Solo

No the Greek is not wrong: the literal translation would be "for the poor (plural) of the saints of (at) Jerusalem".

But the semantic issue is whether the genitive is meant to be partitive or whether it is an idiomatic form:
see here.

Best,
Jiri

Jane H

Thanks for your extensive reply, which provides food for thought. Some ideas:

The disciples aren't specified as scattering, but 1) Their absence at Calvary implies it (15:40,41) 2) I wouldn't read too much into this argument from silence. There was clearly what evos might call a 'Jesus team' (Mk 3:13-19), and whether LH is correct about Mark's meta-narrative or not, that there was a reconciliation would be known to his readers. (Indeed, although I wouldn't assert it, Mark could just be Peter's ghost-written memoirs!)

The Early Church was deeply divided, but we know what the fault line was, because Paul's writings give us a clear insight. On Torah observance, there were strong arguments. But on the four points you highlight, I see no great differences- in fact the early parts of 1 Corinthians stress a common approach to doctrine.

Surely Luke is closer to Paul than Mark is?

My reading of the use of parables is rather different, and I crave indulgence because 'The Parables' is my next preaching topic. Mark 4 highlights the need for Jesus to explain away from the general public that if the parables were properly understood, their content would cause a riot or at least the hurried intervention of the authorities. The parables were a trojan horse to break open worldviews, to introduce the new way of 'doing God', to explain how Israel-religion was morphing into Jesus-religion; but not in a way that issued a direct challenge.
To announce the new Kingdom, which excluded some Jews and introduced some Gentiles, while making Torah redundant, was to upset just about everyone- Romans, Sadducees, Pharisees. The medium Jesus chose was the relatively new one of parables. Set up a story, and let the listener work out what the heck was meant by it.

The collection was for the poor as a subset of the saints, and the 'pillars' are excluded from the poor*, not the saints. This is surely the same as the link, which stresses noun rather than adjective. I can't see it as idiomatic...


Regards.



(*although not on the same scale as televangelists manage)

aa5874

What corroborative non-apologetic source do you have that can show there was an early Church and that the early Church was divided?

You should know by now that the VERACITY of the events in the NT Canon is being questioned so MERELY repeating what is in the Bible as though it can ONLY be true or inerrant is a rather useless approach.

Please state what in gMark is true or is mostly likely to be true about the Jesus story and name the non-apologetic source that tend to support your claims.

It is ALREADY KNOWN what gMark contains.

Solo

But you see it is not that simple - even if you want to go partitive: is the reference to 1) the poor segment of the saints that are in Jerusalem ? (i.e. the division between poor and well-to-do saints is in the group of saints in Jerusalem), or 2) is the reference to the poor segment of saints that are in Jerusalem (i.e. the division is between the poor of the saints who are in Jerusalem, and well-to-do saints who are elsewhere) ? How did you decide that "surely" it has to be no 1., when almost everyone thinks it is no 2 (because of Acts 2:44-45 and 2 Cr 8,9) ?

Obviously something has to give here and this is why I much prefer the original translation of this verse by William Barlow's team (KJV), Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jan Blahoslav (Czech Bible of Kralice). They all agreed - independently - that Paul's relief was to the poor saints in Jerusalem.

Best,
Jiri

Jane H

As I understand it, the collection was caused by the famine mentioned in Acts 11:27-39. Now given the communal thinking you earlier referenced, it is likely that the entire church was suffering, although individual circumstances would vary to some extent (Acts 4:34,35). So I think you're probably right about it being more 2) as opposed to 1), but the whole thing is less black and white than a set theoretic approach would suggest.

The pillars wouldn't be excluding themselves from the term “saints of Jerusalem”, and they would benefit from the collection in that there would be less of a burden on them to support the less well off. So in that sense the collection would include the pillars as beneficiaries, even if the collection wasn't for them in the first instance.

Thus the pillars could ask for a collection for the poor, the collection could be made by Paul for the saints, and yet the pillars could still be included in the saints.

Shalom.

aa5874

Are you claiming that Acts of the Apostles is inerrant or that whatever you UNDERSTAND in Acts must be true or is likely to be true?

It is very difficult to make claims of being "probably right" when your source, Acts, is not even credible and have NO external corroborative support.

What "pillars" are you talking about?

There were no "pillars".

No external source can account for your "pillars" in the NT Canon.