Layman

I have shown that this is quite true. And it is hardly tangential. You assume there was no Apostolic Tradition because you assume there was no HJ. Specifically, you admit that Paul received traditions from the Jerusalem Church but deny they had anything to do with a living Jesus. That Paul recounts traditions about a living Jesus and uses technical rabbinical language for the handing on of oral traditions, you are wrong.

Sure you do. See above.

Stop kidding yourself. You are a zealot.

But you are the one anachronistically applying the meaning of the later Gospels to Paul. He is not saying, "I received all these stories about Jesus and all he did and said directly from heaven." The gospel is something more narrow in these passages.

Yes, and you have admitted he also received traditions from the Jerusalem Church. It is not an either/or situation.

Yes, a new understanding inspired by new events--those of Jesus' ministry and resurrection. "According to the scripture" does not mean "created from the scripture."

No, you are reading into the text whoppers.

He also clearly tells us he received oral traditions form other Christians. And that his revelation was the same as existing revelation.

You've already admitted that Paul received traditions from the Jerusalem Church. Like I said, you are being anachronstic by interpreting "gospel" to mean everything he knew about Jesus.

Now if this all appeared to Paul in a flash of a "visionery experience" how is this possible?

Paul recounts traditions from the Jerusalem Church. You admitted this before but now seem to be backpedalling.

You admitted Paul received traditions from the Jersualem Church but stated that those traditions had nothing to do with a living Jesus. But if Paul believed in a living Jesus then of course those traditions had something to do with a living Jesus.

I do not. You are not even trying to engage here. I do not agree with your anachronostic interpretation of "gospel." And Paul is quite clear that he received traditions from preceding Christians.

And you know perfectly well that I do not think he was lying either. But he did not mean even remotely what you claim he meant.

You have admitted that he received traditions from the Jerusalem Church. What do you think those traditions were? Why did he spend over two weeks living with Paul if he knew all there was to know?

It is unreasonable to take Paul's referenc to divine revelation to mean he received NO traditions from the Jerusalem Church.

You are getting closer. Paul received traditions about Jesus from the Jerusalem Church. You are part of the way there. This is a huge amount of information that Paul had passed on to his churches. It came from the Apostles and was passed on to other Christians. It was an apostolic tradition.

But you are still stuck. You seem to think that Paul equates "according to the scripture" as meaning "obtained from an inspired reading of scripture." That is certainly not the case. It means that prophecy has been fulfilled.

No, he says it's a fullfillment of scripture. Jews and Christians believed God caused human events in accordance with scripture. When things happened in accordance with the predictions or types of scripture, they happened "according to the scripture."

Right. So the Apostolic Tradition was not created by him. It precedes him. It existed prior to his search. A generation before Papias, many Christians were claiming that they were disciples of those who knew Jesus.

Are you saying that Papias made him up? Eusebius read Papias and notes he is talking about John the presbyter. Why should this create a problem? I would have liked for Eusebius to reproduce all five volumes of Papias' writing, but he was kind enough to give us some overviews.

Again, I am not necessarily arguing for the reliability here. I am arguing for their existence in the first century.

I think Papias' reference to Mark is reliable. And the text was preserved to this day. I think his refrence to Matthew is also reliable. But that text did not survive in its Aramaic form to this day. Probably because so few Christians could read it. Perhaps translations of it were used in some of the logia sources that underlying Q or L. We do not know.

What Papias shows is the existence of an established Apostlic Tradition in the first century. I had to ask if you thought he was lying because you were claiming that Papias was INVENTING an apostolic tradition rather than recording one.

Since you admit that Papias was not lying, you have conceded the existence of an apostlic tradition in the first century. By this I mean that the early Christians valued and attempted to pass along traditions they believed derived from the Apostles.

Well, I am arguing with Doherty. Or at least his puppets and his book. This whole article is a response to what Doherty wrote. If you don't care to defend him then you are dragging us off into pointless tangents.

Since my claim in the article was that Doherty was wrong about the lack of an Apostolic Tradition concept in the first century, you are not responding to my claims. I have yet to argue for the reliability of these traditions. I have repeatedly argued for their existence.

No idea, eh? You jump in to comment on my specific rebuttal to Doherty yet have no idea why I would think you adopted some of his other defenses?

I have no problem with the physical possibility of his story. But I suspect this is one of those oral traditions he heard. More evidence of the existence of an apostolic tradition.

The text of the letter provides no support for your "divinely inspired reading of scripture" conjecture. According to the scripture means as told by scripture or as described by scripture. It's not a claim to have invented material based on a reading of scripture.

Many scholars do understand Mark and Luke to have been written by their traditional identities. I agree for the most part on Matthew. I'm still undecdied on John.

But I'm not sure what your point is.

Umm, it's hardly remarkable that an apostle or an apostle's disciple could have lived past 50 CE.

Papias was a disciple of John the presybter. Since I have not yet argued that this John was a disciple of Jesus, what is your point?

I have told you time and again that I was more concerned with the existence of this tradition than with its accuracy. It's the existence of such an established tradition a generation before Papias that undermines Doherty's argument that there was not the "barest concept" of an Apostolic Tradition.

When I'm ready to argue for the reliability of this tradition you will know it.

Which is why you assumed Papias had invented the Apostolic Tradition.

Where did that entire line of argument dissappear to, eh?

Since the presybter was dead by 100 CE, I'm skeptical that he provides evidence only of a developing tradition in the early second century.

What we should reasonably conclude is that they existed as a generation closer to the first Christians. That's all I have argued.

And Eusebius got that name from reading Papias.

Let me remind you of something I have said again and again and against. I am arguing for the existenc of the concept of an apostolic tradition in the first century. Papias did not invent this. It already existed. He spent much of his life searching out those who were disciples of the disciples of Jesus. That means he knew people who claimed to be second generation Christians. People who knew the likes of Peter, Andrew, John, etc. Perhaps they were all lying or did not know who they thought they knew. Perhaps Papias is lying through his teeth. But for now I'm being rather minimalist--they existed in the first century.

At the least this contradicts Doherty. At the least this contradicts your assertion that Papias invented the idea of an apostolic tradition. Does it prove that a disciple of Peter wrote the Gospel of Mark? Perhaps, but I will argue that a later day.

Amaleq13

Anyone can read my posts in this thread and see this is untrue. Why would you make such an obviously false claim?

The information I conceded might have come from a human source is the list of appearances of the Risen Christ. It is difficult to understand that list as coming from a living Jesus since he would have been dead before it existed.

Is Paul using "technical rabbinical language" when he explicitly denies that he obtained his gospel from any man? Is Paul using "technical rabbinical language" when he explicitly denies that the Jerusalem group added anything to his gospel?

As I understand it, the "technical rabbinical language" is only used at the beginning of 1 Cor 15 where he describes his teaching of the gospel to the Corinthians. He identifies himself as the "rabbi" and the Corinthians as his students who "received" what he taught. Paul then indicates he also "received" the gospel but fails to identify the source. I'm sure you will rush to insert the Jerusalem group but that still contradicts what Paul has clearly indicated elsewhere. The Corinthians "received" the gospel from Paul who "received" it from the Risen Christ. Since he explicitly denies that the Jerusalem group added anything to his gospel, it makes no sense to suggest he "received" it from them. Unless, of course, you wish to assert Paul was lying when he claimed they added nothing?

I have no idea how anyone could obtain such a strange conclusion from my posts. I understand Paul to be using "gospel" as a shorthand reference to the Christian theology he preached.

First, there is no reference to any ministry by Jesus in Paul's letters. Second, that is not the order in which Paul gives his gospel. He gives the three statements "according to Scripture" then lists the resurrection experiences. I see no reason to assume that he is giving these things out of chronological order. Based only on what Paul says, we have the following chronology:

1. Divinely inspired understanding of Scripture resulting in the recognition that the Messiah was killed, buried, and raised after three days.

2. Direct experiences of this Risen Christ

3. Paul obtains a similar understanding and subsequent experience.

Please provide the specific verse(s) where Paul contradicts his assertion that his gospel came from no man and that the Jerusalem group added nothing to it.

I agree that Paul indicates the contents of his revealed gospel is the same as the gospel taught by the Jerusalem group. At least with regard to whether the Law was to be followed, however, there appears to be some question how literally true this claim was.

Where does Paul indicate he was holding information back?

Where does Paul say his revelation took place "in a flash"?

Refusing to allow you to add to what I have conceded "might" have come from humans does not constitute "backpedalling".

That would be a reasonable expectation if that living Jesus taught or conducted a ministry. Unfortunately for such speculation, Paul offers nothing to suggest that he believed in either. His gospel derives from the Risen Christ and he gives no indication that he considered the Jerusalem group to have been followers of a living Jesus. The fact that he explicitly denies the importance of their "high reputation" would seem to suggest otherwise. Like I asked before, is it reasonable to think he would so casually dismiss their relationship with a living Jesus?

Why do you ask questions I have already answered?

Why did he wait for three years if there were important things he needed to learn in order to teach his gospel? I'm not sure why you are asking me when Paul tells why he visited Peter. It is only a couple sentences after he asserts that he did not received his gospel from any man where he states that he went to Jerusalem "to enquire about Peter"(YLT) or "become acquainted with Cephas"(NASB). Since he has made it quite clear before this claim that his gospel came from no man, I think he is specifically making the point that Peter didn't teach him anything.

What is unreasonable is to assert that he did despite his explicit denial that they added anything to him.

Regarding the resurrection list:
Huge? Not really. It is a list of resurrection experiences which seem intended to confirm that the last statement "according to Scripture".

Where does Paul indicate that anyone knew Christ died, was buried, and raised after three days before recognizing that it was contained in Scripture?

Were they all telling the truth? Even as early as Paul there were folks calling themselves Christians but he apparently felt they were lying. Why should we trust what the people who claimed to be followers of the apostles or followers of the followers of the apostles were sharing reliable information?

All you have obtained is the early 2nd.

I think your faith is commendable but not something I share. Apparently, neither does the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Despite this repeated and unsubstantiated assertion, all you've actually shown is the existence of a developing tradition in the early 2nd century.

That is an interesting characterization of your argument but I don't blame you for wanting to avoid defending it.

Regarding your false claim that I dated Gospels after Papias:
Which Gospel do you believe Doherty dates after Papias? To my knowledge, he dates Mark and Matthew prior to Papias and suggests Luke and John were roughly contemporary. For my part, I've been assuming the more traditional date for Mark c.70.

Ted Hoffman

Layman,

I will make my closing comments. Anyone that has read this thread will be able to decide whose case is stronger.
Arguing with you is a tedious job and you seem to have a rule : never concede losing an argument.
Amaleq and the rest can go ahead and wrestle you down. And I can see he is doing a pretty good job there.

You have clearly dropped John, Hebrews and Didache. You are still arguing Papias but the ship sailed on that point a long time ago: Papias is dated well into the second century. You also still argue Galatians and maybe Corinthians but those are also secured under Doherty's umbrella regarding the lack of "barest hint" of apostolic tradition in the first century. So are Romans and Thessalonians.

Of course you disagree. But I don't aim to convince you: only to show that your arguments have failed. I am satisfied that I have done so and others reading this thread will have to be the judges of that: tell the difference between adamancy and argumentation. There are plenty of points I could respond to in your most recent post, but I may not do so: it would only protract the discussion, dilute the topic and further derail the thread. I am satisfied that I have adequately exposed the weaknesses of your case.

So, the issue that could be said to remain, barely, is the dating of Luke-Acts.

You have spent plenty of time attacking Knox's argument. Regarding Marcion, I will not bother to educate you the difference between a proto-Luke (available via Tertullian's detailed criticism of Marcion's Luke) and the canonical Luke. I will let you ponder the implications of that with respect to dating.

As much as Marcion may have omitted some parts, its also clear that the text Marcion used was expanded and revised by the Church in Rome to the Canonical Luke as is known by us (as Doherty argues in p.359 of The Jesus Puzzle). Canonical Luke, as it is, could have reviled Marcion to his core and made it untouchable. For him to have selected it, it must have been easier to beat to shape.
It is also clear to me that you have chosen to quote Knox selectively, just by comparing Doherty's citation and yours. You still find it necessary to employ hyperbole and rhetoric devices to amplify your arguments. For example, the statement "Knox himself admits that Marcion slashed huge portions of even his "proto-Luke" is clearly hyperbolic.

To answer your question, "what motive would the church have to appropriate Knox's proto-Luke gospel if it truly was so inconsistent with their purposes? They had their own", we don't know that they had their own. Secondly, they appopriated it as an act of "taking back" what Marcion had corrupted - what they felt rightly belonged to the Church. Thirdly, they could have done it to simply deprive Marcionites of canon material - this would facilitate the disposessed and 'coerced' Marcionites' absorption into the aggrandized Church. Prodigal son kind of thing - make the lost sheep return to the fold by taking ownership by engulfment.

It does not make sense to argue that someone who claimed to know Paul, travelled with Paul and wrote a biography of Paul did not know that Paul was a letter writer. But after he died, the Church, thet never knew him as well, "discovered" his letters.

I won't go to Burton Mack's dating of Acts, and its unclear to me how Mack can use Robbins to date Acts to the second century, yet Robbins himself dates Acts to the first century. Maybe you could elaborate or cite Mack's argument in full if you dont mind? I wouldn't rely on your word for such information since you have falsely asserted here that Doherty relies on Robbins to date Acts to the second century yet, as I have proved, and Toto has too, and Doherty has too, Doherty does no such thing.

Luke's omission, in his preface, of any hint that he personally knew Paul, casts a huge shadow of doubt as to whether he actually travelled with, or knew Paul. Further, as Doherty has stated, his need "to study these things" means his only means of knowing them involved study. The argument that he used the first person perspective does not mean he actually participated or was present in the events he was describing any more than his description of the dialogue between Mary and angel Gabriel. Indeed, its naive to make such a conclusion in the face of Luke Timothy Johnson's argument (in The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 474-476), that Luke is not to he regarded as the "sort of historian whose main purpose is factual completeness and accuracy". To believe that "we" means Luke was present in the events described is to disagree with L.T. Johnson. Am not sure you want to do that.
Carrier, argues that its likely that Luke was not recording history but was creating it. He states:The fact that you and Kirby have refused to appreciate that the author was writing 'good literature' by employing we passages in sea voyages as a narrative style does not change the fact that the author of Luke Acts never was interested in writing history. Scholars like Burton Mack, who have studied the subject do agree with Robbin's conclusions on the we passages as a literary device.

Robbins states:
Luke goes as far as engaging Paul in a dialogue with philosophers iun Acts 17:16-34 and goes as far as quoting Epimenides and Aratus. Luke copied and pasted from Josephus, writes from an apologetic stance, includes false stories like virgin births and the like. The historicity of Luke-Acts, to me, does not matter and though and I find Luke-Acts to be very good literatures to read. Its only when they are treated as sources of historical info that we begin to have problems. Layman argues that so long as Papias was not insane, we can know what he knew. He forgets that you can't reliably know from a liar what a liar saw, did or heard.

Why would we believe "we" means "Luke was present too" while knowing true narration was not his objective? While knowing the histriographical standards of Luke? Wouldn't it be like trusting a pathological liar to state the truth?

Let me now bring in Kirby on the dating of Acts since you hold him so close to your heart. And Carrier too, whom you cite when his statements serve your apologetics. We should be able to set the terminus post quem of the date of Luke-Acts shortly.

Dates I find in Kirby's article:

Luke Timothy Johnson, in The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 474-476 does not support 62 CE dating based on the exclusion of Pauls death in the documents. Reasons: the matyrdom of Paul is excluded by Luke because the point of his story is the fidelity of God, not the fate of Paul. As per this argument, its naive to treat Luke as the "sort of historian whose main purpose is factual completeness and accuracy"

F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts, pp. 10-12, supports A.D. 66 or shortly afterward.

Adolf Harnack and J.A.T. Robinson, pre-70 dating

A.D. 65 or before because of absence of mention of Neronian persecution of Paul in Luke-Acts.

Its difficult to fix the date more precisely than between A.D. 69 and A.D. 96, F.F. Bruce, op. cit.

Kirby, post-70 date, based on Acts 25:13 the affair between King Agrippa and Bernice may only have been after the the affair between Bernice and Titus in c. 69 CE.

Kirby supports a late first century date but says a date of c.90 - 110 would account for all the evidence, including the use of Josephus by Luke and authorship by a companion of Paul.

Luke copies Josephus as Carrier summarizes from Steve Mason's Josephus and Luke-Acts - Kirby states he hasn't studied this enoughto conclude on the matter - if affirmative, as per Carrier, it will set the date after 93 CE. Carrier states : "...in order to draw marterial from the Jewish Antiquities, as he appears to have done, Luke could not have written before 94 A.D...and since the rate of publication in antiquity was exceedingly limited and slow, requiring hand copies made by personal slaves..."
Kirby also allows for a date of c. 130 CE based on the idea that Marcion had a proto-Luke that he used to derive his Gospel of the Lord.
The link to Carrier'a article Luke and Josephus, is on Kirby's page.

So, Layman, as things stand, even Kirby does not seem to have any problem with a second century dating. His argument contra Knox's argument was not about dating but about authorship.

Carrier favours the idea that Luke copied Josephus. Based on this, and Marcion's usage of a proto-Luke and explanatory power (what Kirby refers to as capable of "supporting all the evidence"), a second century dating, without a shadow of doubt, carries the day.

Thus, from all fronts, Doherty's care regarding the apostolic fathers remains firmly secure. Having demonstrated this, my mission is complete and the battle is done. Anything more would be superfluous.

It was nice discussing this matter with you. If there are no new and relevant arguments, my participation in this thread can be considered terminated.

Amaleq13

I would add that Helmut Koester, in Ancient Christian Gospels, considers an early 2nd century date for Luke-Acts to be a reasonable possibility.

Layman

The claim is accurate. You admit Paul received traditions from the Jerusalem Church about Jesus but deny that they could have been about an earthly Jesus.

Ah, so the only think Paul received from the Jerusalem Church is the list of resurrection appearances? That sounds rather arbitrary on your part.

Actually, no, he is not. Interesting distinction, is it not?

Since Paul had already consulted with Peter for more than two weeks while living at his home at least 11 years earlier and had converted to Christianity at least 14 years earlier, it would seem that Paul had plenty of opportunity and time to learn what he need from the Jerusalem Church.

There is no contradiction. Paul is using technical language for oral tradition that he "received" as well as "passed on." This is technical Pharisaic language for oral tradition, not for recounting direct revelation from God.

And your attempt to vaguely limit the scope of what Paul was referring to is unpersuasive.

1 Cor. 15:3-8.

According to you, Paul learned of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus exclusively from his personal inspire reading of scripture and NOT from any tradition articulated by members of the Jerusalem Church. But. Paul did learn about all those resurrection appearances to Peter, James, the Twelve, and the 500 from earlier Christians. One wonders, then, just what Peter, James, the Twelve, and the rest of the Christian Church believed happened prior to those resurrection appearances prior to Paul's conversion. I suppose they were grateful to Paul for filling in the pieces of the puzzle when he finally -- a few years later -- told them what was going on?

Obviously, this is ridiculous. The "died, burial, and raised" tradition certainly preceded Paul and was handed on by human beings prior to his conversion and went hand in hand with the established tradition of the resurrection appearances.

The use of "and that," "and that," "and that", a marker of passed on tradition, explicitly incorporates -- at the very least -- the appearances to Peter and the Twelve. Jerome Murphy O'Connor sees 1 Cor. 15:3-5 as "the earliest formulation of the faith of the church." Paul, A Critical Life, page 77. O'Connor thinks that verses 6-7 are also a part of the tradition, though perhaps added by the Jerusalem Church after the reference to Peter and the Twelve. E. Earle Ellis places the "tradition" being passed on as 1 Cor. 15:3-7, because "it has an introductory formula used elsewhere to introduce traditioned material, and it contains non-Pauline expressions and a formulaic structure." The Making of the New Testament, page 90.

That the formula includes the references to Peter and the Twelve appears to be universally accepted among critical scholars:

Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection, page 88.

But perhaps you think that Peter and the Twelve did not know they had revelatory experiences until Paul told them so?

This utterly defeats your notion that "died, buried, and raised" were not part of the traditional formula Paul passed on to the Corinthians. Obviously, verses 3-4, like v. 5, were traditions established early in the Christian faith and passed on to Paul after his conversion.

Because Paul obviously had adopted Jerusalem Traditions (as you admit at the least in the resurrection appearances) his statement that the Jerusalem Church "added nothing" to his Gospels 14 years after his conversation and 11 years after he consulted with Peter for over two weeks while living at his home cannot be taken as a statement that he received nothing from them ever. You've already conceded this point.

And "received and passed on" is Jewish technical language for oral tradition, not direct revelation. It's not even the language Paul used to talk about his own revelatory experience.

Since you appear to define "Chrsitian theology" to mean everything Paul knew about Jesus, you are using the term much too broadly. Or at least not as Paul used it when referring to receiving the Gospel from Jesus.

I am not sure what you mean by "ministry," but Paul often refers to Jesus' earthly life.

Paul's letters provide many references to the historical life of Jesus:

1) Jesus was born in human fashion (Galatians 4:4);

2) Jesus was born a Jew (Galatians 3:16; 4:4);

3) Jesus had a ministry to the Jews (Romans 15:8);

4) Jesus expressly forbid divorce (1 Corinthians 7:10)

5) Jesus taught that “preachers” should be paid for their preaching (1 Corinthians 7:11; 9:14);

6) Jesus taught about the end-times (1 Thessalonians 4:15);

7) Jesus had a brother named James (Galatians 1:19, 1 Corinthians 15:6-70);

8) Jesus initiated the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)

9) Jesus was handed over on the night of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-25);

10) the death of Jesus was at the hands of earthly rulers (1 Corinthians 2:8);

11) Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus’ death (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16);

12) Jesus died by crucifixion (1 Corinthians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Galatians 3:1);

13) Jesus was physically buried (1 Corinthians 15:4; Romans 6:4);

14) Jesus was resurrected bodily from the dead (Romans 1:4; 1 Corinthians 15:4-7); and

15) Jesus appeared to his followers on distinct occasions following his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:4-7).

As I showed above, the appearances to Peter and the Twelve were certainly, and to James and the 500 probably, part of the same tradition.

Furthermore, most scholars schooled in Greek do not believe that "according to the scripture" refers to all three statements. Rather,


You have yet to justify anything even remotely close to your understanding of "according to the scripture." To a Jew or a Christian, the meaning is obvious--historical events happened as God ordained and scripture foretold. There is no basis for your interpretation of this passage.

C.K. Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, page 338.

Paul's usage is not that different than how James uses the phrase:

"If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well." James 2:8.

On the whole, you have yet to mount any defense for your novel reading of this phrase. It does not mean "learned from scripture." It is a reference to historical events that have happened as foretold by scripture. Like many evangelicals would say that the modern state of Israel was created "in accordance with scripture."

Furthermore, your "chronology" does not fit. Paul's statement does not allow for multiple understandings. You seem to mean that the Jerusalem Church had some revelatory experience from scripture that told them that Jesus "died, was buried, and was raised" and then had resurrection experiences, and then Paul had a similar revelatory experience and then had resurrection appearances. In fact, the picture would be more clouded than that. Your theory would require that Peter, each of the Twelve, James, and each of the 500 ALL have their own personal revelatory experiences and happened to come to the same understanding of Jesus based solely on their reading of scripture, and then all have their own resurrection apperances.

Of course Paul describes no such situation or chronology. The "died, buried, raised" is not a statement about a revelatory experience each person had, but about historical events that occurred once. The death happened, the burial happened, the resurrection happened, and then specific resurrection appearances happened (likely in chron) order. Paul confirms this chronology by noting that "last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also."

So Paul does not describe different instances of divinely inspired readings of scripture. He describes one set of historical events.

Your attempt to separate out the "understanding" of scripture is not borne out by the text.

There is no contradiction. You have already conceded that Paul accepted at least some oral tradition from the Jerusalem Church (the resurrection appearances). Paul sees no tension between having learned the Gospel from Jesus and having learned traditions about him from the Jerusalem Church.

By assuming things you know I do not ascribe to (Paul as a liar) you appear to have abandoned any attempt at meaningful discussion.

And since I doubt you believe Jesus really appeared to Paul, how do you account for the sameness of their Gospels?

What are you talking about? Holding back information from whom? When?

The phrase I used was from Doherty. Remember, I wrote a refutation of Doherty?

But Paul also speaks of it as a one time discreet event by talking about God revealed his Son to Paul and that Paul did not "immediately" go to Jerusalem.

You've let the genie out of the bottle. You have completely failed to justify any of your efforts to separate out what Paul learned from Jerusalem and what he learned from God directly. What I think Paul meant was that Paul new what the Christian message was when he was hunting down Christians. Indeed, it was their very message that caused him to persecute them so greatly. But then God revealed Jesus to Him, confirming that what the Christians had been preaching all along was correct. It seems likely that God also revealed that the Gospel was intended for Gentiles as well, though this does not seem as assured. This accounts for how Paul can claim direct revelation and commission from God, but also treasure traditions handed to him about Jesus from those who knew him before he did.

But as I have shown above and elsewhere, Paul quite clearly believes Jesus lived and taught and conducted a ministry that ended up in his death, burial, and resurrection.

Whatever Paul thought of their reputation, he recognized that he had to submit his gospel to them. His actions speak much more clearly to this issue than his rhetoric.


You've been pretty murky about what they were. Just the resurrection appearances? Still?

Like I said above, Paul likely knew the Christian message but thought it in error until God revealed Jesus to him. And if Acts has some merit, as I have argued it does, Paul spent time with other Christians without traveling to Jerusalem.

So what did they talk about for two and a half weeks? You claim nothing. Or the weather. Absurd. Especially since you have admitted Paul learned of his resurrection account from the Jerusalem Church.


The question itself is flawed because you are simply restating your erroneous interpretation of the phrase "according to the scriptures."

They do not "all" have to be telling the truth. I'm see no reason to assume that they were all liars. Such a conclusion is far from reasonable. Indeed, it seems desperate and grasping.

But once again you are missing the point. They were there. Lots of them apparently. And making these claims and passing along apostolic tradition. There were also books recording the apostolic tradition that had at least been attributed to apostolic sources. Their mere existence stretching back a generation into the first century refutes the point Doherty was making.

Since some of Papias' sources were dead before then, you have not been following closely.


I suggest that you have misread or misrepresented your source:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm#II


You are reiterating objections and deleting sections of my arguments without comment. You have failed to support your assertion that this tradition was only "developing" and have failed to refute the obvious and overwhelmingly supported conclusion that Papias' sources and the traditions he records reach well back into the first century.


Since the title of my article JA was attacking "Earl Doherty and the Apostolic Tradition," you can hardly be surprised that I was attacking Early Doherty's discussion of the Apostolic Tradition.

Have you not been reading the rest of this thread? Doherty places Luke in the middle of the second century.

Doherty dates Mark to after 90 CE. Matthew and John he seems to dates after Ignatius (115 CE).

You think that Jesus went from Myth to Historical Figure in 40 years? Or do you think that Mark is nothing but Midrash?

Amaleq13

As I have already said, the information I conceded may have come from a human source is the list of resurrection appearances. As I have also already pointed out, it is difficult to understand how this could be considered information about a living Jesus since they are resurrection appearances. Your earlier statement about my position continues to be blatantly false.

There is nothing arbitrary about it. If you carefully read the previous posts, you will discover the basis for this conclusion is clearly stated.

What “consulted”? Paul says that, after preaching his gospel for 3 years, he went to Jerusalem to get to know Peter. Just prior to telling us about visiting Peter, he again asserts that his gospel did not come from any man. Your selective reading of Paul does not make your assertions credible.

Who is denying that he had time to learn things from the Jerusalem group? I’m accepting Paul at his word when he explicitly denies his gospel came from any man and just as explicitly denies that the Jerusalem group added anything to him. He may have had time to do so but he clearly denies that he learned anything from them.

Paul does not describe the reception of his own gospel from “oral tradition”. He simply states here that it was “received”. Since he elsewhere makes it very clear that his gospel was received by revelation from the Risen Christ and explicitly denies that it was received from any man, your assertion that he was referring to an oral tradition clearly contradicts Paul’s own words.

It is painfully obvious that you consider no evidence that contradicts your beliefs to be “persuasive”. I have to agree with Jacob that it is unrealistic to expect you to acknowledge the very obvious flaws that have been shown in your claims.

Not according to me but according to Paul.

It is possible he learned of this from humans. Paul doesn’t provide the source for this information though he doesn’t explicitly distinguish it from other revealed information. Given that the Risen Christ would be expected to know about his appearances to these men, I supposed it is possible that this was also divinely revealed. I would assume a Christian would consider this to be a reasonable possibility anyway.

If we rely on the order in which Paul describes the information, then at least Cehpas first had the Scriptural information divinely revealed to him.

The “died, buried, raised” information was obviously obtained by others prior to Paul. He freely admits that the Jerusalem group became apostles of the Risen Christ before him. There is nothing in Paul, however, to suggest that they obtained this information in a different way than Paul (i.e. divine revelation). In fact, he argues that his authority as an apostle is no different than theirs. It is also entirely reasonable to assume that they passed this information to other people. However, given that Paul explicitly identifies this as part of his gospel and explicitly identifies the source of his gospel as the Risen Christ and explicitly denies obtaining it from any human and explicitly denies that the Jerusalem group added anything to him, your implication that he obtained this information from the Jerusalem group clearly contradicts several of his explicit assertions.

Unfortunately for your feeling of victory, this is neither a notion I hold to be true nor one for which I have argued. I assume Paul passed on all of his gospel to the Corinthians. Actually, I don’t have to assume this, I can read it in his letter. What lacks any support from Paul is your notion that he obtained this information from humans and specifically the Jerusalem group. This is directly contrary to Paul’s explicit assertions both in regard to his source and who was not his source.

That you repeatedly and consistently have to deny and ignore Paul’s own explicit statements does not make your argument more credible.

Again, I conceded it was possible this information was obtained from humans but there is nothing to indicate he obtained it directly from the Jerusalem group. In fact, that he explicitly denies they added anything would suggest otherwise.

Clearly, you read my posts with as much care as you read Paul.


Helmut Koester, in the footnotes on this topic, observes that Paul deviates from the rabbinical tradition when he fails to specifically identify the source. You have offered no evidence that makes it impossible for Paul to have applied this sort of language to divine revelation obtained from the Risen Christ.


My use is completely consistent with how Koester describes the use of “gospel” by Paul. He considers it to represent the “Christian message” and the proclamation of that message. I don’t have the specific reference at work but it is toward the very beginning of his book (Ancient Christian Gospels). Forgive me if I consider him a more reliable source for understanding how Paul used the word than yourself.

I wrote:
...there is no reference to any ministry by Jesus in Paul's letters.

It isn’t a mysterious or ambiguous term, Layman. The Gospel stories contain depictions of a ministry conducted by Jesus (i.e. visiting towns, preaching to crowds, spreading the “good news” of the coming Kingdom). You know, the kind of stuff that is utterly absent in Paul’s letters.

None of these requires or even remotely implies that a living Jesus conducted a ministry.

Paul clearly describes his description of the “Lord’s Supper” as obtained from a divine revelation. It, too, neither requires nor implies that a living Jesus conducted a ministry.

This appears to be a reference to the gospel of the Risen Christ being first preached to the Jews. Rather than describe any living ministry, Paul goes on to quote from Scripture to support his claims.

These all appear to be information provided by the Risen Christ. He makes no reference to this being information obtained from a ministry by a living Jesus.

You have yet to provide evidence from Paul that indicates the recognition of “died, buried, and raised” in Scripture took place after the resurrection appearances. In the Gospels, the authors describe the events first and then refer to the Scripture that was fulfilled. Paul has done the exact opposite here and, except for the obviously invalid methodology of retrojecting the Gospels into Paul’s letters, there appears to be no good reason to assume he would intentionally describe these things in the opposite way you claim they occurred.

James does not identify his information as being divinely revealed. That seems to present a rather significant difference.

Again, a careful reading of my posts will reveal your error. The order that is entirely consistent with Paul’s statements and requires no Gospel retrojection or Laymanesque interpolation would be:

1. Jerusalem group (or just Cephas) has divinely inspired understanding of Scripture to contain the information that Christ died, was buried, and was raised from the dead after three days.

2. Cephas shares this information either before or after the Risen Christ appears to him.

3. Other members of the group have the Risen Christ appear to them.

4. Paul is inspired to recognize the information in Scripture

5. Paul has the Risen Christ appear to him.

Not at all. There is no reason to assume that Cephas didn’t share his divinely inspired new understanding of Scripture and that this resulted in numerous subsequent resurrection appearances. He may have had his own resurrection experience before sharing his new understanding or it may have come later as well. We don’t have enough information. On the other hand, Paul explicitly tells us he had his own divine revelation and, just as explicitly, denies he obtained any of it from any man.

Correct, it is a statement about a divinely inspired new understanding of Scripture.

Suggesting that this information was obtained, in complete agreement with what Paul says, from a divinely inspired reading of Scripture does not require or imply that they did not “happen”. This is yet another straw man that has nothing to do with anything I have stated in my posts.

How I account for both Paul and the Jerusalem group obtaining the same divinely inspired reading of Scripture isn’t actually relevant to this discussion. Frankly, I doubt you really care but are only trying to create a distracting tangent. What is relevant is your failure to address the question already posed (i.e. how can a Christian reject the possibility that Christ would reveal the same thing to different people?). Once again, your arguments appear to derive from your conclusion with the evidence incorporated or ignored accordingly.

I wrote:
Where does Paul indicate he was holding information back?

Obviously, I was asking you to support your contention that Paul was not complete in his description of his gospel.

I asked:
Where does Paul say his revelation took place "in a flash"?

That does not appear to require that it to be a “one time discreet event”.

There is nothing legitimate about ignoring what Paul clearly states in his letter just so you can continue to assert your conclusion. Paul clearly states that he was motivated by a divine revelation to share his gospel with the men at Jerusalem. He clearly states that they had “high reputations” but just as clearly denies that their reputations meant anything to him. I notice you have completely failed to answer the question: How could Paul have completely rejected their reputation if it was based on the fact they had been followers of Christ while he lived?

Paul doesn’t tell us what they talked about while he “got acquainted” with Peter. He does, however, explicitly tell us that he did not obtain his gospel from him. Elsewhere, he explicitly tells us that Peter and the rest of the Jerusalem group did not add anything to him.

I asked:
Where does Paul indicate that anyone knew Christ died, was buried, and raised after three days before recognizing that it was contained in Scripture?

Nonsense. You are asserting that the events followed the new understanding of Scripture and I’m asking you where Paul states or even implies this to be true. You are avoiding the question because you know Paul never states or implies any such thing.

They don’t have to be liars to be mistaken. Given that Papias clearly did accept unreliable information as true, the assumption that the rest of his information is reliable requires substantiation.

Papias indicates he was actively requesting the information not that they were already busy sharing it. He is clearly attempting to create a consolidated tradition of information from the apostles by interviewing those who claimed to be followers of them or followers of followers of them.

There was at least one book that had contents that were considered to represent the recollections of Peter. Whether these were recollections of his experiences with a living Jesus or his experiences subsequent to his resurrection experiences, we are not told. There was also at least one book that had contents allegedly written in Hebrew that could be described as “oracles” of the Lord. Whether these were sayings attributed to a living Jesus or a collection of Scripture believed to refer to Christ, we are not told.

Regarding my comment that you had established an “apostolic tradition” to the early 2nd century:
There is no reason to assume the unnamed “presbyter” that apparently told him about the book by Peter’s secretary Mark was dead before the 2nd century.

Regarding the reliability of the above information from Papias, I wrote:
I think your faith is commendable but not something I share. Apparently, neither does the Catholic Encyclopedia.

You are correct. It is the Catholic Study Bible that doubts the “Petrine influence” on the Gospel of Mark.

I wrote:
...all you've actually shown is the existence of a developing tradition in the early 2nd century.

Papias describes himself as actively gathering this information from multiple sources. That is not[ indicative of an already established tradition but clearly indicative of one being formed. That it obviously included faulty information hardly suggests he is working with a reliably established existing tradition. Quite the contrary, actually.

I asked:
Which Gospel do you believe Doherty dates after Papias?

That is also where he dates Papias.

Both of these are before his dating of Papias.

At least now I don’t feel like it is only my posts that you fail to read carefully. I am accompanied by Paul, Papias, and Doherty (Jacob might include himself as well).

I’ll leave it up to anyone bothering to read this thread to decide which argument is more consistent with the actual evidence and which requires one to accept the conclusion before considering the evidence.

Good luck with your job and family.

Layman

I thought you were going to let the readers judge?

I have done nothing of the sort. I have met every argument directly and rigorously. If you choose not to continue the discussion on those documents that is your choice, not mine.

Papias dates very early in the second century and his sources clearly date into the first century. Indeed, some of his sources were dead before the second century started.

Even Amaleq has had to concede that Paul obtained traditions from the Jerusalem Church. His resistance on other matters is fading fast.

Since Tertullian is quite clear that there was no proto-Luke, but the Canonical Gospel of Luke that Marcion has heavily edited to suit his own purposes, you are wrong.

There is no "may" about it. Even the leading expositor of your theory admits that Marcion undoubtedly engaged in drastic cutting of the Gospel of Luke of anything he disagreed with.

You have yet to provide any evidence for this. And your cite to Doherty's endnote is of no help since just refers back to John Marcion.

What is the evidence that the birth narrative was added in the second century?

I gave several reasons to believe that Marcion hacked it out. Among others, the very thought of human reproduction was loathesome to him. He forbid his followers from engaging in it. Nor could his theory allow for a birth of Jesus, since he claimed Jesus had appeared on earth as a an adult human being in his opinion. So Marcion had to cut the birth narrative.

You completely failed to respond to any of these arguments and have utterly failed to give any evidence that the Church engaged in such wholesale additions.

I was quite specific and quoted Knox in full on this point. Knox concedes that, at the least, it is beyond dispute that Marcion removed John the Baptist and the Temptation narratives from his Luke. He elsewhere admits that Knox did much the same for Paul's letters.

Sure we do. Ignatius had already discussed it often. And the Gospel of Matthew was already predominant in the Church by the time of Marcion.

Since it originally included references to John the Baptist and the Temptation narratives, it is clear that it did rightly belong to the Church.

And this was not church practice. When they identified heretics who used other gospels, they attacked those gospels--they did not adopt them as their own with modifications.

I'm not interested in what you can hypothesize, but in what the evidence suggests. But you have presented no evidence.

I did not say that Luke did not know Paul was a letter writer. I said it was not a very important part of who Paul was to that person. He knew Paul in person, not from his letters.

By nullifying the "we-passages." I quote Mack on this in my own refutation of Robbins.

I cited Doherty as well.

Not in the least since he makes this clear in the text and his patron likely knew of this relationship already.

Please cite Johnson for his denial of Lucan authorship.

And I'm not afraid to disagree with Johnson, as I do on other issues.

I'm not sure what you mean by referring to Mary and the angel Gabriel. Luke did not claim to be present for that event.

Since we know from his use of Mark and Q/Matthew that Luke was not writing so creatively, Carrier is blowing hot air here. Further cementing this is the confirmations of so much of Act's narrative by the letters of Paul and other historical sources.

Actually, Mack shows no hint of having studied Robbins in any depth. He just adopts the statement with little thought to the matter.

And I do appreciate that Luke/Acts was "good literature." But since there was no convention as described by Robbins and no evidence that Luke/Acts was using it even if it did exist, I see no need to equate writing "good literature" with employing Robbin's theory.

Luke tells us quite explicitly that he is describing history. You have given on reason to doubt this explicit attestation other than wishful thinking.

No such literaty dependence has been shown. The idea that Luke copied Josephus had rightly been rejected by most scholars from varied backgrounds. In fact, the consensus against Luke's dependence on Josephus has become so strong that a leading liberal scholar has pronounced that "[t]he dependence of Acts upon Josephus has rightly been given up." F.B. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, page 132. See also E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, page 55 ("The argument that Luke used the historian, Josephus (AD 93), was never fully convincing.... Today it is seldom pressed.").

Claiming that Luke was a "pathological liar" is justification enough for me to see you are not interested in serious discussion. You have your agenda and are willing to go to any lengths to further it.

Luke intended to write history and did. He claimed to be present at some interesting but ultimately less important periods of his narratives. There is no evidence he is a "pathological liar" but plenty of confirmation for very much of his narrative.

I cite people when I think they make good points.

I agree with Johnson that a date of 62 CE is not supported. But you are misrepresenting Johnson and I doubt you have ever read him. He admits Luke was a historian, but clarifies that his main purpose was not "completeness. This is not an attack on Luke as a historian but on the idea that Luke would have felt compelled by his writing of history to explain what happened to Paul. He's refuting the notion that because Acts end with Paul alive in Rome that we should see that as around the time he wrote.

I agree with Bruce. And have read him. Have you?

I have yet to turn my attention to Robinson, but hope to read him some time down the line.

Perhaps you are missing the forest for the trees here. If Kirby is right that Luke/Acts was written by a companion of Paul, it is irrelevant if he wrote in 70, 80, 90, or 100. Doherty's house of cards would come tumbling down in a heap.

As referenced above, Carrier and Mason are both wrong. Furthermore, Carrier is wrong about Mason. He takes his theory into places I think Mason would disagree with strongly.

Kirby rejects the idea of a proto-Luke. Read again.

Knox places Luke/Acts around 140 CE or later. Kirby puts it before 110 CE.

And authorship is much more important than dating.

Except that Carrier is wrong about Luke copying Josephus.

All fronts? Every point you have raised about dating Luke-Acts has been rejected by the vast majority of scholars from almost all backgrounds (Jesus Mythers being the obvious exception). You have cherry picked citations from the most radical, rejected, and fewest scholars possible. They often contradict each other and articulate theories fundamentally inconsistent with the other. You have failed to provide any coherent theory justifying Doherty's radically late dating of Acts.

Layman

As I have said, the only way you can write off all of the other references of Paul to a living Jesus is if you assume they are not to a living Jesus. And you have failed to establish any distinction in the traditions Paul recounts.

I have already demonstrated that the formula being invoked is for passing along oral tradition, and that the "died, buried, and raised" formula includes the appearances to Peter and the Twelve, and probably James and the 500 as well.

Your selective parsing of my arguments is getting tiresome. Do you think Paul and Peter discussed their respective resurrection appearances? Or do you think Paul was passing along this tradition about Peter without having asked Peter about it? Apparently you do. Which makes no sense. Would not "getting to know" Peter involved learning about his own experiences with Jesus? Especially since Paul later explicitly refers to them?

You have already admitted that Paul DID received traditions from the Jerusalem Church. So you claim that his reference to receiving the gospel from God excludes his receiving traditions from Jerusalem is already disproven. You cannot have it both ways. Your admission shows quite clearly that Paul DID receive information about Jesus in addition to what God revealed to him directly. The only dispute now is which information came from where.

Paul's reference to "adding nothing" is speaking about his encounter with the pillars 14 years after his conversion. It is not a general denial. In any event, since you have admitted that he did receive traditions about resurrection appearances from the Jerusalem Church, you have already admitted that this statement does not mean that Paul never learned anything from the Jerusalem Church.

But Paul is saying that he passed along oral tradition by using the "received" and "passed" on language. Since Paul makes it very clear that he received traditions from the Jerusalem Church, your assertion that he could not be referring to oral tradition clearly contradicts your own admissions.

And as I have pointed out countless times, the problem is with your understanding of the term Gospel.

Since you are still arguing with your own admission that Paul received oral traditions from the Jerusalem Church despite his comment about receiving the Gospel from God, I am not apt to trust your judgment on such matters.

This is nothing more than question begging. Paul does not say anywhere in 1 Cor. 15 that he received this tradition directly from God. Instead, he uses different language than he did in Galatians--language he knows is a signal for the passing along of oral tradition. Had Paul wanted to use the same language he used in Galatians he very well could have. But he did not.

Are you backtracking? It is now your claim that Paul also learned that Peter, James, the Twelve, and the 500 from his own reading of scripture? Please provide the relevant Old Testament passages that he gained such specific information about?

1 Corinthians says nothing of the sort. It simply lists Peter first in order of the resurrection appearances. There is no mention of different revelations of divine readings of scripture. You are simply making that up.

The only indications Paul gives us as to where he got that information was 1) his use of technical language indicating it was an oral tradition he had received and passed on, and 2) his listing of all those Jerusalem Apostles before himself.

But Paul explicitly includes elements of that gospel that you previously admitted were handed down to him from the Jerusalem Church--the appearances to Peter, the Twelve, James, and the 500. Obviously, Paul forgot what he wrote in Galatians or he did not mean what you think he meant.

But since you admit that he did receive the resurrection appearance traditions from the Jerusalem Church, you too think that Paul passed along human traditions in his Gospel to the Corinthians. Obviously, that God revealed that Jesus was his Son to Paul is not a statement that he revealed all the contents of his message in that same revelatory experience.

Not at all, what I do is look at all of what Paul wrote and try and understand what he meant. You try and look at one thing Paul wrote and cram everything else into that box.

[quote]Again, I conceded it was possible this information was obtained from humans but there is nothing to indicate he obtained it directly from the Jerusalem group. In fact, that he explicitly denies they added anything would suggest otherwise.[/quote[

Nothing to suggest it was from the Jerusalem Group? You mean other than the fact that Peter and James were "pillars" of the Jerusalem Church you mean?

But it appears you have now recognized that your previous admission is inconsistent with your adamant denial that Paul learned anything from other human beings. So just to clarify. You are moving towards the position that Paul learned that Peter, James, the Twelve, and the 500 had resurrection appearances from scripture? Not from anything anyone told him. That's some mighty specific exegesis. Wow.

All you've done is make a snide remark, not a point. You have admitted that Paul received traditions from the Jerusalem Church. Now you are backtracking. I can hardly be blamed for accepting your previous statements, although I should have foreseen you would backtrack once you saw how much you had given away.

Well, in Galatians Paul is pretty clear about receiving something directly from God. Since Paul is recounting a tradition that obviously must have come from the Jerusalem Church -- given that he mentions its pillars and the Twelve explicitly, where is the confusion?

And I'm not arguing that a particular point was "impossible." I'm arguing for the best understanding of the passage. You sure set the threshold low. If your theory relies on your supporting arguments "not being impossible" you are not going to be very convincing.

And please read the rest of Koester. Does he agree with you that this was something Paul received in a revelatory experience? Does he deny that Paul received this from human beings?

Like I said. Since Paul clearly includes human tradition (appearances to Peter, James, the Twelve, and the 500) when he talks about the gospel he was teaching, you have misunderstood Paul's statement in Galatians.

Does Koester claim that 1 Cor. 15:3 onward as the product of a revelatory experience as you and Doherty do?

So being born a Jew, teaching about divorce, teaching about payment to preachers, teaching about the end times, being crucified doesn't require a living Jesus?

You have just proved my point. You have to assume that there was no historical Jesus to assume Paul knew nothing of a living Jesus.

In any event, as I explained in the article at issue, Paul probably does not mean that he obtained the Lord's support through divine revelation. He attributes it to Jesus, not God. And he uses different language than he did in Galatians.

There is nothing about quoting scripture to prove his point that suggests Jesus was not living. Just the opposite in fact since Jews expected God to fulfill his promises made in the OT.

He makes no reference to a revelatory experience either. You have to assume there was no living Jesus to conclude that this was not from a living Jesus.

Since Paul does not mention when the Church realized this was done according to the scriptures, your argument is irrelevant. Paul clearly places the events "died, buried, raised" prior to the resurrection appearances. Your rendering of "according to the scriptures" is bizarre and supported by absolutely nothing and no one.

Examples please.

Paul describes things in chronological order. Jesus was died, buried, and raised. Then he appeared to Paul, the Twelve, James, the 500, and finally Paul. The sequence of death, burial and resurrection followed by resurrection appearances is what we find in the Gospels, though they recount some different appearances.

What? According to you "according to the scripture" means exactly that--a divine understanding of scripture. Except James shows that is not the case. James uses "according to the scriptures" to refer to real human events that conform to the teaching of scripture, not to learning about real events from reading scripture.

You are going to have to come to a better explanation of James to be at all convincing.

You cannot get anywhere when you get the first step wrong. There is no mention of a divine understanding of scripture. There is a mention of three specific historical events that fit what scripture had predicted. Your rendering of "according to the scripture" has no support and is adopted by no one but Doherty and his disciples. It's actually quite a ridiculous reading. So because the first step of Paul's chronology is a reference to specific events--death, burial, resurrection--that fit into the expectations of scripture, he actually is recounting the some sequence of events as the Gospels.

Where does Paul say that Cephas shared this information (by which I assume you mean his own exclusive understanding of scripture). Or is this an Amaleq interpolation?

Sure.

Where does Paul say this in 1 Cor. 15? Even if I adopted your absurd rendering of "according to the scripture" there is only one reference to it? Prior to Peter. Paul never repeats this in reference to himself? Another Amaleq interpolation?

Sure.

You mean except that Paul never once mentions that Peter shared any divine reading of scripture? Or that Peter shared anything at all. There is simply a reference to specific events, not to Peter's reading of scripture or telling others about reading scripture.

Except that you admit Paul also accepted traditions from the Jerusalem Church. And Paul tells us that there was a series of historical events that happened as scripture foretold, not as he learned from scripture.

I fail to see how a divinely inspired new understanding of scripture is not a revelatory experience. In any event, Paul does not say that this was an understanding of scripture. He says these were events that happened as scripture foretold. As any good Jew or Christian would believe.

Except that you and Doherty do take it to mean that they did not happen.

In any event, the real point is that Paul is describing events that fit what scripture foretold, not things that he learned happened by reading scripture.

Since the only explanation is some sort of exchange of traditions and information, the issue is quite relevant. But your refusal to answer is noted.

I have been quite direct. God revealed to Paul that Jesus was his Son. Perhaps that he had a special mission to the Gentiles. Since Paul had already been exposed to Christian beliefs--traditions--Paul knew who Jesus was and probably some of what he taught and what the church taught about him.

Require? Perhaps not. It certainly suggests it. Which is what Doherty concluded by his reference to a "visionary" experience. Remember that this article is responding directly to Doherty.

You have been doing it all along.

But I was not ignoring what Paul said. I'm looking at what he said and what he did.

Actually, he says he was motivated by a revelation to go to Jerusalem. I'm not sure how far into the specifics of what he recounts it stretches to.

Kinda funny that Paul would go out of his way to refer to a revelation here but do no such thing in 1 Cor. 15? Or when referring to Jesus' teachings on divorce, payment for pastors, and the end times?

Paul is more concerned with the message than with persons. This is what he means when he says that even if HE or an angel from God taught a different Gospel, it should be rejected. And since Paul accounted himself among their number, he would -- in his eyes -- have every right not to be impressed by their company.

But Paul also passes along oral traditions. And you have conceded that Paul also passed along traditions about the resurrection appearances. Your attempts to claim that they were not part of his gospel has failed. I find the notion that Paul did not talk to Peter about Peter's resurrection experiences as absurd in the highest.

Covering your ignorance about what was talked about by saying they just "got acquainted" are also unconvincing. Since their only connection was Jesus, getting acquainted would mean exchanging information about him. And indeed Paul shows that he did obtain such information from him by passing along a recounting of Peter's own resurrection experience.

I'm saying that you have misread "according to the scripture." Nowhere does Paul say that he or anyone else learned of these events from scripture. He says the events happened as scripture foretold. I suggest you read my article on Doherty and the Hebrew Bible. Especially the discussion of Romans 9-10, where Paul describes the Jewish rejection of Christianity by noting "it is written" in the OT that it would happen. Obviously Paul did not learn about the rejection from scripture, but he thinks it was foretold by scripture.

I would say that if they several people were claiming to have been disciples of the Apostles and they were not, that many of them -- at least -- had to be liars.

Every historian accepts unreliable information as true form time to time. In any event, since Papias is talking about people he knew and talked with here, instead of traditions passed down 70 years in the past, that he may have accepted some inaccurate traditions about what Jesus said does not mean he was such an idiot that he did not understand those that claimed to know the apostles.

I'm not sure why Papias requesting the information casts doubt on its existence in the first century. Especially since some of those sources were dead in the first century. The fact remains that all those people claiming "to be followers of them" were around and spreading traditions. And it is also clear that firm traditions about two gospels connected to apostolic authority also were in existence.

The term used -- "oracles" refers to sayings and deeds. And Papias certainly understood these books to attribute these sayings to a living Jesus. Remember, what matters is the existence of the tradition. It existed. And was being attributed to apostles. Thus there was an apostolic tradition that existed prior to Papias.

This game is getting old. It is not sophisticated to assume that when an author refers to certain things, especially explicitly asserting that they preexisted himself, that those things did not exist until the author recorded them.

The tradition is pretty strong that John did not live into the second century.

I appreciate the admission.

This is nonsensical. How can he gather the information form multiple sources if there is no established tradition?

Besides, you are ignoring the context again. Papias is a throwback. Oral tradition already had its hey day and had settled down into various books attributed to the apostles. The tradition was established long before Papias began his gathering of oral sources.

Actually, it's indicative of anyone collecting traditions. Especially in ancient times.

Not really, he seems to favor 130 CE. Since the Marcionite controversy did not purportedly result in a brand spanking new Acts until after 140 CE, you are wrong.

I date Papias earlier than Doherty. And how can a date "after 115 CE" be necessarily "before" 130 CE?

Unsubstantiated nonsense on your part.

Amaleq13

That you keep asserting this contrary to what I have repeatedly stated serves only to make yourself look foolish. Once more, I concede that it is possible that Paul obtained the list of resurrection appearances from human sources. The word "possible" simply means that I concede it is not impossible. As I mentioned, it isn't clear to me that he considers this to be part of his gospel (Koester, for example, considers only the reference to Cephas and the twelve to predate Paul - ACG, p6). If Paul does, I would be less inclined to contradict what he says elsewhere about his gospel not coming from any man. That you consistently ignore the "possible" and the "human sources" does not change my statement into your assertion. As for your second statement, that can only be considered an example of wishful thinking.

Also, you seem to be applying a different meaning to "apostolic tradition" than I understand Doherty to be using. Even if I accept your assertion that Paul's gospel came from the Jerusalem group (to be clear since you seem to have difficulty interpreting my posts, I do NOT actually accept your assertion), none of it is can be traced to a living, preaching Jesus. It is that concept of "apostolic tradition" Papias appears to be developing and that concept that cannot be found any earlier.

"The oldest witness for the teaching authority of the "elders" or "presbyters" (Greek text) is bishop Papias of Hierapolis. The date for his writings is usually given as some time between 100 and 150CE." (Ancient Christian Gospels, pg32-33)

The footnote for this sentence reads:

"It is notoriously difficult to give a more precise date to Papias' writings; see Johannes Munck, "Presbyters and Disciples of the Lord in Papias," HTR 52 (1959) 223-43."

"Thus the Gospel of Luke, perhaps written as late as the first decades of the 2d century, became the first Gospel ever to be elevated to something that could be called "canonical status," albeit in its revised Marcionite edition." (pg334)

After describing the sources for the connection of the Gospel to the companion of Paul, Koester writes:

"The historical value of this information, including the name of the author, is of dubious value. Even since Marcion (who never mentions the name of an author for the gospel that he included in his canon), the desire to connect the author to Paul, as well as the evident information about Paul in the second half of the work, the Acts of the Apostles, would make Luke a natural choice because he was mentioned in Phlm 24, Col 4:14, and 2 Tim 4:11." (p336)

Layman

I admit that you have backtracked on this the more untenable it made your position.

In any event, it seems quite clear that Paul learned about the resurrection appearances from other Christians, not from a divine reading of scripture. See my above discussion.

Perhaps what you should do is examine Paul's complete corpus instead of just the one phrase and reconcile what Paul meant by all that he says.

Either way you are stuck. And that you are relying entirely on the most fanciful understanding of "according to the scripture" I have seen is perhaps the best illustration of how fast you are fading.

Right, I've been saying all along that you are relying on the nonexistence of Jesus.

Papias is explicit that the traditions preceded him.

I have provided quotes too. How nice.

I've explained my reasons for dating Acts in the first century. Are you going to throw quotes at me endlessly for no reason?

I have also given my reasons for attaching the "we" to a companion of Paul. Probably Luke. Kirby goes into much more detail than Koester, which is why I cited to him.