John Kesler

Paul never says that his opponents objected to his using midrash. The difference was, as you say, one of interpretation, not of method.

Some are not, but today we are more concerned with original context and intent.

The key is whether the intent was to deceive. If NT exegetes thought that Jesus really was in view in OT passages, then there was no intent to deceive.

Merle

If there was intent to deceive, than the writers did something evil.

If there was no intent to deceive, than the writers of the NT were sadly mistaken, and we might well question their intelligence.

It is difficult for me to believe that Paul really thought the verses he quoted meant what he said they meant. He was an educated man, and could tell what the OT meant. His audience, however, often did not have access to the texts, and it is understandable that they could be deceived.

But what boggles my mind is that sophisticated, 21st century Americans read Paul's quotes of the OT and think the OT must mean what Paul says it means without ever looking it up and seeing the glaring problems. For instance, one man wrote to me:

Did it never occur to this writer that he might want to look it up before he makes this claim? :huh:

Newton's Cat

All references to Jesus & Christianity throughout Romans are interpolations (or later additions after Christianity became established).

Paul, A SLAVE OF CHRIST JESUS, called to be an apostle having been separated to the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through the prophets of him in writings holy, CONCERNING THE SON OF HIM, THE ONE COME OF THE SEED OF DAVID ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, DESIGNATED SON OF GOD WITH POWER ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT OF HOLINESS BY A RESURRECTION OF DEAD PERSONS, JESUS CHRIST THE LORD OF US, THROUGH WHOM WE RECEIVE GRACE AND APOSTLESHIP FOR OBEDIENCE OF FAITH AMONG ALL THE NATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE NAME OF HIM, AMONG WHOM ARE YOU ALSO CALLED TO BE OF JESUS CHRIST, to all those being in Rome beloved of God, called to be holy: Grace to you and peace from God the father of us AND LORD JESUS CHRIST.

Firstly, I thank the God of me THROUGH JESUS CHRIST concerning all you, because the faith of you is being announced in all the world. For witness of me is God, whom I serve in the spirit of me IN THE GOSPEL OF THE SON OF HIM how unceasingly mention of you I make ….

Etc.

Thus the text originally read:

Paul, called to be an apostle having been separated to the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through the prophets of him in writings holy, to all those being in Rome beloved of God, called to be holy: Grace to you and peace from God the father of us.

Firstly, I thank the God of me concerning all you, because the faith of you is being announced in all the world. For witness of me is God, whom I serve in the spirit of me, how unceasingly mention of you I make ….

Etc.

Christianity came into existence as a consequence of the activities of a single individual who "altered the sacred texts (of a pre-existing Jewish sect founded by Paul), wrote others of his own and made himself very wealthy." (late 2nd century non-Christian Roman author commenting on the origins of Christianity).

'...the faith of you is being announced in all the world...' interests me. If one takes this literally then one needs to look for a Jewish sect in Rome that attracted a lot of attention to itself.

spin

Why "thus"? How does one choose what stays and what doesn't without being arbitrary?


spin

Newton's Cat

All references to Jesus & Christianity that appear in the text whilst it is detailing Jewish practices, beliefs, and customs can be removed without disrupting the flow of thought. None of the references to Jesus and Christianity are an essential part of the text. This is remarkable - that one can remove the central character from a storyline and be left with something that makes perfect sense. In fact, after removing the references to Jesus and Christianity one is left with a text that is clearly much more coherent than it is when one's thoughts are constantly being "side-tracked" by the Jesus bits.

Kosh

He maketh a good point. I always wondered WTF was up with that HUG run-on sentence.

spin

I don't see how you get past the challenge on the arbitrary nature of excising large bits based on the sole criterion that anything regarding Jesus is secondary. You chop out most of the first part of the text to get to your destination.

It is usually understood that Paul is writing to Jews in Rome so he deals with Jewish practices, but then he comes in chapters 5 & 6 to his big Jesus sell. It's understandable, if this is correct, that after an intro strong on Jesus we get down to Paul's sidling into his discourse, which is quite Jewish in its approach to Jesus, ie that as death came with one man, another would take it away...

No, so far, I don't see that your excising the Jesus references and coming up with a Jewish epistle is remarkable. I think you need more evidence than your own cutting and slashing.


spin

Vivisector

Is this a general principle (removing text that doesn't interrupt the flow of thought) that can be applied to using other references (e.g., to John the Baptist) and to other texts (e.g., Mark) to identify interpolations?

I'm sorry, but I don't see what this demonstrates other than Paul wasn't laboring under a word limit in his epistles and that many words, phrases and/or paragraphs can be deleted while preserving - although likely at the expense of the author's intended nuances, clarifications and points of emphasis - a coherent text.

Regards,

V.

spin

And, Newton's Cat, I'm not trying to discourage your analysis.

Kosh

Does Greek have prepositional phrases?