In Romans 4:3, Paul quotes the Septuagint’s [mis]translation of Genesis 15:6. A close examination of the Hebrew, Greek, and Narrative context of Genesis 15:6 shows that justification is by obedience, not faith…
1 Like
I think I would have preferred a summary rather than having to wade through a very lagubrious dissertation
It would seem to be deferring the justification rather than denying it altogether. Abraham shows doubt in his inheritance by mating with Hagar. But, why should Pau have to explain the whole thing? Paul cites the most relevant example of Abraham’s faithfulness, isn’t that enough? After all, even Abraham was not perfect.
Perhaps the problem is not with this particular citation but in understanding Paul’s message about faith. James clarifies the relationship between faith and deeds, he does not overturn it
Actions are a proof of faith rather than the means of justification. Abraham’s action demonstrate his faith., but it is still the faith that matters
Richard
1 Like
I do not know Hebrew or Greek language, so my comment comes from a holistic viewpoint rather than a detailed linguistic analysis.
The contrast between what Paul wrote and what this paper concludes is probably not as significant as the paper suggests. The Greek word ‘pistis’ includes both ‘faith’ and ‘faithfulness’. When Paul talks about faith, it incorporates both meanings. Although Paul is not the person writing ‘faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead’ (James 2:17), the message Paul is delivering is about living faith.
The living faith, as ‘belief in God’, is more about trust / confidence than just knowing something. Just believing that God exists does not save - even the demons believe/know that God exists (James 2:19). Mere words are not enough, how you live shows what you really believe. Living faith becomes visible in actions. In such actions, believing/trusting is first, acts are just a natural consequence of the trusting faith. When viewed broadly, believing/trusting is enough because the acts just reflect the belief/trust of the person.
I think that word quarrels about ‘faith only’ vs. ‘faith + acts’ are somewhat narrowminded. ‘Faith only’ includes faithfulness, the acts, if we are talking about saving / living faith. ‘Faith + acts’ starts from the same point, faith, but tries to make it clear that saving faith leads to acts where this faith becomes visible. In other words, mere knowledge or ‘dead faith’ is not saving faith. Acts alone are not either sufficient, there needs to be the faith.
In the NT letters, Paul seems to stress the ‘pistis alone’ viewpoint, possibly because he tries to stress the difference between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant. The focus is on refuting those who demand that Christians should follow the law given through Moses, but also those who think that Christians can do whatever they lust.
James and Peter wrote more from the ‘faith + acts’ viewpoint but the basic message was the same as with Paul. Only the emphasis is a bit different, possibly because of the assumed ‘opponents’ - the letters were at least partly motivated by a need to reject teachings that were considered dangerous.
4 Likes
Lugubrious
- Mournful, dismal, or gloomy, especially to an exaggerated or ludicrous degree.
- Mournful; indicating sorrow, often ridiculously or feignedly; doleful; woful; pitiable.
“a whining tone and a lugubrious look”
– American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition
@RichardG The Lagubrioius (sic) article to which you refer is a scholarly report submitted to JBL and published in Academia.Edu. Your characterization notwithstanding, this is how advances in any area of formal research (Biblical or otherwise) first appear. They do not appear in Biologos. Biologos is an opinion site. That’s not a criticism nor an insult. After all, opinion websites such as Biologos that serve to advance research findings, by simplifying the often deep and complex methods by which these advances are made are too few, IMHO. So, Kudos to Biologos.
Let me summarize the OP for you (and others). Here’s what the report claims:
- Paul misquoted the Septuagint’s version of Genesis 15:6. To this end, here’s Bretton’s English translation of the LXX’s 15:6 in its mistranslated form.
And Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.
2.The mistranslation is in two parts: first the 2nd clause, “it was counted,” uses the passive form of “counted” while the older Hebrew text uses the active form,(“he counted”)…
- The subject of the second clause is indefinite so the problem is to identify the subject pronoun’s antecedent. This is accomplished using the grammatical rule of Hebrew called “subject continuity”, a rule that determines the subject of an indefinite [second] clause. In this case the rule point us to Abram not God, i.e.,
And Abram believed in God and Abram judged God to be sincere.
*Edited: 15:5 to 15:6
1 Like
What is depressing is the need to write and submit it.
Theology by formality
Really?
This Bureaucracy at its worse.
As in
excessively complicated administrative procedure:.
Perhaps some people need to be told what to believe?
Sort of negates God and His Holy Spirit.
I wasn’t even aware that such a platform existed and under whose authority it legislates?
Richard
I agree with you, in part. In my view, Paul is [recognized today] as widely misunderstood. For example, his use of “works” refers to Jewish ritual behaviors associated with the Tradition of the Elders, a body of teaching of which Jesus was highly critical(see footnote, below). Paul’s use of the phrase the obedience of faith is instructive because, as you rightly point out, Paul almost always used pistis in the sense of obedience to the teachings of Jesus.
It surely was not Paul’s fault (or intention) to misinterpret the LXX’s translation of the Hebrew text. But, because the teachings of Jesus were often critical of ritualized behavior, Paul was on pretty safe ground when he advanced his soteriology.
Blessings,
M
[Footnote] In the New Testament Jesus takes issue with the two major schools of teaching, Hillel and Shammai, arguing that both of the them were wrong because they were too lax. Jesus argued for a stricter view of marriage than the other two schools. In fact, if one enumerates the many times Jesus argued with the Pharisees, Jesus took the side of the Torah in all cases except for marriage (above). In one case, He argued against a principle of the oral Torah (Qorban and hand-washing) . The rest of His arguments with the Pharisees were over ritual customs advanced by the Tradition of the Elders that were not rooted in Torah.
See M. T. Peterson , Meeting Jesus For The First Time., p. 28
2 Likes
Claiming that Paul misquoted assumes a particular way of quoting is the right way. But there are direct quotes and paraphrases and allusions. Although Paul knew Hebrew, most of his audience used the LXX, so it makes sense as a source to quote.
Similarly, differences between the LXX and Masoretic might reflect a change from the original in either or both. The Masoretes had a strong tradition of careful copying, but occasionally other textual tradions preserve what seems to be a superior text.
Also, the article focuses on one of Paul’s favorite proof texts, but quite a lot of the New Testament empasizes justification by faith, without losing sight of the fact that a true faith will produce works. In other words, I am justified by faith. My claim “I have faith” is justified by an examination of my works.
5 Likes
I agree completely.
Where [contemporary] Christianity went off the rails, I think, is in the acceptance of “works of the law” (erga nomou) as referring to the Torah. Most modern Pauline scholars today (N.T. Wright, E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, Amy-Jill Levine, Mark Nanos, etc.,) argue that Paul’s “works” referred explicitly to Jewish ritual and identity practices, notably circumcision. Put more simply, Paul told the Gentiles over and over again that salvation does not come to those who pretend to be Jews. It comes from the obedience of faith (precisely to what you’re referring, @paleomalacologist). If you’re a Gentile your salvation lies in your obedience to the teachings of one the more strict teachers of the Torah, Jesus Christ.
Interestingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain a Hebrew equivalent, מעשי התורה (ma’ase haTorah), which has sparked scholarly debates about its meaning and implications for Pauline studies. This phrase appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls, specifically in 4QMMT (Miqsat Ma’ase HaTorah), which refer to Temple purity, sacrifices, and festivals. The phrase seems specific to the Qumran Jews and not the broader community of Jews in the 1st century. I’m not familiar with the scholarship, but I would be surprised if ma’ase haTorah was not aligned to Paul’s (erga nomou)
Blessings,
M
1 Like
Sorry, but this seems to be book cover with no other info. Am I missing something.
Thanks,
M
1 Like
- A servant maybe.
Thank for sharing that document. Here are my initial thoughts:
In this document Marmorstein’s view aligns well with Paul’s view, i.e., “Works of the Law” (ἔργα νόμου) were Jewish boundary markers—circumcision, dietary laws, and festival observance – that did not accrue “divine favor” (his term). As I understand him, his view seems to me to be right in line with Paul’s, except Marmorstein’s sources were Rabbinic documents (the Talmud, the Mishna, etc.), not the biblical text.
To summarize:
- Marmorstein: Merit in rabbinic was tied to ethical obedience, not upholding ritual identity.
- Like Marmorstein, Paul opposed Jewish boundary markers and upheld obedience of faith (which N.T. Wright and other scholars which connected obedience to Jesus’ teachings).
- Overlap: Both recognize a distinction between covenantal obedience and ritual identity markers, the former leading to righteousness.
Very interesting article. Thank you again.
M
Note: Ethical obedience is also referred to as covenantal obedience in contemporary literature.
3 Likes
There is no doubt whatsoever that the idea of justification by righteous behavior is found in the Bible. But that is the difference between Christianity and Judaism. Paul teaches justification by faith, but Peter warns in 2 Peter 3 that this can be misunderstood. And thus we have the writing of James to help clarify things. Of course the last thing you should take Jesus and Paul to mean is that it is not what you do that matters but only what you believe.
I think one of the best explanation of what Paul is teaching is found in Romans 10.
Romans 10:5 Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)
And this demonstrates that one of the problem with justification by righteousness (based on the law) is legalism and its use to create a pretense to righteousness. This of course goes back to the many observations of Jesus concerning this problem: Matthew 6 “Do not be like the hypocrites,” Matthew 23 “They do all their deeds to be seen by men.” And thus he tells us that understanding your failure is more important than touting your success in being righteous - Luke 18 “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” But the goal is certainly not to change us from our efforts to do good.
P.S. Notice my change of wording from obedience to righteousness. This is because the problems of emphasizing obedience are even worse than pushing the law. It lends itself to the abuse of religion as a tool for getting good people to do evil as we saw amply demonstrated in WWII. Thus we must oppose this abuse of religion to make people obey, even more than we defend against legalism.
1 Like
But isnt the Hebrew Masoretic text, " והאמן ביהוה ויחשׁבה לו צדקה׃" which translates as And he believed God, and it was credited/counted to him for/as righteousness?
I read Gordon Wenham’s commentary on Genesis 1-15. He says, for example, “צדקה (righteousness) - within the Pentateuch this word always applies to human activity. This makes the proposal to apply the term to God’s act unlikely, the more so in that all early Jewish as well as Christian exegesis is against such a view. Abram is not doing righteousness, rather faith is being counted for righteousness. Normally righteousness results in acquittal by the divine judge. Here faith, the correct response to God’s revelation, counts instead.”
I think Wenham is right, and the usual understanding of the verse stands.
1 Like
- Robert Alter’s translation of Genesis says:
I also agree with Wenham. But in this case (according to the grammar and narrative context of 15:1-13), Abram is deeming the truth or sincerity of YHWH’s commitments as righteous, not YHWH. Abram is not judging YHWH as righteous. Instead, he is saying, in so many words, that in spite of YHWH not having fulfilled His promises, he still believes in the {truth, sincerity, righteousness} of His promises. As to the grammar of the Hebrew text, the first clause is a wayyiqtol the second is a perfect with an indefinite subject. In such cases, the subject of the second clause is, by the rule of subject continuity, the same as for the first clause. Here’s a model in English of Genesis 15:5-6:
The teacher told Bill that one day he would be famous.
Bill believed his Teacher and bought him a present.
In other words, Bill believed that his teacher was correct. He would be famous one day and so bought the teacher a present.
Cheers,
M
1 Like
Wenham disagrees with your conclusion, as do I.
Psalm 106:30-31
“But Phinehas stood up and intervened,
and the plague was checked.
31 This was credited to him as righteousness
for endless generations to come.”
Same idea. Phinehas was credited with righteousness. And Paul knew his Hebrew and Greek, as did the Jewish translators of the LXX.
If you reject Paul’s argument, so be it.
1 Like
More accurately, justification is by covenant loyalty – and that fits with the Greek πίστις (PISS-tiss) in its broader sense of fidelity and faithfulness.
Great article! And it illustrates just how hard it is to get translations out of our heads so we can actually grapple with the text. Having translated a third of the New Testament before reaching this in Genesis, all of our minds (in the class) immediately jumped to translate this following Paul, without bothering with further analysis. Of course this was published over a quarter century after I took that class, but that really isn’t an excuse.
Those who appreciated the article might like the book Salvation by Allegiance Alone.
I think the issue wasn’t so much Paul’s concept but the verse he pinned it on, which apparently does not mean what Paul thought it did from the LXX Greek.
I begin to think that the issue was one of people shifting the meaning of πίστις (PISS-tiss) to an intellectual belief rather than faithfulness/allegiance. English has actually had the same problem; the expression “in faith” used to be used similarly to “truthfully” or “being faithful” when introducing a statement, but even in modern usage we get a sense different than intellectual acknowledgment, e.g. “I have faith in you” – i.e. I have trust in you, I count on you confidently.
This BTW helps make sense of the verse that says we are saved by the “faith of Christ”, a phrase that has troubled theologians since before the Reformation (but particularly since then)(see Romans 3, Galatians 2).
The verse from James always takes me to a statement from grad school, where the phrase “faith without works” was completed with “is a contradiction in terms” (very Lutheran, BTW), another completion was “is D.O.A.”
That’s implicit if we render πίστις as “faithfulness” or “allegiance”. Think of a feudal lord and a stranger who without so much as asking does some work for the lord; does that show loyalty, or is he up to something?
This brings to mind the “All things are lawful!” matter. I’ve envisioned Paul, if that had been said to his face, responding with, “So? And just what does the Law have to do with anything?!” Pistis as allegiance means one will behave with loyalty, and there the Law is no help; there must be another measure, and that one is easy if we start at the Cross, with Christ crucified: the measure is what is good for others, and thus Paul responds in writing with “Not all things are edifying” (nicely including the person himself but also the community of faith).
2 Likes
If deep study of the scripture text “negates” the spirit, you have the wrong spirit.
You’ve never heard of the Journal of Biblical literature?!?
Then you have no business trying to communicate anything about scripture to others in any official way/capacity. Such a lack puts you in the category of unqualified teacher that James speaks of.
And “legislates”? If you can ask that, then I have to wonder if you’ve ever been to college! Anyone who has studied at the junior and senior level at a university should be familiar with how journals and similar literature work.
= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =
Better rendered as “the obedience of faithfulness”, i.e. the obedience that flows from allegiance; it is not one that needs rules, but knows how to be allegiant due to knowing the one to whom allegiance is given.
As a priest I knew once put it, “Right point, wrong proof-text”.
I’m wondering what the title means by “old”.
The LXX was fairly commonly used for scholarly study, and there is some evidence that Paul quoted from what we would call a handbook of important verses, something generally using the LXX because Greek is what most Jews at the time could read, so it isn’t surprising that he used the LXX text.
Interestingly, in grad school we read a paper where a scholar tried to reconstruct Paul’s use of such a handbook by examining where Paul’s quotes followed the LXX, where they seem to have been translated directly from the Hebrew, and where they seem to be from a different Greek translation. It was a fascinating example of how scholars dig into stuff, but the reaction of most of us was, “So what?” Sure, it might be fun to know what Paul had memorized in Greek and what he was translating on the spot, but we couldn’t (and I still can’t) see where it would/could make any difference to his theological message.
3 Likes