this section (Tertullian often likes to highlight OT references in the Apostolikon):

Since this is the circumcision recommended by Jeremiah: "Circumcise (yourselves to the Lord, and take away) the foreskins of your heart; " and even of Moses: "Circumcise, therefore, the hardness of your heart," ----the Spirit which circumcises the heart will proceed from Him who prescribed the letter also which clips the flesh; and "the Jew which is one inwardly" will be a subject of the self-same God as he also is who is "a Jew outwardly; "(Rom. ii. 28) because the apostle would have preferred not to have mentioned a Jew at all, unless he were a servant of the God of the Jews. It was once the law; now it is "the righteousness of God which is by the faith of (Jesus) Christ."(Rom. iii. 21, 22) What means this distinction? Has your god been subserving the interests of the Creator's dispensation, by affording time to Him and to His law? Is the "Now" in the hands of Him to whom belonged the "Then"? Surely, then, the law was His, whose is now the righteousness of God. It is a distinction of dispensations, not of gods. He enjoins those who are justified by faith in Christ and not by the law to have peace with God [Against Marcion V]