Jax wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 2:05 pm
This is where, in my opinion, we will always fall down. We don't even know what is Paul or not. Nor can we ever with what we have now.
None of Paul's letters are pristine, and textual evidence demonstrates some scribal initiative and/or confusion here and there.
We do have significant textual evidence for the beginning and ending portions of Romans having been messed-with. Some other interpolations in Paul's letters? Probably a few, but in my opinion the burden of proof lies with those claiming certain passages do not belong (though I certainly do not intend to provide counter-arguments for every claim with which I may disagree, except perhaps on occasion).
But I don't agree with your opinion here on Paul, and I have spent too many years here and elsewhere addressing similar positions. Not interested.
Jax wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 2:05 pm
This is where, in my opinion, we will always fall down. We don't even know what is Paul or not. Nor can we ever with what we have now.
None of Paul's letters are pristine, and textual evidence demonstrates some scribal initiative and/or confusion here and there.
We do have significant textual evidence for the beginning and ending portions of Romans having been messed-with. Some other interpolations in Paul's letters? Probably a few, but in my opinion the burden of proof lies with those claiming certain passages do not belong (though I certainly do not intend to provide counter-arguments for every claim with which I may disagree, except perhaps on occasion).
But I don't agree with your opinion here on Paul, and I have spent too many years here and elsewhere addressing similar positions. Not interested.
I disagree, Paul's letters are a mess, we know this at least by the fact that some of them are not by Paul.
In addition, what if Paul's message of salvation was not that people are saved by grace though their faith in the messiah, but rather through the faith of the messiah? The Greek states only things such as pistis christou, so it is left to the translator to fill in the missing word between these two so the translation will be coherent. And to me it seems that the choice of the word "in" has been strictly motivated by orthodoxy (be it proto or later). It was the faith of Abraham that provided blessings and promises from God to the Hebrews, and not the individual Hebrews faith in Abraham. Shouldn't it be the same for Jesus?
Young's Literal Translation renders Galatians 2:16 as "faith of Christ" (twice). This may have been the preferred translation until Martin Luther stepped in and muddied the water. This might rock the evangelical and/or fundamentalist boat.
The New Testament by David B. Hart has for Galatians 2:16 "And who knows that a human being is vindicated not by observances of Law but by the faithfulness of the Anointed One Jesus-even we have placed our faith in the Anointed One Jesus, so that we might be vindicated from the faithfulness of the Anointed and not from observances of Law, because no flesh at all will be vindicated from observances of Law."