archibald

Stephen,

Have checked, and can see where your quote came from. Does seem (to me) to be pertinent. Not sure why Iskander thinks not?

Verses 3-5 are there, but not 'receive'.

This makes me wonder why spin didn't cite it (perhaps I will hear) and also, again unless I hear his reasons (and I'm sure he will have them, and they will probably be good) then it appears that when he suggested en-block interpolation, he obviously didn't mean en-block at one time.

TedM

Stephan, like archibald, I just don't see how the verse you quoted from Galatians says anything about Paul not getting any part of his gospel from men:

Where does it say that in this verse you put up?

Note the bolded part--Paul's gospel is not another. What does he mean by that? How can he say it is not another, and then distinguish it from other gospels by saying he got it from no man? How can he in 1 Cor refer to others like Cephas and Apollos as preaching the gospel, as 'fellow workers'. Did Cephas get his gospel from Paul? No.

Obviously something was shared in common. I maintain it is at the very minimum belief that Jesus rose from the dead, and that such belief had some kind of significance relating to salvation.

SO what was different? How about what Paul says was different, what Acts says was different, what 1 Cor says was different? What orthodoxy says was different? The role of faith and Jewish law in the salvation for Gentiles.


Your quote from Tertullian was very interesting (I wonder why that isn't in the e-catena crossreferences?), and provides evidence that Paul maybe didn't have the term 'which I received' in 1 Cor 15 originally. Writing in 180AD Irenaeus has the same quote--this strengthens the argument--, in Against heresies, book 3:

Irenaeus, c 180AD
http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays...sies-book-iii/

HOWEVER, I found a very interesting quote further down:

This is 25 years before Tertullian's Against Marcion, and it references the list of appearances even though our favorite word is not referenced!

Very curiously though: WHY does he say they had seen God after the resurrection and not Jesus Christ? That seems very odd..

The plot thickens.

Ted

Solo

Gal 1:6-7 (KJV with some ad-lib)

Jiri

aa5874

The Pauline writings are CLEAR.

"Paul" claimed to have CERTIFIED that he RECEIVED his gospel by REVELATION of the resurrected.

"Paul" had NO human-teacher.

"Paul" did NOT go to "Sunday School" (school of theology)

"Paul" SAT at the feet of NO-ONE when he was called to Preach the FAITH.

"Paul" went from PERSECUTOR of the FAITH to TEACHER of the FAITH without any LESSONS from any man.

"Paul" did NOT CONFER with anyone (flesh and blood) for his gospel.

"Paul" had ZERO teacher-student relationship in the Pauline writings for his gospel.

archibald

Stephen,

Well. I am glad you linked to 'Against Marcion', because (surely, unless someone puts me right on my thinking) it suggests that there may have been a pretty early version of verses 3-5 minus 'that word'. And unless I am put straight, this seems to be 'harder' evidence than a lot of the pure speculating we have all been doing. Which would be a great improvement, IMO.


(Similarly, my ears prick up when I read maryhelena's recent citation (on the 'Does Wells=Doherty' thread) from what seems like a more independent source, and not too remote in time, of an account of a Jewish King being killed on a stake. I guess that one still has to be clarified as to whether it was a crucifixion or not. And even then, it doesn't conclusively show anything, but it would be interesting.)

I do note that in the version of AM 3:8 I browsed, Tertullian pauses during the quote at just the part which would involve the 'receive', so, I'm wondering, it's maybe not a complete quote?

“I have delivered unto you before all things,” says he, “how that Christ died for our sins, and that he was buried, and that He rose again the third day.”

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03123.htm

As you can see, I was, for want of knowing a better place to look, browsing the New Catholic Encyclopedia, which I don't often go to, and tend to be somewhat wary of, though in this case, why didn't 'they' add the word to 'Against Marcion' at some stage? :]

TedM

archibald, see my post above...a great link : http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ena/index.html

Irenaeus has the same quote --BUT he references a list of other witnesses BUT they were 'to God after the resurrection'. What do you make of that? Very strange wording..

stephan huller

But that's how the Patristic writings cite text. I think part of the problem archibald and Ted have is a result of a general unfamiliarity with the genre. This is true with respect to παραλαμβανω but also evident here with archibald's approach to Tertullian.

When you start reading the Church Fathers you realize you enter a very specific genre of writing. It is like the rabbinic literature. I can't explain to my wife for instance how terse the language is. There is a very specific manner in which arguments develop. Scripture is interlaced in everything sort of like stepping stones. The people reading the text already have familiarity with the material. They are 'fathers' in a similar manner that Christians were so called. So everyone already knows the material from the Bible by heart.

The important thing here is to notice that Tertullian is addressing a Marcionite or Marcionites. It would be known that the Marcionites held that their apostle (= Paul) received his gospel by heavenly revelation. As such Tertullian wouldn't have cited the specific form without παραλαμβανω unless (a) it was also his reading or (b) he was citing from the Marcionite text. Indeed (b) is unlikely given that it supports the Marcionite argument.

I really think you guys should just spend sometime reading the primary source material like you would a regular book. You know a Jackie Collins novel or something. Just curl up with Tertullian and see how he develops his arguments. Have Patristic literature within arm's reach at the toilet so that you can literally see how it is they approach the Bible. It will all start to make sense very soon.

I am not a big fan of just citing Greek words and terminology without reading the relevant passages in the Patristic literature. You have to see how scripture was interpreted first hand in order to understand what things mean.

TedM

That's a good point Stephan.

Any thoughts on the received 'from God' quote in Irenaeus? It implies that he listed people in connection with the resurrection. And it ties in well with the later verse about being false witnesses of "God". I can see a case being made for Paul having mentioned others that had had a revelation from God about Jesus' resurrection as opposed to resurrection appearances from Jesus.

stephan huller

I am not a big fan of simply citing the Greek terminology (perhaps because of my own limitations) but spin is still right about the context of the terminology. With respect to your query about Irenaeus Jesus was both man and God for Irenaeus and Catholics. I don't see what you're driving at.

TedM

I thought it odd. In the same para he references God as God and Jesus as "Lord" and "Son of God" -- his typical way of distinguishing. Yet, he twice refers to those who had 'seen God after the resurrection'. It came across to me as something other than a vision or appearing of Jesus.

The other point is that if παραλαμβανω was missing, then at the time it was added to the text there already existed a list of those who had 'seen God' after the resurrection. If Paul didn't originally use the word, then spins use of the meaning of παραλαμβανω to support his argument for an entire block interpolation fails: some--maybe the most important parts--of that block was there before that interpolation. He appears to be depending on the meaning of this word quite a bit to support his 'complete block interpolation' theory. What a shocker if it turns out that word wasn't part of that block in the first place!