You just love human learning.
You attitude to scripture is the same as your attitude to science.
That is not Scriptural. Show me this journal of yours in Scripture.
I suggest you back down rapidly
Richard
I don’t see anything in James about unqualified teachers. 1 Timothy 6 comes closer but that doesn’t speak about unqualified teachers ether.
I cite this book extensively in new book coming out at the end of this month. Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time.
Blessings,
As if Paul’s doctrine of Justification by faith was based on a single passage of the OT, the sole basis on which his understanding would stand or fall… and not on numerous, myriad understandings from both OT and the teachings of Christ, not least of which Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector.
1 Like
I don’t reject Paul’s argument. He argues that Abram is counted as righteous on the basis of the Greek translation of the LXX which badly translates 15:6 the result of which makes God the subject of counted. I have every reason to believe that had Paul used a Hebrew scroll we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But, since Paul used the LXX he draws the same conclusion as everyone else who ignores the Hebrew.
In 106:30-31 Each of the clauses have a specific subject. In the first clause, the subject is Phinehas. In the second clause the subject is also Phinehas. The subject of the third clause is the act of intervention. Phineas is deemed righteous for having intervened. There is no ambiguity in 106:30-31 that needs context or grammar to resolve. It’s a very straightforward verse and does not in any way inform the interpretation of 15:6.
Cheers,
M
1 Like
But the teaching ultimately comes from Jesus not from Paul. The basic teaching of salvation by God’s grace is in Matthew 19 when a young man asks Jesus what he must do to be saved. It is notable that the first thing Jesus asks about was how the man lived according to the commandments (particularly 5 of them mentioned specifically). But in the end, His answer is “with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Faith is simply the other side of Grace, our part of it. Salvation is by the grace of God, so all we can do is have faith – and that is always after doing all the good we can do. The point being that there is no enough, because no amount doing good will entitle us to salvation. And we must do good for its own sake and not because we think it earns us some kind of reward.
Paul is simply taking this basic teaching and putting it in more theological terms for those who need such explanations.
2 Likes
The real point being that “qualifications” are human made and human demanded.
One of the problems within the clergy is that they can be well qualified but useless at the job itself.
The whole idea that we need to keep up with the latest paper or submission to a journal is ludicrous, but it reflects a certain attitude to wards theology that makes a personal view invalid unless that person is published or recognised.
We are also back to black & white theology where there is a right or a wrong answer.
Richard
“I don’t reject Paul’s argument. He argues that Abram is counted as righteous on the basis of the Greek translation of the LXX which badly translates 15:6”
In another comment above, you claimed:
‘1. Paul misquoted the Septuagint’s version of Genesis 15:6.’
You seem to be saying 2 different things - the LXX Greek translation of the original Hebrew is wrong, AND Paul misquoted this wrong translation. How confusing.
I quoted the Hebrew from the Masoretic text in my initial comment to you, not the LXX. The Greek translation is correct, as is the English translation of both Hebrew and Greek in our versions. That appears to be the view of the majority of both Hebrew and Greek scholars, both Jew and Gentile. And that is why your argument is unconvincing.
Indeed. This has been my observation also. With a masters of divinity I am technically qualified more than most. But being called to the ministry is quite a different matter. I am too much the intellectual and that is not what most people need. Far more than intellectual knowledge what they need is to see the power of Christ to change lives. So while I went to seminary, my pastor went to prison.
I also lack the passionate will to change other people and maybe it is because I don’t have the experience which tells me how much people really need to change. Perhaps I can be a resource for the rare individual struggling with the sorts of question I have wrestled with, especially in the meeting ground of science and religion. This is something I am more likely to see in a forum like this than in a church frankly.
4 Likes
Thanks! I did a search but didn’t find that link.
I skimmed it and was astounded at the assertion in the introduction that the church Fathers spoke only of negative merit and the rabbis of positive merit. That shows a serious lack of familiarity with the Fathers (primarily latter ones).
But the intro did answer my question about what is meant by “old” – it references the post-second-Temple period, the fifth through seventh centuries.
Not sure I want to read the whole thing; my reading list already has more than 300 books on it. OTOH what I did read was meticulous and fascinating!
Excellent distinction!
Very different verb form there – and I’ll stop at that point and see if Michael will weigh in.
It’s not a rejection of the argument, it’s noting that the versus clavis, the sedes doctrina, is the wrong one, and that by using the wrong verse the doctrine was opened to misunderstanding.
1 Like
Matthew likewise seems to have made use of various versions of the Old Testament. As the Dead Sea Scrolls show, a number of variant texts existed in the last centuries BC to first century AD. The variations are not of particular theological import (not counting the occasional deliberate theological editing such as the occasional claims in the Samaritan text that promote Mt. Gerazim) but they greatly complicate the question of “is this a quote or a paraphrase or an on the fly translation”?
3 Likes
No, I love divine learning.
Study to show yourself approved before God, a workman who needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
“Rightly dividing the word of truth” is a reference to understanding the scriptures and knowing how to apply them. You can’t do that without studying them.
1 Like
Good catch. I don’t know how I missed that. The authors of the LXX mistranslated the Hebrew source (gen 15:6). Specifically, in the Hebrew source the verb for reckoned is in the active voice (“he reckoned”) but in the Greek the corresponding verb is translated as a passive (“he was reckoned”).
Cheers,
1 Like
I would beg to differ.
The message is simple. The practicalities are simple. You have fallen into the same trap as the Pharisees. Their detailed knowledge was useless. And so is yours.
Richard
Okay, so I glanced at what was going on with the original Hebrew and Greek of Genesis 15: 6 to see what this was getting at. Calling the Septuagint a mistranslation of that passage is misleading at best.
The Masoretic / Hebrew text, Technically, is grammatically vague in the pronouns such that the words could hypothetically be meant in the novel or alternate translation suggested in that paper (which seems a very odd and unnatural reading) - that Abraham considered God’s promise to be the righteousness.
What immediately mitigates against this, of course, is that the ancient Jews translated the LXX just as they did - the LXX is thus essentially an excellent commentary and interpretation; we can see how ancient, pre-Christian Jews read and interpreted the Hebrew text by understanding how they translated the LXX.
And they obviously interpreted, and thus translated, Gen 15:6 in what seems the same natural way that we read in our Bibles, and Paul similarly took that take when he quoted the LXX.
This really seems to be much ado about nothing.
(And more to the underlying point, even leaving this aside, examining both Genesis 15 & 22 together as the paper seems to do (I only read the abstract) would demonstrate that justification is indeed by faith alone, but a faith so integrated and real that it indeed proves itself genuine through its actions.)
You may want to read [again?] the article I referenced. The grammar and the context of 15:6 are explained in some detail. I would also add that the article has been peer reviewed and found acceptable. So, if you have some insight into the grammar, semantics, or the narrative context, I would be very grateful for your thoughts.
Blessings,
M
1 Like
Well, for what it is worth, there are all manner of peer-reviewed articles that can be found that are nonetheless drivel. Not saying this one is, just saying that something being peer reviewed doesn’t make it particularly true, especially in the humanities when people are regularly proposing new and extremely creative interpretations.
But bottom line is that there can be no absolutely definitive answer with certain questions of translation based on vocabulary and grammar alone… there are things that are simply vague as written in the original language, and any translation may require an interpretation that has an implication. and grammar or vocabulary simply can’t give a definitive answer.
As a comparison, the most obvious analogy I can think of is in Mark’s gospel, when the Centurian at the cross said, “Surely this man was the son of God.” In Greek, the language is admitedly vague - there is no article (“the”) in front of son of God in Greek (as is normal and common in Greek even when you’re referring to a definite object).
Hence, literally, the centurian said, “Surely this man was son of God.” But we just don’t talk like that in English, English grammer demands an article, and it can’t be kept as vague as it is in Greek, as we have to choose between a definite (the) or indefinite (a) article. So technically, strictly by the letter of the grammar involved, either “a son of God” or “The Son of God” are technically correct translations. There’s no strict grammatical way to determine which way it should be translated. It completely ends up being a matter of interpretation by the translators as to which way to go.
It is similar in this passage in Genesis 15… the Hebrew simply uses many pronouns, and it is up to the translater to determine what is being referred to by each pronoun… and it is admittedly vague, and thus alternate translations are technically possible… even more than are in the article and many of which are obviously just ridiculous. technically, grammatically, for instance, I believe it would be possible to translate it “God believed the Lord, and Abraham credited this to God as Righteousness” or some such silliness.
Point is, if I understand it rightly, the article is raising a hypothetical alternate translation that, strictly speaking, is not contraindicated by the text and grammar itself. But is contraindicated by the fact that, around 2,200 years ago, a group of Jewish scholars who knew ancient Hebrew better than we do today, read the passage in Genesis, and translated it into Greek in the manner that they chose to do. And went with what we now know of as the standard translation - which also seems to fit the rest of the context in Genesis 15 far better in my own humble reading…
In particular, my objection to the larger idea of the article is that they’re arguing something as if it is novel that is not remotely new - the connection between Gen 15 & 22 is ancient - i.e., the observation that Abraham was “both” justified by his faith (in Gen 15), and simultaneously described as being justified by what he did (Gen 22) has been long recognized, even as far back as James who referenced both of these passages in James 2 to explain how genuine saving faith necessarily produces good works.
My alternative is not “hypothetical.” It’s based firm, empirical data (the text). It is, as you correctly point out however, an alternate translation.
As for knowledge of Hebrew, the residents of Alexandria were Greeks. They were as restricted in their understanding of Hebrew as any multilingual person. In any case, it does not matter. Some mistranslations are not a matter of translation naivety or expertise, but objective fact. In this case, the Greek authors of the LXX objectively mistranslated the verb of the second clause of 15:6. In any case, you are correct: they translated as “they chose to,” not as the Hebrew indicated.
Finally, there are a number of other problems with the LXX’s translation of this verse, but this one bears directly on the subject of the second clause.
contraindicated - you probably meant contradicted (I only offer this defintion because you specified that you were speaking strictly.
Blessings and thanks for the reply,
M
2 Likes
Maybe I’m not following, and I’m afraid I will not have time to dig through the entire article anytime soon, but I looked up in my BHS and LXX both, and I’m not seeing any obvious mistranslation of either verb in Gen 15:6…. Any chance you might quickly clarify?
1 Like
Romans 4.3 says Abrahams faith was credited to him as RIGHTEOUSNESS.
People make a mistake here, we are saved through Grace…not faith. The faith part is not the full story there.
I am also very concerned about some rather outrageous assumptions made in the supporting reference(im in bed on my phone so im not going to quote them)…
An academic paper cannot make unsupported assumptions, drawn incorrectly out of texts, and then claim those assumptions as evidence in a conclusion. That is exactly what this paper does…its a very poorly written reference and i would seriously challenge a number of its claims.
Also, it appears to be overly semitic in critcising Pauls writings…we take the entire bible as canononical…not just the Old testament.
Justification, faith, righteousness, belief, salvation…these ideas come from more than a single isolated text. These are central themes in the entire bible.Adam and Eve sinned because they did not believe what God told them “do not eat of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden or you shall surely die”
Abraham was given a promise, “leave this land and go to a new place i will show you and i will make you a great nation”
He believed that statement of claim by God and he left his home and followed Gods leading.
Whether or not he grumbled along the way about the difficulty of the journey and how long it was going to take to become a great nation is irrelevant to Pauls statement. The bible gives us plenty of examples of trials and trbulations for Christians in the time both during and after Christs ministry…it even proohecies that for the time of the end
“Pray that you wont have to run to the mountains on the sabbath, or when your wife is with child or in labour…”
Id suggest suggest people also read Acts 16.31
The Conversion of the Jailer
…30Then he brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32Then Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house.…
Abraham believed…that has always been Pauls claim…salvation can only come through belief…it is not automatic
Knor a great post except this part above