Toto

aa5874: this is where your lack of English becomes apparent. Born in a certain way does not imply anything about whether Paul saw Jesus first or last.

Toto

This is not clear at all, or Christian scholars would not have spent so many paragraphs trying to tease out a meaning.

The only thing that is clear is that this is what some people would like it to mean, but that this idea is at odds with other things Paul has written about taking a back seat to no one, especially the so called pillars.

So much for inspired scripture. God couldn't even get Paul to say what he meant.

Iskander

You are right, aa. The word ‘Seen’ , as used by Paul here , may be taken to mean ‘knowing god’, and Paul seems to associate seeing with faith.


http://www.hymns.me.uk/mine-eyes-hav...orite-hymn.htm


Paul is saying he was born late into the Christian faith.

Unfortunately none of the Oxford and Harvard scholars is or was an Aramaic native speaker. These worthy scholars translate into perfect English the dead languages of ancient religions.

tanya

1 Corinthians 15:8 novissime autem omnium tamquam abortivo visus est et mihi

I cannot comment on the theological issues, but with respect to whether or not aa5874's English comprehension is consistent with the Greek and Latin text, I would argue that he/she is doing as well as any native English speaker. The key is that word, "abortivo". Why did the original author use that word? It is not logical.

"born out of due time" suggests to me, simply that Paul is asserting that he had arrived too late on the planet earth, to have met with JC, while JC had been alive. However, I am not confident that the author who had written "abortivo" intended to communicate only the notion of "late arrival". If anything, an abortion represents an EARLY arrival on the scene, not a late appearance.

The English implies TOO LATE, but "abortivo" connotes TOO SOON, regardless of whether the abortion is induced, or a spontaneous miscarriage.

I wonder if the suggestion is between the mangled fetus, aborted, and the failure of "Paul" to comprehend the truth of Christianity, until late in life, after having profited from persecution of Christians? In that sense, it is not TIME, which he is discussing, but rather, THOUGHT.

Toto

Because no one can understand it?

Precisely. The Greek and the Latin imply too early, not too late.

The English only implies too late because it is an imprecise translation.

If you free associate, you can come up with all sorts of connections. But they are not in the original text.

maryhelena

Nicely put, Tanya - TOO LATE and TOO SOON. Illogical for someone to be both too late and too soon at the same time. Perhaps there is a way out of this dilemma.....anyway here is an idea:

There is no way to date ‘Paul’ from the epistles. (the Aretas/Damascus story is problematic) The epistles of ‘Paul’ would suggest that the type of church infrastructure that is up and running is not something that would have been viable, particularly in Jerusalem, prior to 70 c.e. Yet, if ‘Paul’ is supposed to have followed on from the gospel JC story, as in Acts, then he would have been doing his work prior to 70 c.e. A possibility: ‘Paul’ has been backdated into the gospel/Acts time frame. In the context of the gospel/Acts timeline, ‘Paul’ has been born too soon. ‘Paul’ is thus TOO LATE re his actual life and epistle writing to have known JC, others before him. And ‘Paul’ is TOO SOON, an abortion, because he has been backdated into the gospel/Acts time frame. He is an abortion - he never lived during that Acts time frame. (It's all a story though - with twists and turns to catch the unwary....)

(I don't view 'Paul' as a historical figure. 'Paul' is a composite figure reflecting two traditions, pre 70 and post 70 c.e. An early 'Paul' and a later 'Paul'. The NT 'Paul' being a fusing of two traditions. The later 'Paul' tradition being backdated, fused, with the earlier tradition, the earlier 'Paul'. )

tanya

It is not imprecise.

It is FALSE (exactly as you explained). So, my point is that this is not a problem of aa5874 failing to comprehend the ENGLISH, it is a problem of the ENGLISH failing to comprehend the GREEK (and Latin). The "error" committed by aa5874, was to imagine that the English accurately represented the MEANING of the original Greek, and Latin. In my opinion, it does NOT.

Why was it not translated differently? I guess this must have been a thorny problem, for those Englishmen and women who translated the text.

I have no idea what they were thinking, and even less idea what the original author, "Paul" was cogitating, when he wrote "abortion".

I am one who faithfully believes, sans evidence, that "Paul" was written late, after the Gospels, but, I cannot figure out a method to employ this peculiar verse as an illustration of that "fact". It is just so odd, that I cannot conceive of subsequent authors ignoring it's implication, when writing their tomes....The earliest citation of "Paul" that I know of, is by the Valentinians, but the oldest extant text is in Coptic, dated a couple hundred years after the second century when I suppose this letter first took shape. So far as I remember, they don't mention it....

I also fail to figure out how this bizarre verse could represent interpolation. Who would gain from inserting this term, abortion, into "Paul's" text? It is a mystery. Maybe the answer lies in other Koine Greek literature from that era...Maybe abortion, eighteen hundred years ago, had multiple meanings, as had been discussed earlier in this thread....I assume that this idea is more of the same business of asserting meaning beyond the literal translation of the text.

tanya

Thank you MaryHelena, very thoughtful rejoinder. Much appreciated....

What is puzzling to me, is that the fusing of two traditions would have gone unnoticed by the authors of the synoptic gospels.....

Why haven't they commented on this abortion nonsense? Surely, a figure so important as "Paul" to the early church, whether in the first or second century, would warrant some kind of comment, especially in the context of abortion....

maryhelena

The gospels? Acts, where the fusing of the early and late 'Paul' traditions is taking place - is, to my thinking anyway, after the gospel story. I suppose one, they, could read various ideas into that abortion text - just as people are continuing to do today. Maybe they could even think 'Paul' has blood on his hands anyway - re his persecuting past life - and if 'Paul' thinks he is an abortion, a waste, a mess, of some kind because of that - well, who are they to question him?

Toto

If aa5874 can comprehend English, why did he not understand the previous explanations of what this meant?

I don't think any women were involved.

The Englishmen who translated this were probably not used to discussing abortions in their sacred texts, but the Valentinians did.

One possibility is that this is an interpolation by enemies of Paul, who picked that term out of Irenaeus' discussion of the Valentinians. Another, that has been mentioned by a credentialed scholar, is that Paul used the term ironically because his enemies had applied it to him.