Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:59 am
Ehorn's work itself is crucial to consult, however, since he gives very specific arguments for Paul having been the originator of some of the changes to the OG text which Justin winds up quoting.
In his book, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, Richard B. Hays provides a very interesting discussion of Paul’s riff on the veil of Moses in chapters three and four of 2 Corinthians.
Hays’ discussion provides a good example of how Paul manipulated the Greek version of the Jewish scriptures to suit his needs. In the following citation, I have left out quite-a-bit for brevity, but have provided only some of the portions that demonstrate Paul’s manipulations. I would suggest anyone interested in Hays’ more detailed arguments on the topic should read the book.
Hays starts here with a citation of his own translation of 2 Corinthians 3:16 ---
“But whenever he turns to the Lord, the veil is removed” is a free quotation of Exod. 34:34. In the LXX, the text reads ... Paul has tightened up the sentence by removing the phrases ... has replaced the verb eisporeueto (went in) with epistrepse (turns to) ... Furthermore he has shifted the verb’s tense and mood from the imperfect indicative to aorist subjunctive ... he has shifted the verb removed from the imperfect to the present tense ... The changes in wording should not be explained away by appealing to some hypothetical textual tradition not otherwise attested or by saying that Paul was just quoting from memory. Paul’s doctored citation simultaneously shows evidence of minute attention to detail and treats the text with great freedom in order to get it to say what he is convinced it means. In short, he is removing the veil from the text, presenting it in a light which will enable his readers to see in it the same metaphorical sense that he sees.” (Hays, pp. 146-147)
I’m curious Ben, I have noticed that (just recently?) you have been using “OG” (Old Greek) for the Greek version of the Jewish scriptures. Certainly questions exist in regards to the sources of the Greek version(s) of the scriptures used by early Christian authors. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on why you use “OG” and what you mean to imply with that designation. Is it because the LXX apparently included only the Pentateuch?
Last edited by robert j on Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:59 am
Ehorn's work itself is crucial to consult, however, since he gives very specific arguments for Paul having been the originator of some of the changes to the OG text which Justin winds up quoting.
In his book, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, Richard B. Hays provides a very interesting discussion of Paul’s riff on the veil of Moses in chapters three and four of 2 Corinthians.
Hays’ discussion provides a good example of how Paul manipulated the Greek version of the Jewish scriptures to suit his needs. In the following citation, I have left out quite-a-bit for brevity, but have provided only some of the portions that demonstrate Paul’s manipulations. I would suggest anyone interested in Hays’ more detailed arguments on the topic should read the book.
Hays starts here with a citation of his own translation of 2 Corinthians 3:16 ---
“But whenever he turns to the Lord, the veil is removed” is a free quotation of Exod. 34:34. In the LXX, the text reads --- Paul has tightened up the sentence by removing the phrases --- has replaced the verb eisporeueto (went in) with epistrepse (turns to) --- Furthermore he has shifted the verb’s tense and mood from the imperfect indicative to aorist subjunctive --- he has shifted the verb removed from the imperfect to the present tense --- The changes in wording should not be explained away by appealing to some hypothetical textual tradition not otherwise attested or by saying that Paul was just quoting from memory. Paul’s doctored citation simultaneously shows evidence of minute attention to detail and treats the text with great freedom in order to get it to say what he is convinced it means. In short, he is removing the veil from the text, presenting it in a light which will enable his readers to see in it the same metaphorical sense that he sees.” (Hays, pp. 146-147)
I’m curious Ben, I have noticed that (just recently?) you have been using “OG” (Old Greek) for the Greek version of the Jewish scriptures. Certainly questions exist in regards to the sources of the Greek version(s) of the scriptures used by early Christian authors. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on why you use “OG” and what you mean to imply with that designation. Is it because the LXX apparently included only the Pentateuch?
Yes, it is an attempt at greater precision in my terminology (and I think I have been doing this for a year or two now, at least). The legend of the Septuagint applies, strictly speaking, to the Pentateuch; the designation OG (= Old Greek) reminds me that the circumstances surrounding the translation of the other books of the Hebrew scriptures are not necessarily the same as those surrounding the translation of the books of Moses. I still often use LXX when referring to the Old Greek Pentateuch.
But all of this assumes a naive position that we have the Pauline letters in their original state. Clearly if the Marcionites had the letters in their original or near original state then the fact that our letters have scriptural references that sound like Justin have another explanation - i.e. they were forged or interpolated by someone who was influenced by Justin. Irenaeus comes immediately to mind. As such we have two choices that have to be spelled out in full:
1. our Pauline letters are original or close to original and their citations of scripture resemble Justin so Justin used Paul
or
2. our Pauline letters are corrupt and specifically corrupted with the addition of Jewish material (scripture) which also shows up in Justin because orthodox material is always corrupted manifold times.
The choice is yours.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
The real question in the OP is why the conflict between Rome and Corinth is contextualized as the Corinthians church asking Rome to beat it over the head. The answer is obvious - there were divisions within the church from the beginning. The Corinthian situation likely reflects the existence of a heretic named Cerinthos or has something to do with it.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
