EarlDoherty

I resent having to spend the time which I know will be required on this posting, but my honor, honesty and scholarship have been mightily impugned. I didn’t lose sleep over it, and I’m used to this sort of thing, but this time Gamera has gone further than I can allow. And he has demonstrated more about his own deficiencies than he has about mine.

I based my translation of “eti” on my two Lexicons, and the Greek passages in question in Romans, plus referring to a couple of others. It was certainly not based on applying my English dictionary definition of “still”. What I did not do was check every occurrence of the word in the New Testament. I certainly don’t do that on every occasion—though I have done it for something like “sarx” and “soma”—and I might ask for a show of hands from any here who consistently do so. For that ‘omission’ I hardly think Gamera was justified in running his bulldozer over my scholarship and personal integrity and using the language he did. That’s a sign of a rabid personal hostility, which I have encountered only on a few occasions. (Anyone remember Ed Tyler?)

To make matters worse, Gamera has heaped scorn on me on the basis of very poor investigation and scholarship of his own. In other words, his contention that my reading of “eti” is wrong is on very shaky ground. Let me repeat some of his words above:

That choice of the word “appear” is unfortunate, for it reminds us of his past forays into semantic range investigation—not ones that were too confidence-building (for us) about his abilities to understand word usage (even with half a dozen of us attempting to show how misguided he was). It also indicates that he is not 100% confident himself that what he is saying is accurate, and yet on that basis he was still [i.e., nonetheless] willing to dump all over me. To use his own word, “astounding.”

Be that as it may. He provided us with a link to a site (StudyLight.org) which “appears” to be his sole source for that investigation of semantic range. No wonder it took him only 30 minutes. It also “appears” that he did not actually investigate the Greek texts, or check his site’s one set of translations with other ones. Not only would that have taken him quite a bit longer, it might have led him to be a little more circumspect in his criticisms.

First let’s look at definitions. Eti in Bauer’s Lexicon takes up a full column. About one-third of that is devoted to #2 “in a sense other than temporal.” What did Gamera say? “Rather it is used almost exclusively in the temporal sense, with a number of instances as an intensifier ("even more"). I don't even think the lexical definiton accords with Doherty's claimed usage.” Another “I don’t think.” He’d have known otherwise if he had bothered to actually check a lexicon.

Now let’s look at a couple of passages and their use of eti, and we’ll see if Gamera is right in scoffing at the thought that the word can convey “the nontemporal ‘nonetheless’.”

Romans 3:7 – “If through my falsehood God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still judged a sinner?”

Most translations use “still” which is ambiguous. NEB gives it a ‘time’ wording (“why should I any longer be condemned as a sinner?”), but I regard that as misleading. The New American Bible has a more reasonable rendering: “why must I be condemned as a sinner?” Here there is no temporal element, the thought is in opposition to the first part of the sentence. ‘If my lie abounds to the glory of God, why am I still (i.e., nonetheless) judged a sinner?’ The thought has nothing to do with whether Paul was judged a sinner in the past. It is: If A, why nonetheless am I considered B? If I am a suspect in a crime, I can say to the police: “If you’ve got a confession from someone else, and I’ve given you an alibi for the time of the crime, why do you still (i.e., nonetheless) regard me as a suspect?” One could read it “why do you still (i.e., continue to) regard me as a suspect,” but a “nonetheless” reading is equally possible, and logically speaking (though I’m not sure how often Paul was logical) the confession and the alibi are set against the present state of being a suspect, and they are best set off against each other in a “nonetheless” way.

But let’s take a look at the website Gamera consulted. What is their translation of Romans 3:7 (the very first one of those he says he consulted)?

“For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?”

This wording should have at least suggested a “nonetheless” meaning to him, if he didn’t have his mind shut to any such possibility. “Still” can convey the sense of continuity in time, but “yet” far less so. The “yet” implies “even given such a thing.” Try my analogy again: You have the confession and the alibi, yet [i.e., even given such things], you regard me as a suspect.

Next, let’s look at an even clearer sense of “nonetheless.”

Romans 9:19 – “You will say to me then, why does God still blame us?”

Paul has just said, “God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.” The hypothetical question Paul then poses amounts to this: ‘Since God determines our sinfulness or lack of it, why then should we be blamed for our actions, since who can resist God’s will?’ There is no question here of being any longer blamed for our actions. It is the juxtaposition of two incompatible ideas, set off against each other by a “nonetheless” idea. 'God determines our will, yet should he nonetheless blame us?'

Again, most translations use the ambiguous “still” for eti. Still [i.e., nonetheless], we can note that the New American Bible drops any word for eti altogether: “Why, then, does he find fault?” It presumably doesn’t want to convey any sense of time which doesn’t belong. The “nonetheless” meaning is the only one that can be taken here.

Let’s look at what Gamera’s StudyLight website give as a translation for 9:19:

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

If Gamera hadn’t had his mind closed, he could surely have sensed the meaning of “Why doth he nonetheless find fault?”—which is about as clear as it gets in any translation of this usage of eti, without actually using the word “nonetheless”.

There is still [i.e., "added to what is already at hand, nontemporal," as Bauer says] another verse that illustrates the same thing, though perhaps with a touch more ambiguity. Of the two appearances of eti here, it is the second (its ‘re-appearance’) that is the pertinent one.

Galatians 5:11 – “If I am still [i.e., continuing to] preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?”

Apparently, the Galatians have reported that some are accusing Paul of advocating circumcision. He answers, ‘if I were doing that, why would I (nonetheless) be persecuted by the Jews?' Yes, there can be a sense of “continuing to be persecuted,” but the primary thought is the juxtaposition of alleged preaching of circumcision and the fact of present persecution. That is a “nonetheless” relationship between the two thoughts. Again, most translations here use the ambiguous “still.” Unfortunately, I can’t appeal to the NAB this time, because it goes in the opposite direction and understands a “continue to” meaning. However, the fact that they opt for that meaning here, while not in the two earlier passages, indicates that they indeed have a “nonetheless” meaning in mind for the others.

Considering that Gamera missed all of these passages that are quite suggestive of “nonetheless”, I guess he should have spent more than 30 minutes on his own semantic range investigation.

All three of those verses are listed under Bauer’s definition #2, “in a sense other than temporal.” In fact, as a group, they are given a sub-definition of their own: “c. in logical inference.” Bauer limits this to interrogative sentences, because that’s all he has to work with. (But any of these sentences could be turned into a direct statement.) Not surprisingly, Bauer lists the two passages that have been at issue here, Romans 5:6 and 5:8, under the “temporal” definition. But is that justified? Lexicons and commentaries, not to mention translations, regularly interpret meanings according to Gospel assumptions. And these two verses, unlike the others just examined, are indeed critical for Gospel assumptions. So let’s look at those two verses we have been debating:

Romans 5:6

Ei ge Xristos ontōn hēmōn asthenōn
For Christ, us being weak,

eti kata kairon huper asebōn apethanen.
yet/still at the (right) time for sinners he died.

I broke up the verse, not to a priori claim eti for the second part, but so that the lines could fit on the board without being broken. Still [i.e., nonetheless], I pointed out that here any translation that Christ died for us while we were sinners, or at some specific time that we were sinners, is unfounded, since the “yet/still” is attached not to us and our weakness, but to the fact of him dying. So that a proper translation of this verse should be something like: “Even though we are/were weak, Christ still/yet [i.e., nonetheless] died for (us) sinners.” (The ‘time’ element in this verse is not the “eti” it is the “kata kairon”.)

Now, I also made the point that eti belonged to the second part of the verse and not the first because it always precedes the idea it modifies, not looks back. That was what I did not verify by a check of my Greek Concordance and Greek text of the NT. But I have now taken the time to look at every passage in the epistles using eti. Not one places the word following the thought that it modifies. For example, Galatians 3:25 – “Now that faith has come, ouketi [no longer] are we under a tutor,” not “we are under a tutor ouketi.” This adverb, throughout the epistles, always precedes what it modifies. I have not taken further time to examine its appearances—or even its reappearances—in the Gospels and Acts. I hope and trust that those 42 occurrences will remain consistent to that. (Of course, I realize that failing to do this further research thoroughly discredits my scholarship and renders naked my nefarious agenda.)

Consequently, every translation that renders Romans 5:6 as “when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly/wicked” [NIV and NEB], or “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly” [NASB], or—well, I don’t need to spell them all out, even the NAB let me down again—is reading something into it that is not evidently there. Could they all be wrong? (Well, it wouldn’t be the first time.) The eti needs to modify what follows it, not what precedes it. Why would this passage alone be an exception to the standard word order? And so the proper translation ought to be:

“(Though) we were weak, still [i.e., nonetheless] Christ died for us.”

There seems to be a further misreading, in that the Greek does not pinpoint the time of the state of being weak or sinners, and thus translating it as “when we were…” is unjustified, at least as a certainty. The Greek is “hamartōlōn ontōn hēmōn / asthenōn (us being sinners/weak). That is not quite the same as saying “when we were sinners/weak.” (I'm not saying it cannot ever be understood that way, just that it is not necessary--unless, of course, you are going to read the Gospel context into it.) It is in fact setting in opposition a state of being, against the fact of the dying of Christ. It can simply be a stated anomaly: ‘even though us being…Christ died.’ The whole thing is shot through with the idea of “nonetheless.”

On the point of ‘anomaly’, note that in the three “nonetheless” suggestions for eti above, the structure of the thought is one of opposition. That is, something is stated to be, then something is set up in opposition to it that should not be, or not be expected to be. That is precisely the structure of 5:6. You say it isn’t, necessarily, especially if not ‘forced into’ a “nonetheless” meaning? Look at the intervening verse 7, a plain statement of anomaly: “Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man…” Given a righteous man, it is not to be expected that someone will die for him. Yet God has done the unexpected for us (v.8a). Thus, it is clear that the thought in both verses 6 and 8 is that Christ died even though we were sinners: the statement of an anomaly, something unexpected given something else. And yet [i.e., nonetheless] no translation allows the verse to be rendered in this fashion, even though the context spells otherwise, and no other passage is found in the epistles in which eti follows the thought it modifies.

But there’s another solution. The Greek text used in the King James Version shows an alternate reading for verse 6. There, instead of the eti appearing between “weak” and “at the right time”, it appears [definitely not “reappears”] at the very beginning of the verse, just before “Christ”: “For still (eti) Christ, (though) us being weak, at the right time died for sinners.” This separates the “still” entirely from the “being weak” and attaches it to Christ and his action. Since in that case it cannot have any meaning of ‘continuing to do’, it logically takes the “nonetheless” meaning of my suggested translation: “For nonetheless Christ, even though we were sinners, at the right time died for us.” Of course, we wouldn’t word it in that order in English. Which reading is more likely the original? Why would it be moved later to more clearly attach it to Christ? Whereas, a later transposition of it might have been made to try to indeed attach it to “us being weak.” On all counts, the standard translation of verse 6 is highly suspect.

(And it shows how moot all of our fine, carefully tailored-to-the-text arguments probably are, since we have no idea exactly what the original text, and the original ideas it represented, may have been. Any picture of the initial view of Jesus by the likes of Paul may very well be tainted by what later phases of the faith have done to it. Do I need to appeal to Ehrman again?)

But going on the assumption that we can rely to some extent on the surviving text, what does this mean for verse 8b? There the word eti is indeed attached unmistakeably to “us being sinners” (and the KJV does not cooperative by offering an alternate reading):

hoti eti hamartōlōn ontōn hēmōn
that still sinners we being

Xristos huper hēmōn apethanen.
Christ for us died.

If we read verse 6 as I’ve indicated we should, the meaning must be more or less the same here. But the eti here still [i.e., nonetheless] doesn’t have to involve time, despite its position. It can have the meaning of Bauer’s definition 2.c., as part of “a logical inference.” It’s also, like verse 6, a sentence that has the ‘contrary to expectation’ structure. In fact, it’s really a restatement of verse 6, just differently phrased. “Even though we are/were sinners, Christ died for us.” The ‘nonetheless’ idea has just been transferred onto the other of the two opposing elements. It might even be read (though I won’t press it) without such a transfer: “that nevertheless, we being sinners, Christ died for us.”

But there is another consideration here that no one, including myself, has previously noticed. What would it mean, in either verse, for Paul to have said, “Even though we were still sinners”—in the temporal sense? What sense would that make? Were we ever not sinners? Have we since ceased to be sinners? (Maybe so, since Paul wants to say and hopes that it’s now true.) But when would Christ have died otherwise? Would he have come at a time when we were not? We were at least still sinners when he did die for us. It couldn’t have been otherwise. The thought is thoroughly redundant, and faintly illogical, especially as expressed in English with its unnecessary inclusion of the “when” idea.

“When I was […] an ex-con, people still [i.e., nonetheless] showed me some respect.”

In the […] the word “still” in the sense of ‘continuing to be’ would be redundant and essentially meaningless. Whereas, ‘even though I was (and still am) an ex-con, nonetheless people show(ed) me respect’ makes perfect sense. (Maybe I should substitute “mythicist” for “ex-con.” Unfortunately, the thought would not always be true.)

Finally, if we have rightly removed the specific idea of “when” in Romans 5:6 and 8, then there is no necessary contemporaneity of any sort between “being weak/sinners” and the dying of Christ, not even Christ’s act taking place during the span of time since Adam, when humans have been sinners. I agree that other contexts and considerations might suggest that, but not this particular one. The background to the thought could entail: “Even though we are/were sinners, God saw to it that Christ died for us before time even began [pro chronwn aiwniwn]”—(he just kept it hidden all these long ages). “Even though I've been penniless, the government in its wisdom set up a system of welfare benefits before I was born”—(and they just decided to inform us about them now, the @!%#s).

Well, I have to admit that all of this has taken me a lot longer than 30 minutes—five hours, in fact. It’s obvious that I’m not the scholar you are, Gamera.

(P.S. Even though I would have liked to make a few comments on Ben’s and Kevin’s latest posts, nonetheless I have no time left. Gamera’s insulting remarks could not be allowed to stand. Perhaps they might like to comment on some of things I’ve said in the latter part of this post.)

Earl Doherty

gstafleu

Certainly, Chris's act of redemption needs to have taken place bfore one can have faith in it, so there is a relation. But:
Faith does not exist since the act, it at most exists since people have found out about the act, and in fact faith cannot exist before that. So we have the following sequence in time:

1. Christ performs his act of redemption
2. Paul finds out about it and acquires faith in it
3. Paul tells other people about it, who then also acquire fait

The act of redemption and faith therefore do not happen at the same time. Paul tells us repeatedly that he found out about the act through revelation an/or the scriptures. So clearly the act happened before Paul found out about it.

The only case in which the time between the act and Paul's finding out about it is irrelevant (at least partly so) to the existence of faith, is if people had already heard about it before Paul's preaching. But that is reading the gospels into the epistles. Paul doesn't say anywhere "As many of you already know, and as I have now also discovered, Christ died for our sins." Afaict, Paul claims to have discovered this by himself, and is now giving the good news (with emphasis on the "new" part) to his flock.
(My bold)
The availability of the blood is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for faith: you also need to know that it is available. Where does Paul indicate that he thinks people already knew about it before he, Paul, told them about its availability?

Gerard Stafleu

Boro Nut

Someone who claimed to be able to read minds, make themselves invisible, and levitate objects with a twitch of their finger is hardly a reliable independent witness to anything. I watched My Favorite Marcion religiously and don't recall a single mention of the original text of St Paul at any point.

Boro Nut

Rich Oliver

Umm have you read Galatians 1 11 - 2 14. Plenty of historical information there, plenty of biographical information there, but of course thats about important people like Paul, Cephas, James and Barnabas, not about some irrelevant nobody who just happened to be the Son of God, co creator of the universe and Saviour of human kind.

Here's another historical /biographical detail.

Now that's a mighty strange rock on which to found a church of celibate priests. But surely of much more interest would have been whether Jesus had been married or not. would have been if Jesus had lived in Paul's relatively recent past, which he quite plainly did not.

Ben C Smith

You have to treat some significant portion of 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 (or thereabouts) as an interpolation, then, right? Not that such an interpolation is impossible, of course, and it has been argued, but I think it needs stating before your claim can claim merit:

For I delivered to you among the very foremost things what I also received, that Christ died for the sake of our sins, according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve; afterward he was seen by more than five hundred brethren at once, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; afterward he was seen by James, then by all the apostles; but last of all he was seen by me, as by one untimely born. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not fit to be called an apostle because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

We need not dwell too long on exactly what Paul means by received in this passage; it is enough to note that he appears to attribute preaching about the death of Christ for our sins and his burial and resurrection to the other apostles, too, if this passage is genuine.

Ben.

TedM

Isn't the first chapter of Galations also evidence of the same thing? Even though Paul says he received his revelation from no man, it is clear to me that such revelation was neither about the existence of Christ, or his crucifixion, or his being raised from the dead. This is because

1. He was already persecuting believers in Jesus prior to his revelation, so obviously knowledge of Jesus preceded him
2. He says that after his revelation believers in Judea were praising God because Paul was preaching the same faith they had.

This is why I suspect that those that he refers to in Galations as preaching another Jesus and another gospel were not literally preaching about another person named Jesus or something different about his death and resurrection. It may well be that by the "same faith" he was referring to salvation through faith. As such the "coming of faith" preceded Paul.

What may have been unique to Paul, and is IMO what Paul refers to as the mystery revealed to him--the revelation that came from no man, was that salvation through faith wasn't only available to the Jews, but was available to all of those who believed in Christ, including Gentiles such as those Galations he was writing to.

ted

dog-on

Your Acts are showing...

...but I think you have a point about the different Jesus...

Ben C Smith

I think you are right (Galatians 1.23). Indeed, I have made the point before that Paul regards the crucified Christ as absolutely indispensible, yet shakes hands with the Jerusalem pillars. Would he have come to any such terms with them if they did not believe in a crucified Christ at all? And Galatians 1.23 is, as you point out, very compelling:

...but only, they kept hearing: He who once persecuted us is now at last preaching the faith which he was once destroying.

And I also agree with you on what exactly was unique about Paul; it was his gentile mission. Indeed, he sees it as the very purpose of his calling (Galatians 1.16). This means, I think, that we must take two propositions very seriously:

1. Paul was the first to (even envision) preach(ing) the crucified and risen Jesus to the gentiles (not Jesus himself, not Peter).
2. Paul was not the first to preach the crucified and risen Jesus at all.

The first proposition (which I have not sought to prove here so far, but comes from a close reading mainly of Galatians 2) ought to keep us honest on the right side, the second on the left side.

Would you be so kind as to point out exactly where Ted let Acts determine his reading of Galatians 1? (If indeed that is what you meant by this comment.)

Ben.

dog-on

There it is...

Ben C Smith

Galatians 1.13, 16b-17a, 22-23:

For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it....

I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me....

And I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ, but only they kept hearing: He who once persecuted us is now finally preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.

Ben.