archibald

If I were to have come to this forum without having spent time in any other similar ' rational skepticism' forum, I might, I say might, think differently. But, I have seen spin, for one, struggle when he is faced with those much more expert than I from a more orthodox 'side' (and I include both theists and atheists in this), and furthermore I know in principle, whether one has come from another village, or the moon, or some realm in between, that there is no good basis for anything approaching the sort of certainty sometimes on parade here on many of the important issues.

That egg analogy was very funny.

Iskander

No evidence has been provided by those claiming 1 cor 15:3-11 is an interpolation and the assertion that paralambano necessarily implies a teacher-student relationship as Plato may have understood it -- that fatuous assertion remains an unsupported personal statement without any merit.


The Catholic Ignatius Study Bible says:

Jewish-not Greek
Protestants say the same.

archibald

Yes, but hasn't it become clear that this is what Spin, and Toto, and possibly others, are saying?

I think that I, for one, was confused by the OP.

Iskander

It is the passing on of tradition as every religion has done at the beginning and I suppose still do today as an addition to their written texts. if we can agree on that then we can all go home feeling in harmony with humanity.

archibald

Personally, I'm now happy* to go further and opine that for Paul to be using it while writing to the faithful, and to say that he had already preached it, it probably had, whoever wrote it, acquired something more than just the passing on from one follower to another. :]

*If only so that we could get back to the interpolation thread.

Whathever makes you think that anybody here is even slightly interested in being happy, or in harmony? Or indeed going home.

Me, I'm like a lobster in a lobster pot. I remember finding the innocent-looking entrance...............no, that's not the analogy I'm looking for. Maybe I'm like a wife in an abusive relationship.....I should leave, but I keep coming back. No that isn't what I mean either.

Iskander

That may be so, but only because Paul won. Victory is what makes it important.

I accept your opinion, though.

TedM

They seem to be restricting the passing of the tradition to someone with higher authority than the receiver. They appear to reject the idea of learning it from someone 'on the street', even if they learn it as a creed verbatim. This would seem to imply that the only way Paul got his information was through someone he regarded as a 'master-teacher' who was instructing him--like James or Peter. As such, they conclude this is evidence that the passage is an interpolation.

For the entire passage to not be an interpolation and for Paul to be most consistent the word IMO would have to allow for receipt from someone 'on the street'.

spin

You have misunderstood part of my last post:

What is the difference between "my physics teacher taught me how the world began" and "Arty Rumple told me how the world began"? The information has value according to the source. Now note the signalling in the use of verbs as well.

There need not be any substantive difference between the information provided by the two people. You do this all the time: you make distinctions based on your trust of the teller of the information. You have simply disregarded a great amount of statements I have made, as seen in your responses to my posts. This is only natural. We have differing criteria for the treatment of information we gather. I don't give religious scholars much authority when they expound their religion, though I will consider things said by some people worthy of serious consideration because they have shown their authority, as I perceive it.

One receives a tradition from a trusted source, an authority. The use of the verb παραλαμβανω is quite specific. We are not interested in other meanings of the word, but only in the context of the passing on of tradition. Receiving it involves an authority passing it down as well as the receiver. These are hierarchical relations. Paul has stressed that the authority for his gospel is god who revealed Jesus to him. Paul, unlike some--if not all--other apostles, has seen Jesus, which gives him authority and he underlines the fact when he uses παραλαμβανω regarding his proselytes' acceptance of his gospel notions. Paul uses the term as one expects from Greek usage. The exception is 1 Cor 15:3, the one example that Thayer provides for his unqualified "receive... by the narration of others" as against "by the instruction of teachers" (or any other recognized authority). (Just check all the references supplied by Thayer to understand that his only reference for the unqualified "receive... by the narration of others" is the verse in question.)

TedM

Sorry about that. I thought through what a physics teacher would say and what Arty Rumple would say and assumed the physics teacher would say something more technical. If Arty said the exact same thing that the physics teacher said I think I would be inclined to use the same word ("teach" or "told"). You say that is not the case with the Greeks:

You certainly may be right but until I see an example that shows how what verb is used when a non-authority passes along a creed verbatim, I will remain unconvinced. I maintain that the person who accepts a verbatim creed considers the person to have taken on a position of authority with regard to the information (ie they know what they are talking about). If Arty isn't a physics teacher and he were reading from a textbook to me about the beginning of the world, I would have no problem saying that he 'taught me' about how the world began.

Another angle on the source: The ultimate source is not the person, but is the institution from which the creed originated. If you accept the creed as truthful, then you accept the original source(not info, but source) as authoritative also. That could support the idea that the word is appropriate no matter who the direct source is.

Again, until we find an example that says otherwise, I'm not quite ready to accept the very specific definition you and others are using. Because, how really, can we know it isn't too specific, and that Thayer isn't right? What test is there for that?

archibald

I'm still offering the 'received from Jesus' option, and can't yet see why not.

There appear to be only 12 uses in Paul (not a huge sample size in the first instance) one of which isn't qualified in the directly adjacent phrase/wording (but perhaps by implication we assume paul) - Collossans 2:6, and two of which are qualified as being from Jesus.

The twelfth use, Hebrews 12:28, seems to have a 'we receive' which is unqualified also. OTOH, that is 'receive a kingdom'. Not entirely sure that's a strong distinction to make. But I suppose one could make it.