Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:11 am

rgprice wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:57 am
MrMacSon wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:09 pm

... are YHWH, God/Theo, and Κύριος ever not titles?

Some of Paul's epistles have lots of Lord Jesus Christ

I think the likes of Philo and Paul—especially Paul—were playing with words, and Paul comes across as baiting and switching in his use of κύριος (Kyrios)/ Lord for Jesus and use of the Lord alone. In a time of tremendous theological fluidity - probably the time and place—the region—of the most theological fluidity ever

(Paul baits and switches about the Law from mid-Galatians 2(ff) )
.
There are times in the scriptures when "lord" simply means lord.
There are indications there are at least 2 levels of lord, Lord, or LORD

The examples you provide are interesting and noteworthy.

As is this -
rgprice wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:57 am
I find it interesting that Paul and early Christians made so much use of the Psalms and Isaiah, with very little use of the Torah. This seems to support Barker's thesis, that Christianity and other similar second-God movements developed out of older traditions. Paul uses scriptures where the distinction between "God" and "the Lord" is more apparent.

rgprice
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by rgprice » Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:11 am

I guess the question is: Did Paul see Jesus as the Lord Yahweh or did Paul see Jesus as the Lord instead of Yahweh.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8886
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:05 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:42 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:29 pm
Well, maybe, but there is some evidence that people started speaking substitutes for the divine name before they started writing them. And there is...evidence both for Ἰάω and for κύριος as substitutions before early Christianity. What there is not unequivocal evidence for [is] a uniform custom at that early date, nor for which practice came first.
  • Cheers. That's helpful.
Since Lane had me paging through papyrus Fouad 266 recently, I thought I might give an example of one of the strategies that I mentioned upthread for writing the divine name in a Greek manuscript, to wit, penning the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters. (Bear in mind that these are not the square Hebrew letters familiar from later manuscripts and from modern printed Hebrew.) So here goes:

Deuteronomy 18.5 apud Papyrus Fouad 266.png
Deuteronomy 18.5 apud Papyrus Fouad 266.png (236.73 KiB) Viewed 1544 times

Just a brief switch to Hebrew, in a different hand, amidst the Greek. Regarding the second roll of this papyrus, Rahlfs 848, the editor writes:

Ludwig Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint Genesis and Deuteronomy, page 5: It is this roll which is characterized by the use of the tetragrammaton (יהוה). Where it was to occur the original scribe left a blank equal to 5-6 letters (i.e., about the size of κύριος written in full) and marked it by a high dot at its beginning. A second scribe filled in the Hebrew letters.

You can see the dot and the extra space left for יהוה very clearly in the image.

lsayre
Posts: 379
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by lsayre » Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:57 am

lsayre wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:20 pm
lsayre wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 12:20 pm
snip...
Is there in this an implication (within the snipped part) that the Jews are the children of Ishmael? Is there anywhere in Paul's letters wherein he twists and bends things so as to seemingly arrive at this very same implication?
Galatians 4:21-31

Mt. Sinai is both the mountain of Hagar and the mountain upon which Yahweh gave Moses the 10 Commandments/Utterances.
Per Paul, Yahweh enslaved those who received the 10 Utterances. Jesus (who resides in the Jerusalem from above, which [along with Jesus] is yet to come) will set them free. It does not appear from this that Paul could possibly equate Jesus with Yahweh. Jesus will save (set free) those whom Yahweh enslaved.

It's rather easy to see from this why the Jews hated Paul. And his fabricated Jesus.

rgprice
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by rgprice » Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:32 am

lsayre wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:57 am
Per Paul, Yahweh enslaved those who received the 10 Utterances. Jesus (who resides in the Jerusalem from above, which [along with Jesus] is yet to come) will set them free. It does not appear from this that Paul could possibly equate Jesus with Yahweh. Jesus will save (set free) those whom Yahweh enslaved.

It's rather easy to see from this why the Jews hated Paul. And his fabricated Jesus.
This is why it sometimes seems that Paul was not saying that Jesus was Yahweh, but rather that "the Lord" was Jesus instead of Yahweh. It seems that Paul is saying that the Jews were worshiping the wrong Lord. It also seems that Paul may be saying that the Jews confused the Lord with the Highest God, which is literally what did happen per El Elyon and Yahweh being merged into the Lord God.

rgprice
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by rgprice » Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:46 am

This is playing fast and loose with the rules, but what if we read Isaiah 53 like this:

Who has believed what we have heard?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord [Jesus] been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by others;
a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity;
and as one from whom others hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him of no account.

4 Surely he has borne our infirmities
and carried our diseases;
yet we accounted him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions,
crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the punishment that made us whole,
and by his bruises we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have all turned to our own way,
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By a perversion of justice he was taken away.
Who could have imagined his future?
For he was cut off from the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people.
9 They made his grave with the wicked
and his tomb with the rich,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the will of the Lord [Yahweh] to crush him with pain.
When you make his life an offering for sin,
he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days;
through him the will of the Lord [God] shall prosper.
11 Out of his anguish he shall see light;
he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge.
The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because he poured out himself to death,
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

In this case, the righteous one is the servant of the Highest God. The servant Jesus is crucified by Yahweh, the false Lord.

Maybe this reading is entirely impossible, but it seems to be getting closer to what Paul seems to say.

lsayre
Posts: 379
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by lsayre » Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:58 am

I wish Roger Parvus would have continued with his theory that the Paul we observe (I.E., read) today is a "Zig-Zag Man" fusion of competing religions. Whereby for every Marcionite and/or Gnostic Zig (I.E., Zig-Paul concept) there follows closely a Proto-Orthodox Zag (I.E., Zag-Paul concept) whereby to twist, confound, turn over, or outright neutralize the Zig. But for some strange reason Roger Parvus paused and then caved in right while he was in mid-stream full stride, and rather abruptly and disappointingly terminated his very own line of reasoning.

Perhaps its sort of like the Chicken and the Egg. Only we should in Paul be asking, What came first, the Zig's or the Zag's?

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by Jax » Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:19 am

lsayre wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:58 am
I wish Roger Parvus would have continued with his theory that the Paul we observe (I.E., read) today is a "Zig-Zag Man" fusion of competing religions. Whereby for every Marcionite and/or Gnostic Zig (I.E., Zig-Paul concept) there follows closely a Proto-Orthodox Zag (I.E., Zag-Paul concept) whereby to twist, confound, turn over, or outright neutralize the Zig. But for some strange reason Roger Parvus paused and then caved in right while he was in mid-stream full stride, and rather abruptly and disappointingly terminated his very own line of reasoning.

Perhaps its sort of like the Chicken and the Egg. Only we should in Paul be asking, What came first, the Zig's or the Zag's?
Sure, but how? I have been trying to do this myself but keep coming to the conclusion that an objective Zig is impossible. And even if one did would it be universally accepted? I have my doubts.

But if you would like to give it a try with me then head on over here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3487&hilit=Paul I would love your help and input.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by Jax » Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:26 am

One thing that I would love to see done is for us to use names and place names only in the original Greek and only use the nomina sacra using the earliest found forms of it discovered in our discussions of this subject to help remove confusion. All in unical I might add.

Also when a Greek term or word is used that is unclear what a good translation would be to just simply use the Greek word as it is without a translation.

My 2 cents

Lane

rgprice
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Romans 10: Jews don't know the Lord...

Post by rgprice » Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:06 am

lsayre wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:58 am
I wish Roger Parvus would have continued with his theory that the Paul we observe (I.E., read) today is a "Zig-Zag Man" fusion of competing religions. Whereby for every Marcionite and/or Gnostic Zig (I.E., Zig-Paul concept) there follows closely a Proto-Orthodox Zag (I.E., Zag-Paul concept) whereby to twist, confound, turn over, or outright neutralize the Zig. But for some strange reason Roger Parvus paused and then caved in right while he was in mid-stream full stride, and rather abruptly and disappointingly terminated his very own line of reasoning.

Perhaps its sort of like the Chicken and the Egg. Only we should in Paul be asking, What came first, the Zig's or the Zag's?
I think this is true, but I don't think that its really that difficult to differentiate, once you operate within the framework of Marcion's version having been published first.

But I'll be honest, doing comparing between the orthodox and Marcionite versions of the letters, (or the notes regarding Marcion's) there are still a lot of unknown and there definitely appear to be places where the orthodox version sounds more plausible. I tend to use the anti-Marcionite notes as support for or against arguments of interpolation, and to try to understand a potential interpolation from the perspective of anti-Marcionite activity.

So like Romans 1:3-4 is an obvious interpolation. So is 1 Cor 15:5-11. But, interestingly, I no longer agree with RMP that 1 Cor 15:3-4 was part of the interpolation, because it is attested in Marcion.

But stuff like 1 Cor 15:45 makes more sense in the orthodox version (last Adam vs last Lord). Also large parts of Romans and Galatians seem to have been missing from Marcion that seem like they are authentic, in that they aren't really polemic and they have continuity, so its not as simple as just saying Marcion's version is the original. Even still, recognizing the Marcionite vs anti-Marcionite framework is very helpful.

The anti-Marcionite stuff is pretty easy to spot. Other stuff, like Romans 10 (mostly unattested/evidence against being present in Marcion), is more difficult. My view is that there was an original Paul. Paul was not a Marcionite. His stuff is much more neutral and ambiguous. But, we also need to bear in mind when reading Paul that Marcion was able to read his letters and come to his theology from Paul's letters, so reads that support Marcion should be possible.

Post Reply