Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Loomis · 01-23-2007, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Romans 1.2 continues this theme. The gospel of God was foretold in the scriptures, he says. We can suppose that Paul will list a few of them in the rest of this quotation-heavy epistle, but there is no single OT verse that foretells anything known as the gospel of God.

In Romans 10:12~13, Paul shows us where he’s really coming from. Here Paul cites Joel 2:32

Quote:

Romans 10:12~13

For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him. For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Paul must have used kurios because this is the very keyword of the passage - with anything other than “kurios" Paul's argument makes no sense at all and there is no point whatsoever in quoting Joel.

“Paul” never heard of Yahweh. He was reading from the Septuagint. “Paul” was clueless.

Gamera · 01-24-2007, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I do not think the answer to your question lies in the preposition, Gamera.

The preposition κατα would simply mean according to or in accordance with. The phrase κατα την γραφην appears in the LXX in Deuteronomy 10.4; 1 Chronicles 15.15; 2 Chronicles 30.5; 35.4; 1 Esdras 1.4; and Ezra 6.18; and in the NT it appears in James 2.8. In all these instances, AFAICT, the writing referred to is pretty specific, and can be found quite precisely in prior texts.

But of course in all those expressions the term scripture is singular, which might well be taken to imply a particular spot in a particular text. The expression (twice) in Paul is κατα τας γραφας, with the plural scriptures.

The plural can refer to a precise text (Matthew 21.42), but does not have to. In Matthew 22.29 = Mark 12.24 Jesus tells the Sadducees that they do not understand the scriptures (plural) concerning the resurrection. What scriptures? The only scripture he quotes, Exodus 3.6, can only with immense difficulty be pressed into service for the resurrection. Even the wording used to introduce this quotation indicates that it was not necessarily the precise scripture he had in mind when he insulted the Sadducees. Rather, he was playing a familiar game with the Exodus 3.6 quote; how many references to the resurrection can one find in the Pentateuch (which to all appearances utterly lacks any mention of resurrection)? This game became quite common among the Jewish sects, and the Talmud has many examples of its various permutations. It stands to reason that when Jesus insulted the Sadducees he had in mind the whole of the scriptural witness, or at least a broad selection of passages from it, as evidence of the resurrection from the dead.

Similarly, in Matthew 26.56 = Mark 14.49 Jesus says that his arrest is fulfilling the scriptures. Which ones exactly? He does not say. Rather, it is probably the combined weight of many scriptures that he has in mind (the usual suffering servant stuff, perhaps, along with Daniel 9.26 and other texts). Refer also to Luke 24.27, 32, 45 for this generalized reference to the (unspecified) scriptures being fulfilled.

Romans 1.2 continues this theme. The gospel of God was foretold in the scriptures, he says. We can suppose that Paul will list a few of them in the rest of this quotation-heavy epistle, but there is no single OT verse that foretells anything known as the gospel of God.

As for specific candidates for 1 Corinthians 15.3-4, the dying for sins plausibly derives from Isaiah 53.5 and other texts, and the being raised on the third day plausibly derives from Hosea 6.2. This kind of OT foreshadowing is not very convincing to most of us moderns, of course, but what can we do about it?

Ben.

ETA: I see my post crossed with that of pharoah. I think he is correct to highlight Hosea 6.2, of course, even if he himself does not think so.

Thanks Ben. This seems to capture Paul's (rather freewheeling) mode of exegesis.

Roller · 01-24-2007, 06:14 AM

I remember listening to one of Ehrman's lectures where he mentioned this. I'll try to dig it out.

Roller · 01-28-2007, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roller

I remember listening to one of Ehrman's lectures where he mentioned this. I'll try to dig it out.

Finally had a chance to listen to this. Ehrman doesn't say anything special. He suspects that Paul had a worked out his explanation of "according to the scriptures" for Corinthians but Paul never spelled that explanation out. Ehrman continues with the usual (no mention of suffering messiah in the OT...)

Steven Avery · 02-09-2007, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

"Scriptures" is a pretty good latinization of "γραφας", which means "writings." But in English "scriptures" carries the connotation of holy writings. Did γραφας have that connotation in Paul's day? Gerard Stafleu

Hi Folks,

Interesting thread.

Gerard, the Greek word 'graphe', translated scripture, is used with that connotation in the New Testament. Consistently. It is used 51 times and never for secular writings or work-writings or such. Again and again Jesus and NT writers use the word for the scriptures, holy writings. 2 Timothy 3:15 and 16 is a good study, too, where hieros gramma (holy writings) is used in a synonymous sense to graphas "scripture".

So if you allow the NT to interpret itself you will have the scriptures of Corinthians as the Tanach, perhaps also the nascently circulating NT. The primary emphasis must be Tanach.

Chrystotom essentially allows by concession the reader to apply it to the NT. After referencing a number of Tanach scriptures he references a number of NT

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-12/npnf1-12-43.htm
"But if thou dost not endure the Old Testament, hear John crying out and declaring both..."

.. although that has a post-facto element as one he mentions is in 2 Corinthians, likely not what Paul was referencing in 1 Corinthians

And most commentators simply apply this to the Tanach (eg. Gill and Barnes I checked) however on occasion I think I have bumped into a viewpoint that allows for the NT as part of Paul's sense as well.

Since Paul refers to Luke as scripture that possibility should be at least considered as an add-on as well.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Malachi151 · 02-09-2007, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Gerard, the Greek word 'graphe', translated scripture, is used with that connotation in the New Testament. Consistently. It is used 51 times and never for secular writings or work-writings or such. Again and again Jesus and NT writers use the word for the scriptures, holy writings. 2 Timothy 3:15 and 16 is a good study, too, where hieros gramma (holy writings) is used in a synonymous sense to graphas "scripture".

But of course none of the writings that you cite were written by Paul, and citing "Jesus" is a nonstarter, since Jesus didn't write anything, his dialog was written by other people who were themselves concerned with citing from the Septuagint, etc., though Paul shows no particular inclination towards this.

Gamera · 02-09-2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Hi Folks,

Interesting thread.

Gerard, the Greek word 'graphe', translated scripture, is used with that connotation in the New Testament. Consistently. It is used 51 times and never for secular writings or work-writings or such. Again and again Jesus and NT writers use the word for the scriptures, holy writings. 2 Timothy 3:15 and 16 is a good study, too, where hieros gramma (holy writings) is used in a synonymous sense to graphas "scripture".

So if you allow the NT to interpret itself you will have the scriptures of Corinthians as the Tanach, perhaps also the nascently circulating NT. The primary emphasis must be Tanach.

Chrystotom essentially allows by concession the reader to apply it to the NT. After referencing a number of Tanach scriptures he references a number of NT

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-12/npnf1-12-43.htm
"But if thou dost not endure the Old Testament, hear John crying out and declaring both..."

.. although that has a post-facto element as one he mentions is in 2 Corinthians, likely not what Paul was referencing in 1 Corinthians

And most commentators simply apply this to the Tanach (eg. Gill and Barnes I checked) however on occasion I think I have bumped into a viewpoint that allows for the NT as part of Paul's sense as well.

Since Paul refers to Luke as scripture that possibility should be at least considered as an add-on as well.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Thanks Steve for the thorough analysis.

If Paul is refering to the Hebrew scriptures, well, no surprise (though it seems odd how he is using them -- what Corinthian would be reading Hebrew texts and how is the life, death and crucifixion "according" to Hebrew scriptures?). If Paul is refering to nascent NT gospels circulating at the time, that is indeed a lightningbolt illuminating the texuality of the gospel.

Steven Avery · 02-10-2007, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Thanks Steve for the thorough analysis. If Paul is refering to the Hebrew scriptures, well, no surprise (though it seems odd how he is using them -- what Corinthian would be reading Hebrew texts and how is the life, death and crucifixion "according" to Hebrew scriptures?). If Paul is refering to nascent NT gospels circulating at the time, that is indeed a lightningbolt illuminating the texuality of the gospel.

Most welcome, Gamera.

It was a good thread and I used it as a springboard to do a little study and checking on the verse, while the 'graphe' aspect was from an earlier look-see.

And I like your last sentence, it sounds like what I would write if my writing were more dynamic

"lightningbolt illuminating the texuality of the gospel"

Although the google search on "texuality" isn't clear .. is it a misspelling or a legitimate alternate to textuality, is the real meaning different with the sense of texture as in a usage of "photo-texuality" ? .. hmmm - nice word anyway

A couple of additional points .. note that I wrote 'nascently circulating' as I believe all the Gospels were written and circulating by the time of the Corinthians epistles, and had been for quite awhile. Since Luke, the first Gospel written, was addressed to the High Priest around 40 AD and the other Gospels were not long after.

Your questions about Corinthians reading the Hebrew scriptures is a good one.

Acts 18:8 does show that there likely would have been Hebrew and/or Aramaic text competence among the Corinthian believers..

And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house ....

Granted one could make the argument that there was few or no Hebrew-savvy there. And some of the gentile Corinthians who were not up to speed on the Hebrew Bible or the Targumim may have been able to follow along from reading the Greek OT. However considering the context one may well include the newly-circulating scriptures, the NT, as this was written to many folks who were from other religions who were newly reading the Gospels.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

jgibson000 · 02-10-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

]Hi Folks,

Interesting thread.

Gerard, the Greek word 'graphe', translated scripture, is used with that connotation in the New Testament. Consistently. It is used 51 times and never for secular writings or work-writings or such. Again and again Jesus and NT writers use the word for the scriptures, holy writings.

2 Timothy 3:15 and 16 is a good study, too, where hieros gramma (holy writings) is used in a synonymous sense to graphas "scripture".

Leaving aside the matters (1) of whether we can really make the distinction that you make between Jesus' and the NT writers' use of a word (since we have nothing from Jesus himself and all of his "usage" is really that of NT writers), and (2) that the author of 2 Timothy is absolutely bound to use a word the way anyone else uses it (especially as there was no NT when he wrote), I have to ask whether there's anything to your claim.

Here's what I.H. Marshal notes re γραφή

(a) The reference of the term γραφή. The term γραφή can refer to what is written or to the art of writing. In the sing. it can refer to:
(1) A specific passage. [Cf. 4 Macc 18:14; Philo, Her. 266; T. Naph. 5:8 (a non-biblical oracle)]The whole collection of such passages is ‘the Scriptures’, and the pl. is used in this sense to refer to the whole or parts (cf. 2 Pet 3:16, where the pl. refers to ‘various passages’).

(2) Although the plural means ‘the Scriptures’, the sing. never occurs with the meaning ‘a book of Scriptures’; phrases involving βίβλος are used instead (Josephus, Ap. 2:45). In Acts 8:32 ἡ περιοχὴ τῆς γραφῆς could mean ‘the passage of Scripture’, i.e. ‘the specific text in the book of Isaiah’, but it could also mean ‘the content of the passage’.

(3) There is dispute whether the sing. is used for the collection of Scriptures as a whole, equivalent to αἱ γραφαί, a sense which undoubtedly occurs at a later stage. [Warfield *; Brox, 261; Hübner. H., EDNT I, 260–4.] None of the background references listed in BA [Philo, Mos. 2:84; Ep. Arist. 155, 168; cf. 1 Chr 15:15; 2 Chr 30:5, 18.] absolutely require this sense except for Ep. Arist. 168; see, however, T. Zeb. 9:5; Philo, Spec. 1:1. Warfield*, 237–9, lists some 20 broader references in the NT where he claims that there is a wide reference to Scripture as a whole. [Jn 2:22; 7:38, 42; 10:35; 17:12; 19:28; 20:9; Acts 8:32; Rom 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2; Gal 3:8, 22; 4:30; 1 Tim 5:18; Jas 4:5; 1 Pet 2:6; 2 Pet 1:20; it is not clear whether he intended to include 2 Tim 3:16 in this list (cf. ibid. 134).] But some of these verses are better interpreted as references to specific passages (e.g. Jn 2:22), or to ‘whatever is written about a specific topic in an unidentified passage or passages’. Just possibly some refer to ‘whatever is in writing [sc. in the acknowledged collection of writings]’, and one can see that it would be easy to slide from this sense to ‘the writings as a whole collection’. In Rom 4:3 the sense of ‘what does the Scripture say?’ is surely not ‘what does the OT as a whole say?’ but rather ‘what is said in the passage that I am about to quote?’ Schrenk, G., TDNT I, 749–61, especially 754f., develops a case for γραφή signifying ‘the unified totality of Scripture’; he observes that Scripture is personified as a unity in Gal 3:8, 22, and then claims that the passages in Jn listed by Warfield refer to ‘the fulfilment of all Scripture, including its individual utterances’ (cf. 1 Pet 2:6; 2 Pet 1:20). None of this evidence is fully compelling. He has not made out his case that the phrase is used to mean the OT as a single document; the cases in question seem to mean ‘the [relevant] material that has been written’ rather than ‘the whole of the collection of Scriptures’. [See further, Burton, E. de W., Galatians (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1921), 160, 196; Burkhardt*, 79–81.]

It is best to conclude that the word here refers to an individual ‘Scripture’, i.e. ‘a passage in the collection identified as the Scriptures’ (Oberlinner;, 147).

Marshall, I. Howard ; Towner, Philip H.: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. London; New York : T&T Clark International, 2004, S. 791

Quote:

Since Paul refers to Luke as scripture that possibility should be at least considered as an add-on as well.

Oh Please. We've been through this before.

"Paul" does no such thing. He refers to a dominical saying as authoritative. And it's only by engaging in all sorts of question begging exegesis that the idea that "Paul" knew Luke, let alone regarded the Gospel of Luke as "scripture", can be maintained.

JG

Gamera · 02-10-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

[COLOR="Blue"]
Although the google search on "texuality" isn't clear .. is it a misspelling or a legitimate alternate to textuality, is the real meaning different with the sense of texture as in a usage of "photo-texuality" ? .. hmmm - nice word anyway

]

A pure and complete misspelling, Steve. I'm good at that.

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

01-24-2007, 06:14 AM	#13
Roller Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cleveland Posts: 658	I remember listening to one of Ehrman's lectures where he mentioned this. I'll try to dig it out.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.