Julian

I am really glad that you are not a bank teller...

Could you clarify what number goes with what in your subsequent argumentation? I could make assumptions but that road leads to, well, assumptions...

Julian

jgibson000

Ooops!

Let's rename the second #1 as #1a. Thus:

Given this, I should have written:

And I don't see how # 2 is a straw man.

Jeffrey Gibson

Amaleq13

I think it originates with the notion that Paul should not be equated with "every Hellene".

"Every educated citizen of Tarsus"?

jgibson000

Is that what I claimed?

To say this, one must accept not only

(1) the historicity of the Acts portrait of Paul and his origins, but

(2) that "every educated citizen of Tarsus" knew/was familiar with the technical language of the mysteries, let alone with any of the mysteries themsleves,

(3) that even if they were, that PARALAMBANW had by Paul's time taken on within any of the mystery cults the meaning of "passed on a revelation", and

(4) that in the minds of "every educated citizen of Tarsus", this meaning would have displaced all other meanings that the verb had, and would have been regarded as its primary sense.

I'd be grateful if you could point me to any evidence that indicates that these points should be accepted as true.

Jeffrey Gibson

S.C.Carlson

Now we're back to using Acts.

Stephen

jgibson000

And apparently to assuming that Tarsus was a locus of one or more mystery cults, not to mention one that used PARALAMBANW to signify "passed on a revelation".

Sheesh.

Jeffrey Gibson

Amaleq13

That is the impression one gets when you take Doherty's statement about Paul and turned it into "that every Hellene, not to mention every Jew in the diaspora, was familiar with the technical language of the mysteries."

You might be grateful but would you be any closer to understanding why your characterization of Doherty's position was considered a straw man?

You seem to have completely missed the point of my response (not to mention the question mark after it) so I guess I'll have to be more explicit:

I believe the accusation of "straw man" indicates a perception that you were overgeneralizing when you jumped from Paul to "every Hellene". I also suspect that, if you narrow down the comparitive population, you will negate that accusation.

Amaleq13

I suspect that would be considered less of a straw man characterization of Doherty's position than what Jeffrey offered, yes.

Vorkosigan

I guess I am not understanding why we are even having this discussion -- the arguments over the other meanings of the words essentially miss Doherty's argument. One of Doherty's strategies for interpreting Paul is to let Paul define what Paul says, not Plutarch or Aristophanes or the Septuagint. Doherty's point is that we have to believe that Paul is consistent in his usages. In Gal 1:11-12 Paul seems to affirm that he has received his information from no man, but through revelation. Similarly 1 Cor 11:23-6 has the same information -- he received it from the Lord. Doherty's point is that the meaning of 1 Cor 15:3-4 then must be consistent with other Pauline passages. Otherwise we would be forced to argue that Paul learned that Christ died for our sins from the disciples (1 Cor 15), but about the last supper from the Lord (1 Cor 11).

I know I'm rusty not having been around for a while. So what am I missing here?

Vorkosigan

Camio

In a recent post, Didymus stated the following:

So, should we equate kerygma with information on Jesus or not?