Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 05-23-2013, 04:39 PM

Quote:

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.

<confused> If Paul was not taught by any man nor heard about Jesus from any man, where did he get his information about JC from?

Vorkosigan

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-23-2013, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

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.

<confused> If Paul was not taught by any man nor heard about Jesus from any man, where did he get his information about JC from?

Vorkosigan

Does he say he never heard about Jesus from any man?

And is the issue really that the gospel that he preaches was never communicated to him by human beings?

Here's something from Arichea, D. C., & Nida, E. A. (1993). A handbook on Paul's letter to the Galatians. that we might need to chew over:

Quote:

Paul expands on his argument by the use of two other negative statements: I did not receive it from any man refers to the initial reception of the gospel, while nor did anyone teach it to me refers to his growing understanding of its contents. The first statement may be rendered as “No man told me this good news,” and the second may then be rendered as “and no one taught me what this good news was.” The two statements are essentially only two different ways of speaking about the same reality, though the second may be regarded as emphasizing more the fact that Paul was not specifically taught the good news by some qualified teacher.

Finally, Paul informs his readers of the source of his message. The Greek itself is literally “but through a revelation of Jesus Christ”; the “of” could mean either (1) that the revelation was made by Christ to Paul (for example, TEV, compare NAB “revelation from Jesus Christ”) or (2) that the content of the revelation, which was from God, was Jesus Christ. In view of 1.16, the second of these alternatives is to be preferred, but most translations carry over the ambiguous construction of the Greek. Who revealed it to me may be rendered as “who showed it to me,” “who caused me to see it,” or even “who caused me to understand the good news.”

If we take seriously that Paul claim that he had been a persecutor of the Church, then it's hard to deny that he knew something of what Christians were proclaiming before he had his call experience. So I think we also need to take seriously the what I have bolded above.

Jeffrey

EarlDoherty · 05-23-2013, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

(Your above reading has certainly been contorted in a derogatory direction, and impossible to answer with a yes or no.) But when you never commit yourself to anything, it is very difficult to tell what your position or interpretation is.

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.

Quote:

Of course Galatians 1:12 does not directly say, if only because of its ambiguity in the genitive phrase, that Paul claims he has heard the voice of Jesus himself.

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?

Quote:

By phrasing your posting the way you do, you insinuate--falsely--that this is exactly what I am saying, and your query adopts a tone of ridicule.

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

Quote:

And that Paul thinks to hear the voice of Jesus directly is to be seen from 2 Corinthians 12:8-9 and Galatians 1:2:

... I received (my gospel) by revelation from Jesus Christ. [NIV]

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

I make no such admission. You are twisting my words. The exact way to translate Galatians 1:12 may be in doubt (or so you say), but that does not mean that I am claiming that Galatians 1:12 per se states that Paul heard Jesus' voice directly. He may be implying that, but technically the verse does not state that in the clear way that you want to put it into my mouth.

However, despite it not making that clear statement, I am fully justified in pointing to the verse as support for my contention that Paul believes himself to be in direct communication with Christ. Note that I gave two examples, one in which Paul states quite clearly that he heard Jesus "saying" and quotes him, the other where he simply refers to revelation in general; if I am going to put the two of them together even though they are quite different, means I don't expect you to take my "voice of Jesus" with exclusively strict literalness. Sometimes it can mean directly hearing Jesus speak to him (or imagining he does, of course), sometimes it may mean a more general idea of receiving revelation. So no, there is no admission on my part that I have less support for my statement than you think I was claiming. <edited for goading>
Earl Doherty

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-23-2013, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Please note that I was not claiming that Earl was misquoting Mack. What I was questioning is whether Mack would support or even view as limplied, let alone as logically sound, the conclusions vis a vis 1 Cor 11:23 and Gal 1:12 that Earl was drawing from them Evidence from Mack that Earl has not quoted and that he has has not taken into account strongly indicate, if not prove, that Mack would not.

Of course we could always ask Mack himself. He's reachable through SBL.

Quote:

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.

Is that what Mack implies?

Quote:

(But this doesn't actually say that Paul got his message from someone on earth ...)

Never said it did. And that's not the issue anyway.

Jeffrey

Iskander · 05-23-2013, 05:35 PM

This trivial and miserable thread was created only to embarrass a distinguished author.

Acts say that Paul heard Jesus. Why is this unpleasant and malicious thread allowed to pollute this forum?

Acts 9). 3 Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" 5 He asked, "Who are you, Lord?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting

EarlDoherty · 05-23-2013, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.

In other words, you’re not willing to try to defend yourself against what I claimed were your false and misleading statements surrounding what Bultmann said. Just leave it to others to piece it out for themselves, if they can indeed do so.

Quote:

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.

More diversionary red herrings. I absolutely do NOT assume that Mack asserts there is no HJ, and I never implied it. I clearly restricted myself to the “myth” about the Last Supper. Nor did I try to claim that Mack necessarily believed Paul to be the originator of the myth. It was myself who claimed that it could have been either Paul or some predecessor. So Jeffrey has in no way put two of my strikes on him “down.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

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.

Once again, Jeffrey is putting words in my mouth. I did not claim that Kelber believed that 1 Cor. 11:23 came to Paul through revelation. Rather, I criticized all three of those scholars for insisting on making this an exception to their own “communications from a heavenly Christ” principle which all three acknowledged was an equal possibility, and for ignoring the clear statement which Paul makes that he got this “from the Lord”, a point which Jeffrey himself steadfastly refuses to address, let alone acknowledge that I have repeatedly made it.

And the third “major” portion is NOT gone, because Kelber along with the rest of them has acknowledged and subscribed to the equal possibility of the “communications from Christ in heaven” principle, as applied to the other three words of the Lord. They have simply excused one of them from being allowed inclusion in that principle, for inadequate and even cop-out reasons I have outlined. This does not prevent me from including them (and others) in the “major” support for the “heavenly Christ communication” theory. (If Kelber insists on cutting off one testical, does that make him any less a member of the category “man”?)

Earl Doherty

Toto · 05-23-2013, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

This trivial and miserable thread was created only to embarrass a distinguished author.

Who? The author of Luke-Acts?

Quote:

Acts say that Paul heard Jesus. Why is this unpleasant and malicious thread allowed to pollute this forum?

Acts 9). 3 Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" 5 He asked, "Who are you, Lord?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting

:Cheeky:

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-23-2013, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

This trivial and miserable thread was created only to embarrass a distinguished author.

Hey! I've published too --- and more than twice and not in vanity or minor presses. I've been cited numerous times. Some of my work has been noted by scholars like Nierynck and Telford and Jewett and Porter as definitive and has inspired doctoral dissertations and changed entries in Lexicons. Ain't I a distinguished author, too?

Quote:

Acts say that Paul heard Jesus ....

Acts 9). 3 Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" 5 He asked, "Who are you, Lord?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting

Wow. I no sooner note that it seemed to me that the only way one could see Gal 1:12 as a statement by Paul that he heard the voice of the heavenly Jesus is by reading Gal 1:12 " ... against, and in light of, and with reference to, the Acts stories of Paul's Damascus road experiences" than we get the above.

I rest my case.

Jeffrey

Toto · 05-23-2013, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...
If we take seriously that Paul claim that he had been a persecutor of the Church, then it's hard to deny that he knew something of what Christians were proclaiming before he had his call experience. ...

It's not clear why we should take that claim seriously. Burton Mack, in the section just above the snippet you quoted, says

He [Paul] told the Galatians that he had "persecuted the church of God violently" (Gal 1:13), drawing the contrast between his former way of life and his Christian vocation as starkly as he could. What persecuting the church of God meant, however, is very difficult to imagine, especially so because nothing is known about any authority Paul might have claimed to have done anything more than to raise a hue and a cry. One has to assume that, in retrospect, he pictured himself as a self-appointed terror.

I see no reason to assume that Paul learned anything about Christians other than that they were not strictly kosher.

EarlDoherty · 05-23-2013, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

And just exactly where does Galatians 1:12 support Mack's contention that he is saying he received a revelation from "God"? In fact, one of the ways of translating 1:12 is "a revelation FROM Jesus Christ."

And just because Paul goes on in 1:16 to say that God revealed his Son in me, this does not automatically govern 1:12. In the former, Paul is speaking specifically of his gospel, in the latter he is making a more general statement about preaching the Son. He is quite capable of having two different 'sources' in mind. Besides, other passages in the "words of the Lord" category, earlier in 1 Cor., and in 1 Cor. 11:23, use language implying a source in Jesus, not God. So Mack has no basis on which to claim what he does about 1:12, and Jeffrey therefore has no basis on which to state that Mack cannot support my claim in other passages I quote from him.

And I never shoot messengers. But I will rebut the statements they claim they are mouthpieces for if deserved.

Earl Doherty

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-23-2013, 05:35 PM	#45
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	This trivial and miserable thread was created only to embarrass a distinguished author. Acts say that Paul heard Jesus. Why is this unpleasant and malicious thread allowed to pollute this forum? Acts 9). 3 Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" 5 He asked, "Who are you, Lord?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.