EarlDoherty

[composed yesterday, with the odd minor revision today; the present bolding in the opening quote is my own]

Ah, Jeffrey. Still up to your old tricks. And I have no hesitation in repeating that phrase.

First of all, you say “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.” Somewhat devious language here, don’t you think? First of all, you make the statement that nothing in regard to the so-called “words of the Lord” is to be found in Bultmann, but then you narrow and qualify that by saying, well, at least not in respect to 1 Cor. 11:23. IOW, you are reducing the first part of your statement down to one passage, which acknowledges that this first part is false as it stands. (Something I also demonstrate below.)

You are also ignoring the fact that I acknowledged that scholars who hold to the “prophetic dominical sayings” interpretation tend to shy away from letting that apply to one of them, namely 1 Cor. 11:23. By the way, you categorically declare Bultmann’s divergent opinion on that one, but fail to offer a reference for such a statement. Since you are so rabidly demanding of specific references from me on my various points, why does that requirement not apply to you? After all, how are we to know you are not making statements about Bultmann through your hat?

Second, it seems that you are being very selective in your appeal to context. Naturally, the paramount context is the Synoptics (after all, this book is “History of the Synoptic Tradition”). But immediately before the sentence I quote in my book, appears this passage:

A direct statement by Bultmann about the principle of Christian prophets—and that would certainly include Paul—that such prophets made pronouncements that were ”assuredly” regarded as spoken to them by Christ now in heaven. Are you going to deny that, Jeffrey? And I drew on the sentence which followed the above because it made a very clear statement regarding that principle. In fact, Bultmann had just drawn on Revelation to illustrate that principle, which is closer to the Pauline literature and ethos than the Gospel writers were.

But speaking of Paul, apparently you didn’t survey the context in Bultmann far enough. Only a page later, he says this:

While Bultmann is pointing out the basis in Jewish tradition for the elements in that 1 Th. “word of the Lord”, he is clearly saying that a prophet like Paul (and it could certainly have been Paul himself) created that “dominical saying”, even if borrowing or inspired by preceding Jewish traditions about trumpets and clouds and the coming of the Day of the Lord.

So first of all, this statement by Bultmann not a stone’s throw from my quote, puts the lie to what you said above, that “contrary to what you try to adduce in your footnote to this claim, it is not found in anything Bultmann says.” Second, if one of the “words of the Lord” can be regarded by him as fitting the category I have presented, I think it follows that others could do so as well, which supports my position. None of this have you properly rebutted. Unfortunately, Bultmann does not address 1 Cor. 7:10 and 9:14 in this book, it being focused on the Synoptics.

Sorry, but I have every right to appeal to these things. They are the means of demonstrating that scholars like Bultmann have gone against the grain of what they themselves have had to say about their own view of the development of dominical sayings through inspired Christian prophets, even being forced to ignore other considerations in order to exclude 1 Cor. 11:23 from that grain. After all, what could be more blatant than dismissing Paul’s “For I received from the Lord…” as telling us nothing about where he got these words, and how it would tend to rule out oral tradition about an historical event?

Now, as to my appeal to Burton Mack. Once again, you claim: “it is not found in Burton Mack.” Don’t be ridiculous. Of course it is. I referred the reader to his Myth of Innocence, p.87, n.7.

So Mack here is referring directly to the scholarly theory that Christian prophets like Paul believed that the heavenly Christ was in direct contact with them. Yes, Mack is referring here to it as something held by Eugene Boring, but you will note that all I said in my JNGNM note was “See Burton Mack…p.87, n.7.” So the reference is valid. However, what can we say about Mack’s own view of that theory? That would have taken a little more explanation than simply pointing to a direct quote stating his view, but it can be seen nonetheless. (If you actually were concerned with furthering knowledge about the subject rather than playing games with me, you could have undertaken that explanation yourself, since you imply that you know all about Mack and this book.)

I refer to the same Myth of Innocence. On page 118, Mack says:

Then, most importantly, on p.119:

In other words, Jeffrey, Mack does not subscribe to the fiction that the Last Supper took place, and thus there were no words of Jesus to be recorded from it in oral tradition or passed on to Paul. (See his Who Wrote the New Testament, p.87, in which he says that this scene was “not historical but imaginary,” a creation of the Christ cult surrounding meal practice “in keeping with their mythology.”)

Where, then, did Paul get this alleged ‘tradition’? Who created the cult legend? Nor can Mack be saying that the identification of the bread and cup as anyone’s body and blood in a sacrificial context, existed in the Jewish thanksgiving meal precedent; that would have been blasphemous. (The Jewish "myth of the martyr" did not include eating his flesh and drinking his blood.) It, too, is part of the cultic myth Mack has spoken of in his book regarding the view that Christian prophets received messages from the heavenly Jesus. For whatever reason, Mack when he did so chose to focus on Boring’s presentation of this view, but he certainly does not discount it himself, and we’ve seen that Bultmann, long before both Mack and Boring, held to the theory even if he chose to limit its application.

Furthermore, right in 1 Cor. 11:23, Paul says he received this piece of mythmaking, this part of the “imaginary creation of the Christ cult”, “from the Lord.” What else are we entitled to postulate (regardless of the blinders which scholars have chosen to put on themselves) but that Paul saw himself as responsible for this legend, these words of the Lord? And that, although Mack ignores verse 23, there can be no other alternative but that he accepts that whoever he thinks first came up with it, it was a prime example of the modern scholarly view I have mentioned: communications which Christian prophets believed came to them directly from the heavenly Christ (in traditional scholarship’s view, of course, from the “resurrected” Christ, formerly on earth). Not from oral tradition of an historical event, but through revelation.

So your dismissal on any grounds of my appeal to Mack in support of my case is invalid, and yet another smoke screen of yours gone awry.

Now, Werner Kelber is a very interesting case of scholars wanting to have one’s cake and eat it, too. In a section titled “The Oral Hermeneutic of Paul” (The Oral and the Written Gospel, starting on p.203), he begins by saying: “We must return to the Pauline gospel and clarify its position vis-à-vis the written gospel.” Unfortunately, he does anything but clarify. I can’t quote three pages, but here are a few of Kelber’s remarks:

Thus far, Kelber recognizes that Paul is focused on his own oral gospel. Almost reluctantly, Kelber has to ‘excuse’ the evident fact in Paul that he shows no concern for contact with a “lost world,” the world of “the past of Jesus’ life and death.” No apostle on the scene makes any attempt to “recapture the pre-resurrectional Jesus in written form,” although one could drop that last phrase and still preserve the situation even in regard to transmitted oral traditions. IOW, Kelber is admitting that Paul shows no sign of presenting any words or teachings of Jesus that could be said to come from Jesus’ “pre-resurrectional” life or traditions about that life. (Now, isn’t Kelber’s viewpoint at odds with not only those who claim that 1 Cor. 11:23 is precisely that: the ready transmission of oral tradition about the pre-resurrectional life of Jesus to apostles like Paul, but the whole general theory of the Christian world after the death of Jesus being full of readily available traditions about himself and his life? Certainly a contradiction there!)

Kelber further points out that Paul’s exhortation formula “attributes the Lord’s authority to the apostle’s words. As apostle he serves in an ambassadorial role for Christ, speaking on behalf of him as if it were the voice of God. ‘The urgent call of the apostle as he invites men to believe is thus a call which the exalted Christ Himself issues’ [here quoting U. Muller]." Again Kelber notes that “Paul’s apostolic-prophetic self-consciousness in proclaiming the gospel in the name and on the authority of the Lord Jesus is echoed in other parts of his letters.” But that authority is not the authority of oral tradition rooted in the pre-resurrectional life of Jesus and his teachings. Though Kelber has danced around it, he has told us in clear terms that such a thing is not visible in Paul or in other apostles moving in Paul’s world. “Authority” is rather a personal gift to the apostle. As Kelber says: “There is as yet no sharp line drawn between Jesus the proclaimer and the proclaimed. The proclaimer continues to assert his presence through the mouth of the apostle.” This is exactly the point Bultmann made, that there was no differentiation made between Jesus speaking on earth, and Jesus speaking post-resurrection through the mouth of various Christian prophets, like Paul.

Of course, what Kelber and Bultmann refuse to recognize and acknowledge is that if there is no pre-resurrection Jesus visible in Paul’s world and style of preaching, then we are guilty of reading it into the texts. Kelber’s attempt to set the two side by side even in theory (as he does very gingerly in regard to 1 Cor. 7:10 and 9:14 and 1 Thess. 4:15-17), when only one side is visible, is pathetic, but typical of scholarship’s long practice of reading the Gospels into the epistles. And Kelber shoots even that down by admitting that, as I quoted in my book, “these sayings could have come from Jesus, but they could just as well have been prophetically functioning sayings of the Risen Lord.”

And that’s strike three, Jeffrey. The theory I am appealing to is indeed found in Kelber, as it is in Mack and in Bultmann. The two former also mention in passing other scholars who hold to it, such as Boring and Muller. Your attempt to discredit the case I put forward fails miserably. Nor is it necessary that every appeal I may make to something held to in mainstream scholarship that supports me has to be laid out and argued to the Nth degree, with every possible reference to it supplied.

I have absolutely no obligation to respond to your text wall demands. I’ve made my case to the extent that I felt it was necessary, and it’s pretty clear. This is a “major” (in the sense of substantial) line of interpretation in modern scholarship. If you disagree (and of course, you never actually come out point-blank and say that you disagree, which is part of your game) and want to do some of your own work yourself (you never do) and supply us with quotes from a substantial majority of the works you cite in order to demonstrate that my claim about this “major” line of interpretation is wrong, that it is held by only a small cadre of blind and stupid scholars, just the handful I’ve referred to, feel free. But I don’t play your games any more, Jeffrey. You forget that I’ve known you and those games for ten years (at least), and you haven’t changed them one iota, so my saturation point is reached very quickly. This response to you has taken me several hours to put together, and I’m not going to do that every day. I may in fact never do it again.

For Stephan’s benefit, this is a good example of a major “Gibsonism.” (Added: Gee, I hope that doesn’t contravene the rules, it’s a term I’ve used in regard to Jeffrey for many years now.) Never actually commit yourself to a specific stand, backed up by actual presentation of evidence and references, just insinuate that the opponent doesn’t know what he is talking about by a tone and language of ridicule and by demanding more and more evidence or clarification, goalposts that can never be reached to Jeffrey’s satisfaction. And when Jeffrey actually attempts direct criticism, he more often than not gets it wrong, as he has shown here in regard to his statements about my three scholars. (Remember the plural of ARCHON, Jeffrey?)

Earl Doherty

Jeffrey Gibson

Sorry. I didn't know that any position I may or may not have on what Gal. 1:12 says (and what it's to be taken as evidence for) was relevant to, or in anyway helpful in, determining what your position on this matter is.

Thanks for clarifying this
.
But I am correct, am I not, to note that the fact that Gal. 1:12 contains an ambiguity and that the verse could mean, never mind most likely means, what the NRSV and not the NIV indicates it means, was something you did not in anyway note or indicate or veven hint at on p. 31 of JNGNM?

I used your phrasing In fact, I quoted you. And my query was a simple and honest one, seeking only to make sure that you were indeed claiming what you appeared to be claiming when you said

which certainly appears to be a claim that in Gal. 1:2 Paul is indisputably making the claim that he has heard the voice of Jesus directly.

But given you admission above that the NIV translation is not the only way the verse may be translated, and that it's possible, if not likely, that Paul may be saying something else entirely, I see you are now admitting that Gal. 1:2 may not support the case, or be as good a piece of evidence as you appeared to claim it was evidence for the case, you make with it.

Thanks!

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I'll leave it to others her to note just how much Earl has had to mis and selectively quote what I said with regard to Bultmann and what is and is not found in his HST, and to misrepresent what I do and have done here with respect to stating positions and backing them up with evidence from scholarly sources, in order to make me out the villain that he claims I am

I'll also note, speaking of shifting goal posts, what he has to do to get Mack to say what Earl claims in n. 15 in his JNGM that Mack says on p 87 in n. 7 of his Myth of Innocence. And leaving aside that Earl seems to assume that when Mark uses the term myth vis a vis Jesus Mack is asserting that there was no historical Jesus, )does he?), I note with interest that whatever he believes about then origin of (prophetic) words of Jesus, that on pp. 99-100, p. 116, p. 120 n. 15, p. 275, and p. 298 of Myth he notes that 1 Cor 11:23 is pre Pauline and something Paul inherited from others. So, two down.

As to Kelber -- I know him personally and I know that whatever else he says on words from the heavenly Jesus, he, like Bultmann, does not believe that in 1 Cor. 11:23 Paul is believes or is saying that he is handing on words that the spiritual Jesus spoke to him from heaven. Don't believe me? Write to him and see: kelber@rice.edu In the mantine I note that in the very work that Earl "quotes" from, Kelber specifically says that 'The eucharistic tradition (1 Cor. 11:23-26) is most likely a formulation originating in the church of either Jerusalem or Antioch (p. 206). Damn! There's the third of his "major portion gone -- and more evidence that Ehrman is correct about Earl and his use of scholars views and words.



And as to his charges about me never taking a stand or producing evidence and argument to support my positions -- did he not see the quote of Bultmann on 1 Cor 11:23 from his NTT showing my position that Earl was wrong about what Bultmann believed with respect to what Paul meant by "the word of the Lord" in that verse. Did he not see my use of Metzger and Marshall etc. to support my claim that, contrary to what he asserted, all critical scholarship does not support the view that the shorter version the text of Lk 22:19-20 is authentic, let alone how I showed with evidence that he made the claim when he denied he had, not to mention the pages of primary evidence, and the citations from BDAG, TDNT, LSJ and from many scholars that I produced to challenge what I stated was an absolutely absurd and uninformed claim by Pete on demons, or how I took a stand against AA's notion that the term Christianoi is not used by Justin outside of the apologies and is not used by any other 2nd century writer except Justin, or what I did with evidence against some of SH's nonsense on how often certain words appaear in Patristic writings, not to mention my postings and claims about the meaning of Peirasmos, what Burton says in Galatians regarding KATA SARKA, etc. etc.?

I'd also like to ask subscribers to size up Earl's message in terms of the amount of bluster there is within it over against the amount of substantive and relevant comment there is within it.

That's all from me.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

FWIW, I decided to see if Mack said anything about Gal. 1:12 in his Myth of Innocence, and if he did, whether it would confirm Earl's (now attenuated?) claim that there Paul speaks of hearing directly the voice of (the heavenly) Jesus.

The answer to my first inquiry is yes, he does, on p. 98 in Myt. And it's this

"[Paul] claimed a private revelation directly from god in order to disavow that he had learned about Jesus Christ from anybody else (Gal 1:12, 16)".

And in the light of this, the answer to my second question is "no, he does not confirm Earl's claim. Quite the opposite, in fact.

So what does this show? First, that Earl is wrong not only to cite Mack as someone in the major portion of scholarship who supports his claim about Gal. 1:12 (see n. 15 for p. 31 of JNGNM where this is done) , but to argue that Mack supports his view of this text. Second, that Ehrman is correct that Earl misrepresents what the scholars he adduces as supporting his views have to say.

Now I fully expect Earl to excoriate me for what I quote and note above. But facts are facts. So don't shoot me. I'm only the messenger!

Jeffrey

Toto

Jeffrey: this was your initial post.

Where did the quote come from? Are you quoting Earl directly?

He claims "you set up a straw man interpretation/insinuation of what I mean and then challenge me to disprove that this is not what I'm saying. "

I'm not sure what this dispute is about. Is there any question that Paul claims to have received something from a spiritual entity, whether from voices in his head or some other mystical device, as opposed to hearing about Jesus' message from some other human? What sort of fine distinction do you see between this and the quotes Earl produced?

There is no question, and Earl has never pretended otherwise, that these scholars are not mythicists or that they claim that a historical Jesus never existed.

Toto

split on Pauline issue

Sheshbazzar's name split

stephan huller

Give Jeffrey points for citing Mack and admitting what he said. if more people did that here it would be a much better forum

Toto

Was Jeffrey admitting something?

Doherty quoted Mack extensively. As far as I can see, all of the quotes from Mack are correct. Like many academics, Mack can weave together phrases that hint at things without completely endorsing them.

So Jeffrey can quote Mack as saying

"[Paul] claimed a private revelation directly from god in order to disavow that he had learned about Jesus Christ from anybody else (Gal 1:12, 16)"

from a section where Mack is describing Paul as untrustworthy, implying that Paul was stretching the truth there. (But this doesn't actually say that Paul got his message from someone on earth, since there's no evidence of that.)

But Doherty can quote from a different section where Mack states that the current scholarly consensus is that Jesus' followers in the Q community effectively channeled the spirit of Jesus to report his words. Which doesn't mean that Jesus never existed, but it does remove the need for a historical Jesus to explain how someone can report what he said.

Jeffrey Gibson

My initial post also contained the words

Which could have been easily answered with a "yes" or a no and here's why you haven't got this right -- not the lecture on how I supposedly don't play fair that he sent me.


Yes, as I noted in a previous post.

Here's what he says on p. 31 of JNGNM]

This, BTW is prefaced (on p 30) by Earl's claim that 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".

I can only set up a straw man if I consciously and willfully misrepresented what Earl said. Please note that I did not do this either in my original post or in my response to his non answer. All I did in my first post was to ask him to tell me whether I understood correctly what he wrote (see above)


And when he didn't answer my initial question, but stooped to questioning my motives for asking it and went on to call me un-scholarly, I wondered aloud whether he was then denying that Gal 1:12 stood as good evidence for his assertion "that Paul thinks to hear the voice of Jesus directly, and that this couldn't be seen in Galatians 1:12 as he has had claimed (notably without reservation) on p. 31 of JNGNM that it could

The point, however, now seems to be moot since Earl has noted the possibility that the NIV may not have gotten the translation of Gal. 1:12 right.

I'd still like to know, though, how on any translation of the verse one can see it as Paul speaking of Jesus' (heavenly) voice. Seems to me that one can only do that by reading Gal 1:12 not only as containing an objective genitive, but against, and in light of, and with reference to, the Acts stories of Paul's Damascus road experiences.

Hey look, I made a claim!

Jeffrey

stephan huller

I don't know if anyone else here had ever done this:
For this forum this admission is incredible. I hate the fights here because the truth is we're all wrong. That much is certain. It's like the realization during a one night stand with an amazingly attractive woman that soon - even this - will not be real. It will become just another anecdote. The only permanent and everlasting truth is admitting you're wrong