Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, of course it was! We all know that we must take most of what you say -- especially when it's been shown that you've put your foot in it - this way -- which also means that we can't take you at your word.

I suppose what you write on p. 49 of JNGM on there being a general consensus among mainstream scholars that the shorter reading is original etc. was a slip of the tongue, too.

Leaving aside the fact that you do no such thing on p. 49, you need not lecture me in what is proper, especially since I already did here the very thing you now say I should have done. I take it that your eye as well as your tongue slipped and missed he texts from Metzger, Marshall, and Talbert that I posted.

Jeffrey

andrewcriddle

Hi Earl

I thought the implication was clear.

The Greek text is a rearrangement of the Syriac, (or posibly but unlikely the other way round). The different position of the passage about Christian origins is not evidence that the passage is a later addition, anymore than the different position of the passage about Jewish origins is evidence that that is a later addition.

Andrew Criddle

Jeffrey Gibson

No, I'm demonstrating that you are buggering yourself.

No, not at all. But that's not the original issue.

What I'm actually trying to not note is how you are now engaged (again) in equivocation, since you didn't previously say anything about major scholars, but spoke instead (your words) of a "major portion of scholarship".

And even if it were otherwise, the question would be whether you have accurately represented what their position is.

Umm, no. But not because I'm not familiar with their work -- as you evidently are not with the commentaries and articles I listed. It's because they don't take the positions you attribute to them.

I note with interest that the quote of Bultmann (a historicist) from his HST that you give on p. 716 of JNGNM has nothing to do with anything found in Paul. It's concerned with what's found in the Synoptic Gospels. So too your citation of Mack, who is intent in n. 7 on P. 87 to dispute Boring's and Kloppenborg's thesis that much of the prophetic speech in Q that is attributed to Jesus really comes from inspired Q prophets and not of Jesus, and of Kelber (another historicist) who does not say anything about 1 Cor 11:23, but is discussing the oral function of Chrstology. So to appeal to these scholars not only as "a major portion of scholarship", but as major scholars who say that Paul believed that “words of the Lord” that he mentions in his epistles were communications he received from a heavenly Christ is to misread and misrepresent and misapply what Bultmann, Mack, and Kelber say at the places you cite.

Leaving aside the continued equivocation, I note that you are the one who claimed to be familiar with what "a major portion of scholarship (not major scholars) has held on the matter at hand. Your claim, your burden.

Secondly, since you haven't shown that Bultmann took the position with respect to Paul and what he wrote that you say he did, there's nothing for the scholars whose works I noted to reject. In fact, in his discussion of 1 Cor. 11:23 found in NTT 1 145-152, Bultmann explicitly sides with those take 1 Cor 11:23 to be words of the historical Jesus.

So quite contrary to what you claim, and would have us believe, Bultmann takes the exact opposite of the position that you attribute to him.

I note that you have been accused by Bart Ehrman not only of misquoting scholars, but of enlisting them as saying things they did not say, and attributing to them positions they do not hold, in order to make it appear that you have these scholars on your side. Here's very solid proof of his claim.


Leaving aside the matter that your claim is obviously false, is there such a thing as backed innuendo?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I wonder if you could be a bit more specific about why and how listing and asking if you have read works which you imply you are familiar with is a "trick" -- i.e., An act or procedure intended to achieve an end by deceptive or fraudulent means; a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud.

What act of deception does it involve? How does it, even potentially, defraud you?

Calling it a trick hardly makes it so. But it does involve a dodge on your part. It's a way of avoiding having to say that aren't as familiar with scholars have said with regard to 1 Cor 11:23 that you claim you are.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I see that this is a paraphrase of your claim on p. 30 of JNGNM that there is "a line of scholarly thought [that] identifies these passages" [i.e., I Thess. 4:16-17; 1 Cor. 7:10-11; 1 Cor. 9:14; and 1 Cor. 11:23] not as things that Paul took to be, and offered as, "pronouncements of the earthly Jesus that [he] knows through others who heard Jesus' own instructions" but "as reflecting a phenomenon common in early Christian preaching [before Paul?], namely, the belief that words of the lord could and often did come "directly from the spiritual Christ in heaven" and that what Paul is up to in these verses is "passing on to his readers directives and promises he has received through revelation".

May I know where with respect to these particular verses this "line of scholarly thought" may actually be found? Contrary to what you try to adduce in your footnote to this claim, it is not found in anything Bultmann says -- at least with respect to 1 Cor. 11:23. Quite the opposite! Bultmann explicitly declares that this is material that comes from the historical Jesus and that Paul knows through others who herd and transmitted Jesus own instructions. Nor is it found in Mack's Myth of Innocence or Kelber's The Oral and the Written Gospel, as you try to claim it (indirectly) is.

Is it found in any of the commentaries on 1st Corinthians that I listed previously. If so which ones? In Conzelmann's commentary? In Thiselton's? In Plummer's? In Kistemacher's? In Thralls's? In Fitzmyer's? Barrett's? (just to name a few of those in English).

Is it found in any of the standard commentaries on 1 Thessalonians? Bruce's? Wannamaker's? Best's? Dibelius's Beale's? Malherbe's?

Please note that my asking you to tell me this is not a trick. It is, as you yourself have noted, what should be done when anyone makes claims about what what is and is not being upheld by scholars to see if one really knows what he is talking about.

And please don't reply by telling me what Paul's own language tells us about this matter or that he says elsewhere that he's heard Jesus voice or that there is reference in other Christian writings to direct revelation from "the spiritual Christ".

The issue is whether or not there is any validity to your claim that there is "a line of scholarly thought" that identifies the four passages listed above as things Paul thought were directives and promises that he received directly from the spiritual Christ in heaven, and where in scholarly works on 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians it can be found.

So only actual bibliographical citations of, if not actual quotations from, commentaries on 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians (and then more than one citation or quotation -- if we are to establish that there is a "line of scholarly thought") will do.

Jeffrey

Sabine Grant

:blank: