Irish1975 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:04 am
... in Romans, Paul shows no interest in the crucifixion as a historical event, but merely as an image for preaching the regeneration of new life in the believer.
andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:09 pm
Paul in Romans seems to be interested in the death of Christ as an historical event e.g. Romans 5:6
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
When plucked out of context, and with this questionable translation, Romans 5:6
may seem to represent the death of Christ as a recent historical event.
However, when considered in the context of the wider passage in Romans, and when textual variations and translation issues are considered --- as I have below --- I don’t think this problematic verse provides either clear or convincing evidence for a recent death of Jesus in relation to Paul.
Below I have cut-and-pasted a post I wrote in another thread about a year ago, with some minor editing ----
I think interpreting this verse in the wider context of the letter --- specifically with the preceding passages --- reveals the intent of the author. Preceding this verse, the author of Romans reviewed the story of Paul’s Christ for 25 verses, all strictly in terms of the scriptures.
From the promise to Abraham from Genesis, the law given to Moses (as found in various books of the scriptures), a Psalm of David, and the salvific death and resurrection from Isaiah --- the author of Romans presented a portion of the grand sweep of time, in which Paul’s Jesus played the central role, entirely within the realm of the scriptures. No human figure of recent existence is to be found.
At the end of that 25 verse review, in close proximity to the verse in question here, the righteousness of Abraham is brought into current focus --- the righteousness is also “about to be credited, to those believing” ---
Therefore also it was credited to him [i.e. Abraham] as righteousness. Now it was not written on account of him alone that it was credited to him, but also on account of us, to whom it is about to be credited, to those believing on the One having raised Jesus our Lord out from the dead … (Romans 4:22-24)
And how was this righteousness about to be credited to all those believing initially earned? All the author presented at this critical point was a paraphrase of Isaiah 53 ---- presenting the sacrafice of Jesus Christ within the realm of the scriptures, within the realm of scriptural time ---
… who was delivered over for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification. (Romans 4:25)
But the salvific death alone did not justify the sins of anyone. It was only the knowledge of the sacrifice and the faith in that death and resurrection that provided salvation. And it was Paul who recently brought that knowledge, through the scriptures, bringing the opportunity for faith to the Gentiles.
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 5:1)
The author of Romans continues to bring the discussion home, leading to the verse in question ---
For while we were still in weakness, still at the opportune time Christ died for the ungodly. (Romans 5:6)
ἔτι γὰρ Χριστὸς ὄντων ἡμῶν ἀσθενῶν ἔτι κατὰ καιρὸν ὑπὲρ ἀσεβῶν ἀπέθανεν.
I have incorporated the second ἔτι (still) from the Greek text into the translation here. I think the intent of the author of Romans was this ---
Jesus may have died a long time ago, and we were still recently weak, but His death was still opportune because it is the faith we now have that provides the salvation.
The Greek text of the SBL and the Nestle-Aland have ἔτι twice (as shown above). The Westcott & Hort also has the second ἔτι, but has εἴ γε (and variants) in place of the first ἔτι.
Of the 25 bibles I checked, none incorporate the second ἔτι (still) in their English translation. Modern bible translators --- even those that generally rely on the Greek NT versions that have the second ἔτι --- seem to resolve the temporal confusion here by just ignoring the second ἔτι.
It seems from the earliest times scribes and interpreters of this verse were confused over the temporal nature of the term ἔτι (still). There are significant textual variations in manuscripts and in early-attestations providing at least 6 variations of the verse, all centering on the term ἔτι. The term ἔτι is found in various combinations in various texts as present or missing in either position, and/or replaced in the first position by different terms.
Greek specialists wrestle with this verse to this day.
With the verse in question here following 25 verses about the back-story of Jesus, including the salvific death, presented entirely in the realm of the scriptures --- as well as the predominance of the scriptural basis of Paul’s system evident throughout the Paulines --- I don’t think this problematic verse provides either clear or convincing evidence for a recent death of Jesus in relation to Paul.