avi

Thank you Jiri, for excellent comments, all of them very much welcomed.

Thanks, excellent work. Wonderful. The thing that strikes me, at least, as terribly significant about this passage, is the combination of words:

Not just "grafas", singular, as he usually writes;
Not just "hagia", as he writes, apparently, uniquely, only here;
But, also, and as significant: profhtwn

To me, the accompanying "prophet" term is far more convincing than the singular/plural aspect of "grafas".

Here, he strikes me at least, as definitely referring to the ancient Hebrew texts. It is almost too convincing, as though representing a later addition, by someone who wanted to clarify the situation.....

So, in addressing your query, re: plural grafais, versus singular grafas, could it be possible, that grafais is the term employed, in those days, to represent the ancient Hebrew scriptures, i.e. our "Old Testament", whereas, grafas, singular, represented one or more of the contemporary written docs, e.g. "Memoirs of the Apostles", described by Justin Martyr.

The fact that there is at least one place in Paul's epistles, which (unless it represents an interpolation) spells out for his readers, if I am not mistaken, that Paul is definitely referencing the ancient Hebrew Texts. Then, by definition, if he does NOT employ those same conventions:

plural form of "writings";
accompanying "sacred" adjective;
reference to ancient prophets;

his reference to "grafas", in other texts, i.e. other epistles, must be NOT referring to the Torah or other sacred Jewish writings.

Thanks again, Jiri, really sharp.

avi

aa5874

You cannot establish with credible sources of antiquity that "Paul" was " living at a time where there was only one set of sacred Jewish writings".

The DSS may DENY your Presumption.

Also the presumption that "Paul" lived and died in the 1st century before the Fall of the Temple is CONTRADICTED by the very Church. See Church History 3.4.8 and 6.25.

Now, once the Pauline writings are examined it is EXTREMELY clear that the use of the words "scripture" or "scriptures" does NOT require an interpolator.

The CONTEXT determined the use of "scripture" and "scriptures". Examine the epistle to the Romans.

Romans 1 Romans 16:26 - Romans 4:3 - See GENESIS 15.6

Romans 10:11 - See ISAIAH 49.23

This is so basic. No interpolator is required.

The MANY writings of the PROPHETS are referred to as "SCRIPTURES" and a SPECIFIC or single verse is referred to as "SCRIPTURE".

Solo

Origen and Eusebius are simply wrong, aa. They repeat what was believed in the church of their time, e.i. that Luke was Paul's physician and that Paul knew Luke's gospel. If you compare Paul's theology with what is proclaimed by Luke you would have to admit that there is a deep gap between the two that likely took several generations to bridge.

I am not arguing "necessity" aa; I am pondering "probability".

How about Gal 3:22 ? But the scripture consigned all things to sin, that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

According to your rule, the scripture here would require plural as Paul was speaking generally of sin without giving any specific reference. Exactly as in verses 1 Cr 15:3-4, where he (or someone else) does use plural.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

I will make you respond to your own post.

You are conveniently and horribly contradicting yourself.

Yes, of course. "Paul's" theology and Christology is MOST advanced. Not even Jesus in the Synoptics TAUGHT the ADVANCED Christology found in the Pauline writings.

Even the Apostles in the Synoptics did NOT receive what "Paul" supposedly RECEIVED from the resurrected Jesus.

The Synoptic Jesus did NOT TEACH that his resurrection was the foundation of the FAITH and was for the Remission of Sins.

The Pauline RESURRECTED Jesus is AFTER the Synoptic Jesus.

Well, you are really arguing unnecessary semantics. I have showed you how the Pauline writer used the words "Scripture" and "Scriptures" and it is EXTREMELY clear that it does NOT need an interpolator for "Paul" to write "Scriptures" when referring to the writings of the Prophets in Hebrew Scripture or the LXX.

Again, you are arguing semantics. Please EXAMINE Galatians, the very same Chapter 3.

The Pauline writer used the word "SCRIPTURE" just as he did in Romans.

Ga 3:8 - See the Specific scripture in Genesis 22.18 Again, look at Galatians 4.30 See the SPECIFIC scripture in Genesis 21.10 When will your semantics end?

Solo

Sounds like my semantics upset you. Why would that be I wonder ?

Jiri

aa5874

Why are you NOT upset that you are presenting semantics after posting on BCH for years? You seem to imply that you are PERFECTLY happy with presenting semantics.

It is shown in the Pauline Epistles how the writer used the word "Scripture" and "Scriptures" and it does NOT require an interpolator just CONTEXT.