avi

Hello Doug,
Thank you for your reply.

I firmly disagree with your point of view.
You confound data and facts with opinion.
Data is gathered. Data is empirical evidence. Data is not opinion.

Here are two facts pertinent to this investigation:

Fact 1:
In all of the text of the four gospels, there appears not even so much as a single phrase, that pertains to any of Paul's epistles.

Fact 2:
Yet, in Paul's letter to Corinthians, there appears reference to "Cephas", cited in John 1:42, but nowhere found in any of the "scriptures", otherwise known as the "old testament", i.e. Jewish texts which included prophecy regarding arrival of a messiah. The OP here confronts this traditional view of "scriptures", suggesting that one purpose of Paul's epistles and "Irenaeus", was to elevate the status of the four gospels, raising them to the level of "scripture".

No, friend, I must again disagree with you.

My argument assumes, if you wish, that the Corinthians were not Christians, but rather, "pagans", or "heathen", and that Paul, was a district sales manager, assigned the task of communicating the correct message to a rather unruly group of potential applicants. Paul, in this letter to these non-Christian Corinthians, is explaining the "good news", i.e. the prospect that these non-Jews, disobeying even the most fundamental of the Jewish laws, would nevertheless be admitted into paradise. For you, Doug, a literate and well educated man, Paul is referring to Ancient Jewish texts, when he writes "according to the scriptures". For the Corinthians, in my opinion, Paul was referring, not to the Torah, which none of the Corinthians would have read, or even know of, as heathen/pagans, but to contemporary texts, which, today we call the gospels, when he wrote: "according to the scriptures", meaning, not just some palaver coming out of a salespitch in a circus tent, but actually written down and stored in a sacred locale, to be read aloud to the illiterate heathen/pagans every Sunday, when they gathered together.

I apologize here, but, the fact is, (another fact, not an opinion!), I am wholly ignorant of the old testament, and possess not even a scintilla of knowledge about what is or is not written there.

I must admit, though, as an ignorant, I would be astonished to learn that these ancient texts, contain within them, a prophecy (found in DSS--for I do not accept as valid the LXX,) that references the crucifixion of JC of Capernaum, a torture and murder committed by the Romans, (ostensibly to permit us sinful, non-law abiding, non Jews to enter paradise,) and then, a subsequent reincarnation, post mortem, witnessed by multitudes, though recorded by no one. If I have understood your post here, Doug, you claim that these details are found in the ancient Jewish texts, as prophecy, before the Gospels appeared on the scene...?

If so, that would be quite remarkable. If it is a fact, rather than an opinion, then there may be an exact reference, which I could read....

avi

avi

I think it is worthwhile to examine, once more, the text of the three verses 1 Corinthians 3,4,and 5.

Let's examine the text this time, but with a prejudice towards openness vis a vis interpretation. (i.e. let us, temporarily, while examining these three verses, put aside our notions of what is "correct" and "incorrect", instead asking, simply, "authentic", versus "altered".)

There is a significant difference among the various English translations, however the Greek versions of these three verses, are identical, save for a single word difference in word order in verse 4. The vocabulary is identical in all Greek versions.

Why are there so many different English translations of these three verses?

It is my opinion that the significant quantity of differing English translations of these three verses points to the difficulty which many different folks have had, throughout history, trying to reconcile "according to the scriptures", with the gospels.

1 Corinthians 15: 3

paredwka gar umin en prwtoiV o kai parelabon oti cristoV apeqanen uper twn amartiwn hmwn kata taV grafaV

A. Douay Rheims:
For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures:
(nota bene the colon, following scriptures, not a comma, or semicolon)

B. Weymouth:
For I repeated to you the all-important fact which also I had been taught, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures;
(note semi colon, following "Scriptures", capitalized, and "in accordance with", (i.e. something written long ago) rather than "according to" i.e. something quilled recently)

15:4

kai oti etafh kai oti eghgertai th hmera th trith kata taV grafaV

A. Douay Rheims:
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures:
(another colon following "scriptures")

Do not these two colons, indicate that the translators intended to INCLUDE the next bit of text with "scriptures"? Else, if that was not their intention, then, why not employ a comma, or a semicolon as one finds with many other versions, (but not Protestant King James, which, in verse 4, but not 3, also retains the Catholic colon.)

B. Weymouth:
that He was buried; that He rose to life again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
(note comma following Scriptures, capitalized, and omission of "and" at onset, indicating an imprecise, non-literal rendering of the Greek text)

15:5

kai oti wfqh khfa eita toiV dwdeka

A. Douay Rheims:
And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven.
(Note period at end, not a colon, or semicolon, or comma, and eleven, rather than twelve, a modification of the Greek original, found only in the Catholic version. emphasis by avi)

B. Weymouth:
and was seen by Peter, and then by the Twelve.
(note Peter, not Cephas as found in every Greek version.)

The points to be made here:

a. Every extant English version rewrites the original Greek, to make the finished product more palatable to native speakers, in the process, changing the meaning of the original text.

b. There is clear disagreement among the various translations, as to the correct, intended interpretation of the text.

c. Should we read, with a view towards seeking clarity, the differences in punctuation, as indicative of disputes with regard to the meaning of "scriptures", versus "Scriptures"?

c. All the versions clarify that Paul asserts that [Jesus] Christ was sacrificed because of our (heathen/pagan) sins according to the scriptures, so then, the question is this: Where in the old testament does one encounter those precise details regarding JC?

avi

Vivisector

Avi,

Another short one, in the interests of time.

Paul refers to Cephas several times outside 1 Cor 15:1, unconnected to any mention of "scriptures." In fact, he mentions him by this name much more than John does, and always in a sense of someone who knows personally of him and his activities - not as someone who considers Cephas to be a figure who is somehow connected to "the scriptures."

You correctly note punctuation differences among translations, but such differences are very common - not only here, but elsewhere. It makes sense to me to think of these differences as primarily due to what you yourself suggested - the desire to make the text more palatable (though I'd have suggested "understandable") in the English language - not as reflective of doctrinal disputes.

I almost find myself in the ironic situation of defending the Christian interpretation of HB passages. As a sampling of those the Christians point to in the context of "fulfilled prophecies," they will often point to:

1. Crucifixion prophecies.

a. Ps 22:16: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

b. Zech 12:10: And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

2. Resurrection prophecies.

a. Ps 16:10: For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

b. Ps 49:15: But God will redeem me from the realm of the dead; he will surely take me to himself.

And such it is. But please don't ask me to argue the strength of relationships between these passages and events surrounding Jesus's death and resurrection; my irony meter is already perilously close to its limit as it is. I can only tell you that these are among the passages Christians cite in this context.

Cheers,

V.

avi

Thank you very much Vivisector, for this enlightening rejoinder.

I appreciate your input.

aa5874 has also cited Psalms 22, in another thread. Upon reading his comment, I went to John Hurt's parallel web site, and read the entire psalm 22, without finding any mention of Jesus, or Christ, or messiah, or Yahweh's son, or any other reference to the torture and murder of JC of Nazareth/Bethlehem/Capernaum.

Dogs do bite hands and feet, traditionally.

I certainly do not find that fact illustrative of a prophecy regarding JC as son of god, dying for our supposed sins, tortured and murdered to permit non-Jews, and heathen to live in paradise, after devoting a life time to ignoring Jewish laws.

Somebody was bitten by a dog. No big deal (unless the dog is carrying rabies) Happens every day. Nothing to write home to mother about....

I would remind you, kind hearted sir, that the Romans were very pragmatic. Trees were not easily chopped down....there were no chain saws in those days. So, the idea that one must NAIL a criminal to a 2 meter tall stavros is some kind of myth of recent times. In those days, it would have been quite sufficient to simply bind the person's hand and feet, so that they could not easily move. Left vertical, death would ensue, depending upon physical health, in less than 24 hours, unless the victim were mounted upside down, in which case, death could come in just a few hours.

Cause of death: asphyxiation. People who were crucified did not die from exsanguination secondary to the wounds in the arms and legs, caused by pounding nails through the Radius and Tibia, respectively. Pounding nails sounds more gruesome than simple binding of the arms and legs, but the point is, any mechanism that prevents the victim from using their arms and legs to gain support, will suffice. If the Romans had experienced problems, absent nails, for example, they would have easily accomplished their goal by simply breaking the limbs, though, fractures of Radius/Ulna plus Tibia/Fibula would likely have significantly shortened the torture time, i.e. hastened death. Point here is that simply binding the arms and legs with any old vine, would have been much simpler than locating spare IRON nails....

So, while I can appreciate that folks of the middle ages, when little human Anatomy was understood, may have found some link between the dog bites in Psalms 22 and Mathew's elaboration, I do not. I deny that anyone here at this forum has demonstrated a link between "according to the scriptures", and the assassination of JC, apart from the tales told in the New Testament. Accordingly, I am sticking with my story, which is this: the letter to Corinth represents Paul's acknowledgement of the existence of one or more of the four gospels, then, or shortly thereafter, elevated to the lofty status of "scripture".

I remain convinced that Paul's epistles came to life, AFTER the gospels were created.

Here's a simple enough question, bearing on this question, since NONE of the gospels mention Paul's correspondence:

Who wrote first in these other two pairs of Greek writers?

a. Cimon
b. Plutarch

Answer: Plutarch cites Cimon, as one would expect, in view of their respective dates of existence. Of course, Cimon has never heard of Plutarch.

c. Thucydides
d. Plato

Yes, Plato (428-350 BCE) cites Thucydides (460-395 BCE)

avi

Vivisector

Avi,

As per previous implication, I'm far from the best person to defend why Christians have identified such passages as scripture that Jesus fulfilled. I will say that I agree with the uncomfortable nature of the fit (sounds as if you have a copy of Hengel as well) and go you one further. The HB obviously fails to mention Jesus by name in any prophetic sense; still, one of the names that does appear (Immanuel) isn't Jesus's name, but the Christians insist on taking this as another "prophecy" fulfilled in Jesus!

So, while we will disagree on whether Paul was making reference in 1 Cor 15 to "gospels" as we know them, we will perhaps agree that it is very difficult, indeed, to account for what Christians consider to be "fulfilled" "prophecies."

Cheers,

V.

stephan huller

It is impossible to argue that Paul is referencing 'gospels.' He always cites gospel in the singular. End of debate. This also demonstrates why your friend Pete's theory is so untenable. All the earliest references are to 'gospel' in the singular not 'gospels' in the plural. Why is this? Because there was only one Law originally given to Israel. In the same way the expectation would have been for only gospel. In the same way the Marcionites used 'apostle' in the singular. So too the Samaritans - i.e. as a title of Moses the one 'prophet,' 'messenger,' 'apostle' and 'man' of God. There could only have been one spokesman of God. One evangelist because there was only one law, one message, one God. The same pattern is seen in Islam with respect to Mohammed. Here too the 'one paraclete' is inherited from Marcionitism.

For the millionth time. If you want to take Christianity seriously you have to become familiar with the original concepts in Judaism and Samaritanism which led to the 'architecture' of the tradition (i.e. the physical skeleton or tree on which the other less important ideas were hung like ornaments on a Xmas tree). The apostle is referencing the OT 'scriptures' because Christianity developed from the pre-existent writings of the Hebrews in the same way as a tree grows from the seed of another pre-existent tree planted in the ground planted before its emergence. To over-emphasize that there is this or that 'pagan' influence in Christianity is to argue that a Xmas tree is merely made up of ornaments. But the ornaments are really superfluous. The Xmas tree is a tree first and foremost. If you want to understand what Christianity is, you have to start with what came before it. In the same if you want to study a Xmas tree you have to learn about nature of trees not the nature of ornaments.

mrsonic

and it also refers to the al injeel which means the gospel not anajeel . anajeel is plural of injeel

mountainman

Hi avi and stephan,

Clearly you both must now see how the use of nomina sacra confuses the issue, since by writing Xmas one cannot tell whether we are dealing with "Christmas" or "Chresmas". But the archaeologists are saying that we are finding alot of "Chrestmas Trees" in the epoch of Christian origins, but no "Christmas Trees". Dig?

When did the "scriptures" become associated with a tetrarchy - the leadership of four people - is an interesting question avi, and I am enjoying reading the questions and responses.


Looking for "JS" "CT" --- where the "JS" is "Jesus" and the "CT" is "Chrestos" or "Christos" --- in the NT and the LXX


One thing avi that you should be aware of if you go looking into the earliest manuscripts of the NT and OT (Greek LXX), as exemplified again above by stephans use - is these abbreviations. You will not find "Jesus" in the earliest Greek mss you will find only the coded form "JS". You will not find "Jesus" in the earliest Greek LXX mss, but you will find the coded form "JS". Here in the LXX, the coded form "JS" stands for "Joshua". That's Jesus out of the way. The final term is either "Chrestos" or "Christos " (if we are looking for a specific jesus). It too is abbreviated, say to "CT". Carry on.

stephan huller

Nothing is confused here. XC = Chrestos was certainly first. It derives from the notation on the margins of old manuscripts that showed that a section of text was 'right' or 'correct.' Chrestos was the term used by the Marcionites as a title for Jesus. The Catholics appropriated the Christian religion from the Marcionites and presumably the XC too.

But as always Mr. Pete this has nothing to do with the topic at hand ...

aa5874

Your claim is completely ERRONEOUS.

Even the very Church claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

."Church History" 3.48. The evidence from the Church is that PAUL made references to gLuke.

You are just speculating. You simply cannot show that the PAULINE writers were NOT aware of a written Jesus story.