GakuseiDon

His response was so over-the-top, I couldn't take it seriously.

Ben, I'd be interested in where you disagree with me. Could you expand on that, please?

Ben C Smith

I think the mention of Zion in the verse Paul is quoting is explicable on a mythicist understanding. Might Zion simply be, on a mythicist theory, a present reality to Paul? He rendered other references in the Hebrew scriptures in a symbolic, spiritualized sense. Zion does not always mean the literal city of Jerusalem in the NT; it can also be a figurative entity (see Hebrews 12.22; Revelation 14.1).

(Another potential problem also is that the term Zion seems to appear in Paul only in these two LXX quotes; they may be holdovers in verses that Paul wants to use for other reasons.)

That said, I have considered taking this reference to Zion together with other potential minihints in order to mount a cumulative argument (the reference to Christ as Passover sacrifice in 1 Corinthians 5.7 being another such minihint, for example, but there are others); the idea would be to find these little correlations between Paul and the gospel story and then press the question: Is it more likely that (A) Paul is alluding to a story known to him and to his readers or that (B) later authors picked up on all these hints in order to link their story as tightly with the Pauline epistles as possible? Nota bene: I have no idea yet how persuasive such an argument would be. I am not persuaded of it myself at this point.

Ben.

Toto

Sorry, I don't see an argument that this is not a coincidence, or just invoking a popular theme.

You want a more comprehensive interpretation of Romans, which has been the subject of quite a bit of scholarly exegesis. Do you know of anyone who thinks that Paul refers to a crucifixion in Jerusalem here?

GakuseiDon

Yes, I certainly agree both those things are possible. Toto has suggested at points above both that Paul is using "Zion" to refer to a mythical place, and that Paul's use of "Zion" is meaningless.

The issue is that either may be true, but not both.

It reminds me of a courtroom scenario that someone once brought up. "My client didn't shoot that man, your Honor. He wasn't there. Or if he was there, he didn't have a gun. But if he was there and had a gun, then he didn't fire it."

I was hoping that we could have some hypotheses where the cases for and against could be examined by testing various passages. "Zion" being meaningful could support the historicist case and some versions of the ahistoricist case. But it may weaken other cases. I think a great deal of good could be had by listing some hypotheses and seeing which ones make the better case, and why. It may not prove any one particular case correct, but it may knock out some weaker ones.

I think it would be a great exercise to have people trying to defend one hypothesis over another, even if nothing is proved in the end. But it would need to have the people involved arguing in good faith. Comments like Toto's "maybe Paul was on drugs" (even if used facetiously) do not help.

Ben C Smith

I once pointed out that Earl Doherty was doing much the same thing.

But in this case I am not certain that the Zion was figurative option compromises the Zion was a textual holdover option in the same way that if he was there he had no gun compromises he was not there or in the same way that born of a woman was an interpolation making Jesus seem human compromises born of a woman does not mean human. If Zion was a holdover, then Paul did not intend Zion to be taken literally; if Zion was figurative, then Paul did not intend Zion to be taken literally. These two options, unlike your courtroom scenario (and mine) and the Doherty fallacy, share common ground.

Good faith can be hard to find sometimes.

If you were to compile a list of minihints as I suggested, what would they be, BTW?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Let me add something to my assessment of the Zion arguments above. It is not just that Zion is a holdover and Zion is figurative are common ground in a nonliteral interpretation; it is also that both can be taken as honest and appropriately cautious attempts to discern the mind of Paul in the face of insufficient evidence (there being only the two quoted references to Zion in all his extant epistles, and there being both examples elsewhere of Zion intended figuratively and examples in Paul of OT passages interpreted figuratively), whereas saying both that one was not at the scene and that one was there but without his pistol does not seem like an honest attempt at elucidating the available evidence. It is obfuscation; presumably one knows whether one was at the scene or not. Likewise, arguing that born of a woman does not mean human and then arguing that it means exactly that as an interpolation is obfuscation; we have lots of evidence for what this phrase means.

Ben.

GakuseiDon

I'm not talking coincidence in this case. That was between 1 Cor and Rom. This is an argument from within Romans. Paul seems to be relating "everyone who believes" back to the stumbling stone laid in Zion. I'm suggesting that something happened in Jerusalem, involving Jesus. Maybe it was the preaching of the gospel message, but whatever it was, it was done in Jerusalem.

No, not directly. That's because Paul is referring to the end of the law for righteousness. But then the question is how did the end of the law for righteousness come about, and what does that have to do with what is laid in Zion?

I'll grant that "Zion" in this context may mean the Jewish people, or Jerusalem, or the Jewish nation, or be meaningless. I'm arguing for one particular interpretation for Zion. I can't prove it, but I think I would argue that it makes for part of a more cohesive case.

Toto, what do you think "Zion" means in those contexts?

Toto

You are suggesting it, but you are not giving any hints as to why, except that is what you want to believe. Paul does not say anythhing about something that happened in Jerusalem.

If you are a Christian, you believe that Jesus' sacrifice is the end of the law, don't you? But Paul doesn't tell you where it happened.

Zion is mentioned in quotes from the LXX.

GakuseiDon

Yes, you're right. I shouldn't have made it sound like it was an exact match to the courtroom analogy.

I was thinking more along the lines of "Zion has meaning in those passages" vs "Zion doesn't have meaning in those passages", rather than "literal" vs "figurative". I don't mean to single out Toto here, but here are some of his comments:

• "Paul is discovering Jesus in the Scriptures. I think that Jerusalem is irrelevant here."
• "A better explanation is that Zion is a mythical place and Jesus a mythical Savior."
• "Paul finds passages in Isaiah and interprets them creatively."
• "Zion obviously has some symbolic meaning here. Jerusalem? Heaven?"

If Paul considers Zion to be a mythical place, or it has some "obvious" symbolic meaning, then it does have meaning for him in those passages. My suggestion is that Paul is referring to something that actually happened in "Zion", whatever Zion represents. It then comes down to the best case that can be made for any particular reading.

It's a good question, and one that I'll have to work on.

GakuseiDon

Yes it is. What does it mean when Paul uses it in those passages?