Setting the Mind on the Spirit - The Vanishing Verb

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your post is a little unclear to me.

I believe Paul quoted Isa. 26.3 in Romans 8.6. My question would be what is the verb in the original Hebrew language in Isaiah, or even in the Septuagint.

The goal here in both Isaiah and Paul is God's perfect peace.

But whatever it is, either it actually has the verb, and is therefore different in its text, or is missing and is potentially in error in translation. Either way, the actual text of Romans does not have the verb. So it is not there even if it is there in Isaiah. It might be a near quote. Or just a springboard of thought form which Paul leaped.

That was my point. Since it is not simply a quote (clear by the existence of different words, or the omission of words) I do not see how Isaiah can be said to "justify" Paul's words. When I see "justify," it would seem to say to me that Paul has uttered something that is either not clear or that we don't want to accept. Then another passage is found that supports what he has said. That would "justify" him. It might be asserted as the justification of translators inserting "set" in their translations. But if there is a difference in the underlying originals, that justification might be tenuous.

But in this case, Paul seems to have said something different from Isaiah and you are suggesting that Isaiah should be used to alter how we read Romans. Not justify what he wrote, but alter it.

In a different way, if that is a correct position, then the fact of the verse in Isaiah might "justify" the insertion of words into Paul's verse that he did not supply. That would not be to "justify the Apostle" but to alter him.

My real point is that a similarity does not a precedent make. And like so many other things, for example the existence of four gospels to tell the story different ways, the goal of finding a similar verse should not be to insist upon a rewrite of the present verse, but to find out more. Two people speaking differently on the same subject are not at odds just because they cover different things. They are only at odds if one declares something that makes the other to be contradictory or otherwise clearly wrong (of course it works both ways). These are not necessarily in contradiction. Neither must they be identical. They are just saying similar but different things.

[Cal]

Well, from my reading it seems neither Paul nor Isaiah said it. So that makes it fairly certain that Isaiah's not saying it cannot prove that Paul actually said what he didn't actually say.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

But whatever it is, either it actually has the verb, and is therefore different in its text, or is missing and is potentially in error in translation. Either way, the actual text of Romans does not have the verb. So it is not there even if it is there in Isaiah. It might be a near quote. Or just a springboard of thought form which Paul leaped.

Translation is more difficult than a word-for-word best guess transliteration. Because there is no verb in one language does not mean it is wrong to add a verb in another language.

Say what you might about how Rom 8.6 is translated, but WL has only done what many others before him have done. If you don't like the word "set" or any other verb substitution, then so be it.