Layman

So to save me time, please clarify your position.

Do you adopt Price's argument that 1 Cor. 15:3-11 is a later Christian interpolation? Even though Price's argument has failed to convince anyone else in the scholarly community?

If so, thenare you admitting that your attempts to interpret "accoridng to the scripture" as meaning created "based on a divinely inspired reading of Scripture" were errouneous? Or do you think that a later Christian scribe added in this phrase and references and still meant to imply Paul had only learned of these by reading scripture? Do you think Price agrees with your understanding of that phrase?

Layman

The problem with taking Eusebius at face value on this is that he thought Papias was a borderline heritic because of his Chilaism. Irenaeus, who had no such bias and wrote much earlier and with better access to information from that area believed Eusebius wrote of John the Disciple:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm

According to Gundry, "Irenaeus, writing ca. 180, describes Papias as an 'ancient man' and as 'the hearer of the Apostle John' (Haer. 5.22.4; Eus. H.E. 3.39.1, 13)."

Robert Gundry, Mark, a Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, page 1027.

Euebius also places too much emphasis on the existence of two tombs of John being venerated. This seems more easily explained by competing traditions about John than there being two Johns.

I have not finished looking into it, but I'm finding plenty of reason to doubt Eusebius' attempt to claim two different Johns here.

Layman

So let me see if I understand this point. If I have shown that the apostles passed along a tradition about Jesus Christ--that he died, was buried, rose again, and appeared to several people--that is in no way evidence of an Apostolic Tradition? So all that fierce resistance you put up to the idea that Paul learned this formula from the Jerusalem Church had nothing to do with denying an Apostolic Tradition?

Right?

Amaleq13

I said I considered it a "good argument". I also said that I didn't think it was necessary to reject it as an interpolation in order to deny your claim that Paul had learned his "kerygma" from the Jerusalem group.

Yes, I consider it a good argument despite this logically fallacious appeal to the majority.

No, that would be part of the "assuming it legitimate" criticism. If the passage is an interpolation, its meaning is irrelevant.

As I asked before, what, exactly, is so "fanciful" about understanding the phrase to mean "learned from Scripture"? How is that a bizarre understanding of the meaning of the phrase "according to"?

Amaleq13

Where are the pre-resurrection teachings?

The "fierce resistance" came from Paul's own words which clearly contradict your claim but, yes, the fact that Paul denies learning anything from them does seem relevant to your claim.

The fact that Paul dismisses their "high reputation", as I have repeatedly pointed out, does not seem consistent with that reputation being due to their previous role as disciples to a living Jesus.

Regarding your opposition to the views of Schoedel, no offense but I'm going to go with the author of the article in The Anchor Bible Dictionary.

GakuseiDon

Where does Paul say he "learned nothing" from them? All he says is that they added nothing to his gospel message. He had good reason to do this, since in his Epistle to the Galatians he seemed to be concerned about the influence of "Judaizers", i.e. those who wanted their Christianity to be more Judaistic.

So, why does Paul write to the Galatians to tell them that the Jerusalem group added nothing to his gospel? Remember, Paul is making this part of his letter to the Galatians, so he has a point to saying this.

No, he DOESN'T dismiss their high reputation. In fact, quite the opposite! The fact that he shows his gospel to them in private shows that he values their reputation. That he says they added nothing to his gospel is Paul saying that they APPROVE of his gospel. This is something that Paul wants to get across - the Jerusalem group approves of him!

Remember who Paul was writing to. The Galatians seemed to have been wanting the Church to continue with Jewish ways, such as circumcision. Paul wanted to stress that Gentiles as well were able to share in the gospel message, and that the most Jewish of the Church, the Jerusalem group's "pillars" approved of this.

This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06336a.htm
So Paul isn't saying "hey, those guys don't know nothin'!", but "hey, look at this! They agree with me!".

Paul then talks about confronting Peter over not eating with Gentiles, and about Gentiles and circumcision.

Ted Hoffman

GakuseiDon,

Help me understand your position. Are you saying that there is evidence, at least in Pauline epistles, that there existed an Apostolic tradition?

Amaleq13

"the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man." (Gal1:11, NASB)

"...those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me." (Gal 2:6, NASB)

The concern you described does not provide a "reason" for Paul's explicit denial that his gospel came from any man, in general, or his explicit denial that the Jerusalem group, specifically, added anything to it.

It seems pretty obvious to me. Their "high reputation" is clearly among the same Jewish Christians who are apparently pressuring the Galatian Christians to follow the Law. Paul is simultaneously asserting that they approved his gospel (including the idea they were not bound to the Law) while denying that their reputation is actually relevant. He is giving the Galatians three reasons not to listen to the Jewish Christians:

1. Paul's gospel comes directly from the Risen Christ

2. Paul's gospel was approved by the Jerusalem group

3. The "high reputation" of the Jerusalem group is ultimately irrelevant

Q.E.D. The Galatians are not required to follow the Law.

You are denying the plain meaning of the text. Your protests to the contrary, Paul clearly does dismiss their reputation as irrelevant:

"what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality" (Gal2:6, NASB)

No, it shows he wished to avoid the possibility of having them publicly denounce his gospel as false. Being aware of the influence of their reputation does not negate his subsequent explicit dismissal of it as irrelevant.

The verse just prior was sufficient to establish they had approved his gospel:

"But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you." (Gal2:5, NASB)

Paul is adding to the claim that they approved his gospel to the Gentiles by dismissing their reputation as ultimately irrelevant. IOW, Paul is saying "Yeah, the big shots approved what I had been teaching Gentiles for the past 14+ years but you and I both know that God doesn't care about reputations."

Again, this dismissal makes absolutely no sense if their "high reputation" was based on their prior relationship with a living Jesus. It does make sense, however, if their reputation was based on being the first to proclaim the dead, buried, resurrected Christ and the first to claim that the Risen Christ had appeared to them.

Layman

I guess I'll just repeat my question.

If I have shown that the apostles passed along a tradition about Jesus Christ--that he died, was buried, rose again, and appeared to several people--that is in no way evidence of an Apostolic Tradition?

Amaleq13

As should have been obvious from my question in response, you have shown that the apostles taught the above post-resurrection beliefs. Obviously, that is in no way evidence of an "apostolic tradition" in the sense Doherty is using it.