The mistaken quest for the "pure Paul"

 "As individualistic Westerners we often operate under the presupposition that "Paul alone" is better than "Paul+others". It is assumed that ”pure Paul” was more inspired than anything written in collaboration, and certainly more than a passage written by another. The underlying presupposition is that anything not solely from Paul somehow dilutes Paul. It is assumed Paul was the "Inspired One" or the "More Inspired One," and therefore anything added to Paul detracts from this "pure Paul". However, we need to let 1 Corinthians remind us: the 1 Corinthians we consider inspired is not the 1 Corinthians written by Paul alone but Paul and Sosthenes (1:1) through a secretary (16:21)."

Richards, RE, (2004), Paul and First-Century letter writing, p.120.

Faithful Interpretation of Scripture

In an excellent paper Watt, James W, 2022, "Leviticus 25's History of Inspiring Freedom as a Moral Challenge to Literary-Historical Interpretation", Biblical Interpretation, p18-19, Watt makes the following observation:

"When interpreters recommend one meaning over others, their recommendation can only be defended by reference to these interpreters’ own cultural contexts and the audiences that they address. In other words, there is no “real” or “original” meaning of a text. There are, however, “better” and “worse” meanings, and these value judgments must be justified on the basis of the entire range of culturally relevant values, including moral relevance and contemporary social impact as well as philological accuracy, literary context, historical plausibility, and traditional significance." (my emphasis).

I would strongly nuance this as follows. 

God, the omniscient author, intended HIS word to be multivalent. In that sense only do I agree with the sentiment expressed here that there is no single meaning in the text. The guidelines that follow are very pertinent but, within these constraints and a necessary humility recognising our own frailty and limits, we are guided by the God, in the form of the Holy Spirit, in the interpretation of God's word for this day. Always recognising both that we err and that as our circumstances change, so God will bring out new things from HIS Word for us to see.

Why is Jesus so reluctant to heal physical disabilities? (Mark 1:44, 7:36, 8:26 etc.)

 Wherever Jesus goes people bring him those in need of physical healing. Again and again Jesus tries to to balance the needs of the individual and heals them of their physical ailments while almost always telling them not to make a big thing of it. Jesus tries to keep miracles from being a focus of his work. Why?

One of Jesus's early miracles in Mark is the "Healing and Forgiving(sic) a Paralytic" (2:1-12). It's ironic that even in Bible translations, the heading added to this section in Mark's Gospel, so often, the healing comes first or alone!

1. NET: Healing and Forgiving a Paralytic
2. NRSVA: Jesus Heals a Paralytic
3. NASB(1995): The Paralytic Healed
4. GNT: Jesus Heals a Paralyzed Man
5. ESV: Jesus Heals a Paralytic

Only a few have it the right way round:

1. NIV: Jesus Forgives and Heals a Paralyzed Man
2. HCSB: The Son of Man Forgives and Heals
3. NKJV: 

The importance of this is that Jesus knows that we ALL are in need of healing. We so often focus on the obvious in this case those who have physical disabilities or needs but forget that we are all equally disabled in our attitudes and beliefs, our very core (heart) is in desperate need of healing.

As Jesus says in Mark 7:20-23: “What comes out of a person defiles him. For from within, out of the human heart, come evil ideas, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, evil, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, pride, and folly. All these evils come from within and defile a person.” (NET)

The Women Syro-Phoenician Woman & Jesus (Mark 7:24-30/Matthew 15:21–28) - a dog or a puppy?

  In Greek, Polish & French the words used "... “lap dogs, house dogs,” as opposed to dogs on the street. The diminutive form originally referred to puppies or little dogs, then to house pets. In some Hellenistic uses κυνάριον (kunarion) simply means “dog.”sn The term dogs does not refer to wild dogs (scavenging animals roaming around the countryside) in this context, but to small dogs taken in as house pets. It is thus not a derogatory term per se, but is instead intended by Jesus to indicate the privileged position of the Jews (especially his disciples) as the initial recipients of Jesus’ ministry. The woman’s response of faith and her willingness to accept whatever Jesus would offer pleased him to such an extent that he granted her request. This is the only miracle mentioned in Mark that Jesus performed at a distance without ever having seen the afflicted person, or issuing some sort of audible command." NET Bible (footnote to v27). This is clearly reinforced by the woman's reply describing these "little dogs" (Greek & French) as being with children. You don't put wild, or even guard, dogs in a room with children!