dog-on

I suppose that 2nd century catholic redactors may have meant it similarly to the way in which the later Catholic church meant it.

GakuseiDon

Thank you.

Is there any reason to think that this reading would not be the same if in fact it was authored by 'Paul' in the mid First Century?

archibald

But Kapyong, I'm not pretending anything. The post I linked to is yours, and it starts: 'here are the 90.....'

Yes, I know you subsequently 'boil them down'. Regarding that, I would dispute your reducing methods, though I might let you make gravy. :] But that's not the point here. Nor are the number of repetitions (why not take repetitions into account?) . Nor is the actual number. TedM started with 70. I'm saying 'lots', in Paul, as part of an overall picture.

dog-on

That's the question isn't it. If, for instance, Marcion was correct regarding Paul, then probably no. If Tertullian, for instance, was correct regarding Paul, then probably yes.

So, without assuming one's conclusions, I am not sure how to resolve it. Perhaps finding an MS of the Pauline corpus that actually predates the controversy might settle it.

Vorkosigan

Huller's post in the other thread argues that Paul didn't write Romans 9.

Really, really ridiculous, the OP of this thread.

archibald

It might be worth adding, though again it doesn't prove anything, that it's arguably reasonable to think that the redactors (if it was them) may have thought that it was what Paul would have said. That is to say, there is no evidence to suggest they were trying to 'get Paul to sound like he was not a mythicist'. Whatever about Paul perhaps being seen as a heretic, there's not much indication that his heresy was MJ and if his works were redacted prior to being copiously included in the canon , it seems more likely to think that the purposes were to make him 'more orthodox'.

Well, this certainly beats the previous highest claim of 50%. :]

GakuseiDon

What do you mean "if Marcion was correct regarding Paul"?

I'm not sure what you think needs to be resolved. The prima facie reading is the prima facie reading, regardless of when it was written or by whom.

Once we have decided on the range of possible readings, then that fits into the matrix of data that we can use. There are two premises:
1. Paul wrote the passage in question.
2. The passage indicates that Paul thought that Jesus was a Jew, who is a descendent of those Israelites who were part of a covenant with God from the time of Moses, just as Paul is also such a descendent.

My point relates to (2) above.

dog-on

I am not sure what you mean by 'get Paul to sound like he was not a mythicist', as that would be an anachronism.

Remember, the word flesh did not necessarily mean to them what it means to us. It seems that they would have allowed for entities like angels and demons to have flesh and that it was distinct from human flesh.

dog-on

If Marcion was correct, than Paul's 'world view' was significantly different to what it was later made out to be. The flesh of Marcion's Christ was not human flesh.

Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can truly say what the connotation of specific words used in an ancient society, in a dead language, might actually have been. In fact, it is sometimes even difficult to determine the actual meaning of words in one's own society and in one's own language.

What a bad dog...

You mean, once we have assumed our conclusion.

Iskander

Marcion never existed; it was invented in the 3rd century


http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...-in-third.html