Solo

I don't think so, David. First of all, Paul did not believe he and his friends were going to be raised in 'the same flesh' (see 1 Cr 15:44-55). The exhortation to saintliness is given by Paul's conviction that any desire of the flesh is sinful - flesh is sin; sin is death. Crucifying yourself to the world is the way to go !

Second, it is unlikely that what you bolded are interpolations. The text appears to be authentic; these are 'core' mythemes of Paul. Paul repeats the
idea of the assembly being 'the body of Christ, and individually members of the body' in 1 Cr 12:27. Verse 17 is a classic Pauline articulation of the unio mystica, (of which he is the author by all evidence): compare with 2 Cr 3:18

ἡμεῖς δὲ πάντες ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ προσώπῳ τὴν δόξαν κυρίου κατοπτριζόμενοι τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα μεταμορφούμεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος
And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of (the) Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from (the) Lord who is the Spirit.

You are not saying, are you, that Paul meant to convey that he and the other ecstatics during their peak OBEs were morphing into God the Father, are you ?

Best,
Jiri

spin

@jjiv

Have you got any scholarly bibliographical references to the information?

Thanks.

spin

The notion of a communal meal is strongly rooted in Jewish practice as can be seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This seems to me to have been perverted by later christian weight on the eucharist. If Paul were interested in the eucharist, this would have been the most appropriate place to make a first reference to it, after all there is a perfect hook with 1 Cor 10:16, "the cup of blessing... sharing in the blood of christ", but it is deferred till the squabbling over the communal meal.

(I think it would be much less so, if we weren't so influenced by the later tradition of Jesus being referred to as "the lord".)

I think it would take a drastic change in outlook regarding god for Paul to start referring to god's emissary as god himself. Remember that Paul's heritage was that κυριος was YHWH. I've seen no evidence that Paul blurs the line between the two major players in his drama. Jesus is subservient to god in is stated views.

I don't think the notion of "god's trumpet" involves god blowing it: some lackey is there for that, but the voice of god is common in the Judaism of the time:

Joel 2:11 The LORD utters his voice at the head of his army; how vast is his host! Numberless are those who obey his command. Truly the day of the LORD is great; terrible indeed—who can endure it?

And note about 1 Thes 1:10, Jesus "rescues us from the wrath to come", which separates Jesus from performing that wrath, an attribute that is the prerogative of god.

It is possible that there may have been a geographical component that might need to be taken into consideration, such that there may have been regional differences. One of the things about the simplest explanation is that it risks being too simple and therefore fails to explain everything necessary. I think the gospels were developed in different communities, though Mark had a circulation that involved the communities which developed Matt & Luke, so the temporal difference between Mark and the other two are still valid, but would you like to posit that Paul was writing at a time when a much richer christianity as seen in Mark existed?

My comment about interpolations wasn't actually part of the argument I was dealing with, but if Paul was not responsible for references to Jesus with the non-titular κυριος, then I think the only option left is interpolation. Have you got any ulterior suggestions?

Vorkosigan

spin --

I think you should have a couple of other examples of non-titular κυριος being an additional marker of interpolation. It would be especially convincing if you could find it in a passage that is widely considered interpolated. 1 Thess 2:13-16, for example. And also satisfying to find it in some of the interpolations as argued by Detering et al.

Vorkosigan

DCHindley

Jiri,

I would hesitate to speak so confidently of what "Paul" believed. Of the pericope you just cited (1 Cor 15:44-55) I only accept the following as "Paul's":

44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.
45 - 50 [...].
51 Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
53 For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.
54a When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality,
54b then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
"Death is swallowed up in victory." (Isa 25:8)

55 "O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?" (Hos 13:14)

Now these passages do indicate that "Paul" believed that the faithful will be resurrected, and that at the moment their mortal and perishable bodies will be raised they will also be changed into imperishable and immortal form. Changing requires starting with the old. However, it is still their bodies that will be raised, and once raised also changed into new and improved models. I do not think it impossible for "Paul" to have felt that it was disrespectful of the future resurrected body to pollute the physical body upon which it will be based.

"Authentic" by what measure? By 'core' mythemes? Everyone and her uncle has identified what they think is the mystical core of the teachings of Paul, hoping to make "sense out of nonsense" (gestalt-like). I am not so ready to fall back on this kind of position.

WRT 2 Cor 3:18, this is part of a complex that extends from vss 6-18. I have a hard time with this section. Vss 3:1-5 deal with Paul's credentials to preach his version of "good news", but then in vs 6 there is an abrupt change.

6a who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant,

still dealing with his credentials, and then

6b not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Then proceeds a long section (vss 7-18), but what is that section all about? I would expect that it would be an explanation as to what distinguishes his version of "good news" from the version espoused by the fellows he denounced in chapter 2:17:

17a For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God's word; but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak 17b [...].

"Paul" speaks of the law of Moses as a lesson. Moses saw God's glorious face to face which in turn caused Moses' own face to glow with glory. Moses brought the law down on stone tablets, with a veil upon his face on account of the fact it was glowing, and removed only after the glow had faded. "Paul" uses this as a metaphor. If Moses' glory faded, that which caused it (God) is exceedingly more glorious. "Paul contrasts the law of Moses, which introduced a "dispensation of condemnation," with "Paul's" message, a "dispensation of righteousness" which he reasons "must far exceed [the dispensation of condemnation] in splendor" (2 Cor 3:9)

From other passages that I have pieced together of this type (dealing with righteousness, law and faith and how they relate to both Jews and gentile who have faith in God's promises) "Paul" saw justification (being declared righteous before God) as being a covenant between God and individual men, preceding and even superseding other covenants he instituted with Abraham's physical descendants (circumcision), and even later with the 12 tribes of of physical descendants who exited Egypt and occupied the promise land (the Laws of Moses). It was this first covenant of unconditional faith in God's ability to deliver on his promise of a land of milk and honey to Abraham's descendants that "Paul" felt could be claimed by faithful gentiles, without obligation to undergo circumcision or follow the laws of Moses.

As a result, there are several passages in the undisputed letters that indicate this "Paul" believed that the Law was given to make it clear that man cannot achieve this righteousness before God on the basis of works, as the law is impossible to follow without missing the mark (sinning) and provisions had to be made to forgive these sins once a year on the Day of Atonement.

This problem inherent in the law of Moses he contrasts to the first covenant of unconditional faith, which even gentiles can participate in, and which he believes justifies faithful gentiles before God, allowing them to also lay claim to those promises made to Abram (apparently in the new age of resurrected saints to come).

It is at vs 3 that the party I identify as an interpolator begins to differently interpret the significance of the veil, which "Paul" had used to differentiate the Glory of God from the Glory of a man (Moses), so that it was instead something that signifies transcendence of the law of moses through Christ:

Where the original "Paul" says simply:

3a and you show that you are a letter
3b [...]
3c delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God,
3d [...]
4a Such is the confidence that we have
4b [...]
4c toward God.

the interpolator adds:

3b from Christ
3d not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts [introducing his block interpolation in 14-18].
4b through Christ
6b not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life.

The block interpolation, IMHO, says a lot about what he felt the relationship was between Christ and God, using Exodus 34:34 as a proof text. However, it has nothing to do with the original "Paul's" point that the dispensation of faith through unconditional faith is superior to what came after it in the form of the law of Moses. It is an indictment against the Jews, who cannot see the real truth of the matter, that Christ is superior to the law of Moses.

14a But their [the Jewish people's] minds were hardened;
14b for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away
15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds;
16 but when a man turns to (the) LORD [anarthrous] the veil is removed. (Ex 34:34)
17 Now the Lord (ὁ δὲ κύριος) is the Spirit (τὸ πνεῦμά), and where the Spirit of [the] LORD (τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου) is, there is freedom
18a And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of (the) LORD (τὴν δόξαν κυρίου), are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another;
18b for this comes from (the) LORD who is (the) Spirit (εἰς δόξαν καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος)

That this section uses an anarthrous form of Kurios (no "the") is because he is expounding a verse of the LXX that used an anarthrous Kurios as a circumlocution for the divine name YHWH. I think the interpolator here is indicating that "the Lord" (i.e., Christ) is the same as "the Spirit of LORD", and beholding this Spirit of Lord (i.e., Christ) causes men to increase in Glory.

DCH

PS: There are exceptions to my "handy dandy" definite article rule, particularly with regard to quotations from the LXX (which almost without exception uses an anarthrous Kurios to signify the Divine Name), which both "Paul" and the interpolator use as proof-texts at times. The exceptions are when some mss have either the divine name in Aramaic or Paleo-Hebrew script. Whether this represents the practice of at least some Jewish scribes who copied the LXX translation or early Christian practice (later changed to use of the anarthrous Kurios) is unknown.

DCHindley

Spin,

I'll be honest that I am not entirely sure what your point should be. Titular use should be associated with a definite article, to specify what lord is being spoken of ("the Lord", which can refer to both Christ and to the lord of a household or a king in the NT). Without a definite article, the word can refer to a quality ("a Lord", or "lordship"), or as a circumlocution for Hebrew "YHWH".

Have you created a GNT concordance for all the forms of Kurios with and without a definite article, to subject to analysis? If you are basing your thesis on the few occasions that jump out at you (perhaps through English translation), there will be many more occasions, some or many not fitting your thesis, in the unexamined instances. My car calculates MPG of fuel (KPL to you perhaps) based on sampling. If I reset the calculator as I am driving on the expressway, for a minute or two the small number of samplings may show 80 MPG then 10 MPG them 60 MPG. With time, a larger number of samples settles in on a steady 34 MPG. Make sure your sample is big enough.

And context. Mk 13:20 καὶ [and] εἰ [if] μὴ [not] ἐκολόβωσεν [he shortened] κύριος [LORD] τὰς [the] ἡμέρας [days] ... But a little later, there is Mark 13:35 γρηγορεῖτε [you watch] οὖν [therefore]· οὐκ [not] οἴδατε [you are knowing] γὰρ [for] πότε [when] ὁ [the] κύριος [Lord] τῆς [of the] οἰκίας [household] ἔρχεται [he is coming]. This is clearly a titular reference to the Son of God, who the author of this portion of Mark has already told us (vs 32) does not even himself know when he will be coming to his house. If only the Father knows when, not even telling his Son and his messengers. Is this the same LORD (anarthrous) who is said to have shortened the time of this tribulation in vs 20? This whole section needs unpacking. There will undoubtedly be other cases.

Sometimes unpacking is the worst part of a trip.

DCH

spin

The definite article is your interest, not mine. I'm more interested in function than form.

I think you're being naughty. The article, again, is your interest. What interests me is where Jesus is referred to with the non-titular κυριος. He is not referred to so in either Matt or Mark.

But you could do what you suggest, as there are only 243 uses of κυριος in the gospels and 100 of those is in the vocative (ie used in speech to refer to a subject and is therefore irrelevant to either of us), so there are functionally only 143 instances of κυριος in the gospels that need to be examined.

Among them are:

Mt 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord (του κυριου) through the prophet:

Mt 2:15 This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord (του κυριου) through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son."

Mt 5:33 "Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord (τω κυριω).’"

Mr 5:19 But Jesus refused, and said to him, "Go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord (ο κυριος) has done for you, and what mercy he has shown you."

This is non-titular and should refer to god, which it appears to be.

"Master of the house" is titular - like the queen of hearts. But I'd say that it still refers to god.

Paul makes an interesting distinction in 1 Cor 8:6, when he talks of god "for whom all things exist" and christ "through whom all things exist". Jesus is god's envoy. They are close and the language will be close as well, but, if I understand you, the following doesn't seem to be correct...

The lord of the house is a metaphor for god.

In 13:20 the lord cuts short the days. He knows when the end is coming, ie "the day of the lord" when he (the lord of the house) returns.

Correct.

It would seem I read the passage differently from you and I don't find the same problem.

DCHindley

So, if I am understanding you correctly, you want to clarify where non-titular forms of Kurios (Lord) are applied to Jesus as if he was God, and use this as an aid to analysis of the NT. If so, why didn't you just say so? Perhaps a Thesis Statement would help.

You are the one suggesting that knowledge of non-titular Kurios in the NT can add to our interpretive toolbox. That places the burden of proof upon you.

Knotty, more likely, as this is what some folks think I have in my head.

DCH

spin

To my knowledge in the Pauline works only two examples of the non-titular κυριος for Jesus are to be found (both in 1 Cor). Another example, 1 Cor 11:29, where "the body" was later altered to "the lord's body" in some manuscripts, shows that there was a will to interpolate the non-titular κυριος for Jesus in the later manuscript tradition. This non-titular κυριος for Jesus seems restricted to 1 Cor.

That neither Mark nor Matthew feature the non-titular κυριος for Jesus also helps to establish a status quo.

(It's hard for us to read something in christian scripture without assuming the non-titular κυριος refers to Jesus, unless explicitly indicated otherwise.)

Vivisector

I agree completely, and to be clear, I don't think Paul considered Jesus to be God or that he ever intended to refer to him as such. I only suggest that (or perhaps more correctly, wonder aloud whether ) Paul's notion of Jesus's nature and status might have led to some (inconsistent) elasticity in the application of κυριος.

Couldn't agree more on the risks of simplest explanations, and apologies on serving up an underdeveloped idea. My basic thought was that, if Paul was active in the relatively western provinces and if the early Markan/Matthean (Lukan?) communities arose in the relatively eastern provinces, geography could be a confounding factor. But whether, and to what degree, it was seems to depend on complicated and possibly unknowable interactions between communities and texts. In any event, I don't know that it changes the basics of your observations about timeframe and use of κυριος.


I think you put it best when you said that either Paul wrote it or he didn't. If he did write it, it's difficult to cleanly explain the rules that governed his use of the word. If he didn't, it's difficult (for me) to understand the rules and motivations that governed the interpolator(s).

Another fascinating problem.

Cheers,

V.