TedM

I would argue that basic human psychology results easily in retrojection when a person references a pre-title person that they only have known in terms of the title. It doesn't require a specific, detailed story. All that is required is the reference itself. This is pretty obvious to me. You require 'factors' that aren't necessary, other than to make your point untouchable.

While it is true that we don't have the detail to say WHEN or HOW Paul "received from the Lord", that fact alone leaves the possibility open that it was an original message from Jesus himself. As such, if that is what Paul had in mind when he used the word 'apo' then he is indeed relating a story that places the original source back in the time of the incarnation, and so it would not be unusual for Paul to retroject when he introduces the story also.

To deny this as a possibility is no more than engagin in circular logic: Paul received revelation as opposed to direct information that originally came from the mouth of Jesus himself. Therefore Paul isn't retrojecting.

Paul obviously couldn't have received info from the incarnated Jesus personally. However, 'apo' is a factor, so you are simply incorrect to say there is no factor. Paul's tendency to retroject is a second factor. Paul's usage of 'apo' and tendency to retroject is entirely consistent with retrojection when relating a story about how he received information from the incarnation. The factor missing is the proof that it was the incarnation (as we have in the story of the breaking of the bread). However, I'm not saying proof is necessary. I'm saying the factors that exist preclude our abity to deny it as a possibility.

If you can't grasp this because you insist on the same proof of retrojection that we have in the Lord's supper account itself, then I would say that we simply disagree about what Paul's 'basic human psychology' made possible.



reg: 'apo'
I thought it was more than an observation of frequency. I thought it is significant because it's definition is more appropriate to indirect receipt than direct. If this is not correct, please let me know. If it is, then you are ignoring a part of my argument. I"m not pretending it is definitive, only that the choice of 'apo' is more in favor of the idea that Paul's account of the Lord's Supper came to him from Jesus indirectly than directly.


Good try, but it is not clear that either one of these is from the risen Christ. All we can say about the first is that Paul had a revelation pertaining to Jesus Christ. The source isn't given. The second doesn't even meet my criteria of "without relying on the use of the word "Lord".


Well, that does help your point. However, the same word can have two different meanings, and S.C. said that it could mean repeated delivering, so the issue is still debatable.

ted

Clivedurdle

There was an earlier discussion about supporting evangelists, I have just checked Mathew Luke and I Corinthians and this is about getting support where you are welcome and moving on if you are unwelcome.

It does track back to the community supporting the priesthood.

So, is Paul actually promoting a Judaism to the Gentiles, that is not Temple based, is not fussed about circumcision, and dumps all the ritual because there has been a once and for all heavenly sacrifice? An evangelical, minimalist, modernist Judaism to all the world?

Are not the twelve the minor prophets?

This seems to show it is definitely a post 70 CE movement, possibly 130.

It sounds like we are witnessing the movement of a pharisaic personality to a gnostic personality, but with tendencies to revert to grumpiness! This might be an internal psychological change, but it might have been caused by a crisis of faith like the defeat of Judaism and the destruction of the Temple.

NOGO, brilliant OP!

Amaleq13

I hope you aren't offering this against what I have said because it is entirely consistent.

I never said it did. To recognize retrojection, the only detail that would be required is one of timing. IOW, we can only know it is a retrojection if we first know that the story is set in a time prior to the first occasion of the reference. That's kind of the definition of "retrojection", Ted. There has to be a temporal reference for it to exist. That is where half the word originates (ie "retro").

retroject: "the action of putting back to an earlier date" OED, 2nd Ed.

I'm glad you concede that the logic is sound. I hope you now also understand that the factor of timing is crucial to any such identification. That you wish to disregard the factor of the explicit statement from Philippians 2 is wholly without a rational basis. Both factors have to stay, Ted.

Actually, the timing of the information is implied by the fact that Paul never knew the living Jesus but he indicates he obtained the information from "the Lord". If he is referring to Jesus here, it can only be the risen Christ and this conclusion is supported by the explicit statement of Philippians 2.

What you are calling a "possibility" is actually just an unsubstantiated speculation.

Unfortunately, you need more than just the word to establish this is what Paul intended. The word alone does not tell us anything because it was used both ways. The frequency of general use does not tell us anything because it was used both ways.

You seem to be assuming that the general use can be attributed to Paul but what you really need to do is establish that Paul generally used the word in this way. Better still, you should try to show that Paul never used the word in this less common way.

I've checked the Blue Letter Bible concordance and I think you might be out of luck. As far as I can tell, there is no other similar example of Paul using this word to refer to conveyed information. He uses it many times but in reference to things like letters originating "from" a city or people being sent "from" James or in a sense where "away" is implied as in "away from God". The closest I could find isn't all that helpful since the object is "peace" rather than information:

“Grace to you, and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ,� (Gal 1:3, YLT)

It seems to me, however, that this is an example of the less frequent usage since the peace is coming directly "from" God though it might intend that the peace is secondarily transmitted by Paul.

Unless there are examples I missed, you don't appear to have any basis to assume Paul intended 'apo' to imply an intermediary transmitter of the information. If we had from Paul several usages of the word in a similar context, you would certainly have a basis for arguing which he was more likely to use but the general usage doesn't provide that for you.

No, the logic is linear. You only have to ask two questions to determine whether retrojection exists:

1. Is there a reference made that has a temporal limit?

2. Is there a temporal context offered with the use of the reference?

Philippians 2 provides the temporal limit for the use of "Lord". For this specific task, we really don't even have to consider whether Paul knew the living Jesus or whether he ever claimed to have received revelations from the risen Christ.

Tendency? Where else do we have the necessary factors to identify retrojection?

Your "factors" are not probative. The word alone tells us nothing and there does not appear to be any evidence of a "tendency" but, instead, a single example.

I grasp what you are trying to do but I also recognize the flaws in the attempt. It really has nothing to do with Paul's psychology. It has much more to do with your failure to comprehend or refusal to accept what is required to identify a retrojection.

I have no idea where you obtained that thought.

I already have when I pointed out there is a difference between the frequency of usage and the appropriateness of the usage. The former is simply a reflection of general preference while suggests a rule that is sometimes violated. You are conflating the two. As far as I know, we only have evidence for the former. You certainly haven't presented any evidence for the latter.

I've already pointed out that this is flawed reasoning. It might help if you ask yourself how we know that the word was used in two different ways. It is the context in which the word is used that informs us of the specific usage. IOW, it is extra information beyond the mere presence of the word. You don't have that extra information here so you can't reach a conclusion about the intent.

Well, it is explicitly not a human source so that leaves the risen Christ or God. If he obtained this revelation from God and you insist this means he only obtained revelations from God, then we must assume the "Lord's supper" revelation came from God as well. I don't see how that helps your argument, though.

Divine revelations do appear to have been part of at least some of Paul's churches regardless of whether you choose to claim they came from God rather than the risen Christ.

I wasn't relying on "Lord", I was relying on the association with "visions". Again, if this isn't the risen Christ, it is God and your argument is not served.

If found two more examples of him using the same word to describe God doing the delivering (Romans 1:24, 28) though "give/gave" are used. It doesn't seem to suggest repeated delivering. Galatians 2:20 has the same word ('paradidomi') used to refer to Christ giving himself for Paul. Hard to see how that suggests repeated delivering/giving. In fact, I cannot find a single example of Paul using the word in this way. Can you? If not, you don't seem to have anything with which to debate except unsubstantiated speculation and an apparent desire to make Paul appear to agree with the Gospel story. Neither of those seem to me to offer much in the way of a credible argument.

andrewcriddle

In general it is unlikely to be effective to oppose a movement without basic understanding of its beliefs.

For example, opponents of Christianity on this forum typically know substantially more about the Bible than a random member of the population does.

Paul, before his conversion, presumably had a reasonably clear basic understanding of what his Christian opponents believed.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

Would this still be a reasonable assumption if Paul(Saul) was persecuting at the behest of someone else? I'm thinking of Maccoby here who suggests he would have been conducting this persecution at the command of others rather than on his own initiative.

Toto

We have no evidence that Paul was a very effective prosecutor, even in Acts.

And assuming arguendo that Paul knew the beliefs of those he prosecuted, we have very little knowledge of what "Christians" believed at that time.

TedM

No, I've understood this completely from the beginning. I never contradicted it. You keep talking about what is required to identify a retrojection. I'm not trying to positively identify a retrojection. I'm saying that just because you can't positively identify one doesn't mean it isn't there. Because Paul used "Lord" as a retrojection any use of "Lord" is potentially a retrojection. You and Nogo have denied this fact. The absence of proof is not proof of absence. By denying the possibility you and Nogo are claiming proof of absence. I object to that.


Re Galations:
Actually the passage seems pretty clear to me that the source is God since is says he revealed his Son. So, this is not a reference to a revelation from the risen Christ. You say that doesn't help my argument if the reference is to God. Actually it does because it is most likely that 'Lord' in 11:23 isn't referring to God so we don't have an example of a message from the risen Christ to which we can compare or use for support to form conclusions about the source in 11:23.

re:
In 1 Cor 11 Paul doesn't say he received a vision or revelation. He received a story of past events. Therefore we can't equate the two. Where does Paul ever say the risen Christ gave him information about past events? Or even that God did? Again, this passage could be referring to God, so it isn't clear. I repeat: We don't have ANY passage from Paul that refers to him receiving information from the risen Christ. As such we have no basis on which to conclude that he is doing that in 11:23. All we have is "Lord", which could be the risen Christ, or it could be a retrojection.


As for 'apo', I appreciate your comparison with other writings by Paul, and I think at best we can say that it doesn't hurt your argument and it doesn't help mine. However, the general use of a word must be considered. If 'apo' means 'indirectly' 99.9% of the time then that is significant and should be considered even if Paul never uses it again elsewhere. You appear to not be factoring in the general use at all, dismissing it because the use is 'inconsistent'.

The same logic applies to the word for delivering, except in that case the other examples you have found do help your argument and hurt mine. Good finds!

Amaleq, you deny possibilities on the grounds of a lack of 100% proof and without that proof you call my possibilities 'unsubstantiated speculations', even though there is some basis behind such 'speculations'. I have no problem with you saying "I don't think the evidence is strong enough" but to say (and I paraphrase) "every reference to Lord that doesn't have an explicit time reference must be to the Risen Lord and isn't retrojection" is IMO an unsubstantiated opinion with absolutely questionable basis since we know that Paul did engage in retrojection.

ted

Amaleq13

That is shifting the burden to establishing the nonexistence of something for which there is no evidence. In addition, the story obviously came to Paul after the resurrection so the timing factor for a retrojection is denied. In order to establish the required timing factor, you would have to argue that Paul was given this information before the resurrection. Good luck.

If you look back, that wasn't offered as the basis. "Lord" is the cue and Philippians 2 the guide to interpreting it. We've got no reason to think otherwise. You've got personal reasons but there doesn't appear to be any rational basis for anyone else to share them.

We have no reason to think so.

This is getting tiresome, Ted, but I guess I'll just repeat myself until you comprehend. The general usage tells us nothing except what the general usage was. It doesn't tell us how a writer "should" use it. It doesn't tell us how a writer did use it.

1. The word alone tells us nothing about the intended usage for any given example.
2. We only know the intended usage from additional information.
3. There is no additional information for this example.

Therefore, we cannot draw any conclusion based on this word alone.

No, I'm recognizing that it is not probative. It tells us nothing about any given example. As I've already said, you need to establish that Paul preferred the common usage in order to say anything meaningful about the probability of how Paul intended the word. I really don't understand how this escapes you.

The only way to understand Paul's tendency of use is to actually consider Paul's tendency of use.

I am denying the existence of something for which there is no evidence. You seem to me to be making too much of the concept of "possibility". There is a virtually limitless supply of "possibilities" for which we have no evidence. Does it make any sense to consider them as though they did?

You are offering conjecture which lacks supporting evidence. How else would you define an "unsubstantiated speculation"?

There is a basis for speculating but not a basis to consider it true. That's why all you have is unsubstantiated speculation.

The "opinion" is solidly grounded on Philippians 2. That is the opposite of "unsubstantiated".

TedM

I think we just see this differently. I know you're tired of this and I am, but I'm still going to respond, hopefully for the last time.

I think it does if the possibility is reasonable. I think it is reasonable possibility that Paul retrojects any time he refers to the incarnation, whether he provides evidence for it or not, because we have evidence that he is capabale of doing that. Apparantly you do not see that as reasonable. A difference of perspective, I suppose, that probably no amount of discussion will change.

Let's say George W Bush wrote me a note and put it in a bottle when he was governor of Texas. Somehow I just received it and I knew he wrote it while governor. If I say "I received a note from President Bush" that would be retrojection because the note was written before he was President Bush and I know that. According to your logic, however, since I received the note at the time he is President I am not retrojecting. The timing factor isn't related to when the information is received. It is related to the title Bush really had when he wrote the note. I knew when I received it yet I still retrojected.


I agree that we can't draw any conclusions, but even if we had 10 examples from Paul we still wouldn't be able to draw any conclusions--just a sense of what is probable.


I think people tend to follow convention. I think general use gives us some perspective on how a writer "probably" used it. Are you telling me that if 'apo' means refers to an indirect source 99.9% of the time that this would tell you nothing about the probabilty of how Paul intended the word? Or are you saying that would tell us something but in this particular case you assume the pctg is nowhere near 99.9% and might only be 55% so it doesn't apply and therefore we really need to focus on Paul's own use of it instead of the general use? I"m not trying to irritate you, I just don't quite understand how you view this.

It seems you want to draw conclusions. That would be nice, but it seems you aren't interested much in looking at probabilities and possibilities in order to do so. You want very strong, clear evidence. You raise the bar high with fairly strict criteria. I guess I take the bar down lower than you and am willing to consider the likelihood of factors (ie less direct evidences) that you aren't. This increases the odds I will draw a conclusion but also increases the odds I will draw an incorrect conclusion. Does that sound like a fair assessment to you?


Ok, I mis-spoke here. Your approach is logical, but just more restrictive with regard to defining evidence than mine.

Thanks for your patience and insights.

ted

Amaleq13

I absolutely agree but establishing a "reasonable possibility" requires a reasonable amount of evidence. The presence of "Lord" is clearly insufficient to carry the weight alone. It is obviously an indication of a potential retrojection because a time-sensitive title is one of the factors but it is simply not enough by itself. Before you confuse a "potential retrojection" and a "possible retrojection", I differentiate the two. The former describes a situation where one factor is present but the other has yet to be considered. The latter is a situation where one factor is present and some sort of ambiguous suggestion of the other factor exists (eg a similar title or reference that might be understood as a similar title, a possible indication of timing). A potential retrojection awaits a verdict on whether the second factor is present. That is what you have with any example of "Lord". If we don't have the second factor or even something that might be argued as the second factor, you've got nothing.

The existing retrojection we have is apparently unique in virtually every way and you have clearly acknowledged that fact throughout this discussion. Does it make sense to generalize an admittedly unique passage to everything else? I would say obviously not. The fact that this passage is so unique should argue the exact opposite. You are trying to make the exception the rule and that just makes no sense.

This is not an analogous story and you are misrepresenting my position. For one thing, you've got the note originating prior to the timing event but Paul's information originates after. This is just your 'apo' assumption slipping in despite lacking substantiation.

Here is how a truly analogous version of your story would have to read:

We find a note you wrote that you had apparently copied from a book by an author everyone knew you dearly loved and admired. This note said that George Bush wasn't called "President" until after he was inaugurated. We also find your diary where you write, "I received a story from the President. One day, while signing a couple dozen death sentence certificates the President said 'I thought this was supposed to prevent crime but I keep signing more of these damn things every day'." You then went on writing a lot more stuff about what you believed about President Bush.

Given what we know about the limits you accepted on when to call George Bush "President", we conclude that the story was received after the inauguration. That makes sense because we're pretty sure you never knew George when he was governor but we do know you had a very close relationship after he became President. We then notice something odd. You refer to him as "President" while retelling the story but the actions described are clearly those of a governor. The only reasonable explanation is that you have inadvertantly continued to refer to George in the way you know him best despite the fact that this was technically incorrect. We search through everything else you wrote about President Bush but this story is unique. It is the only time you provide any details from Bush's life prior to becoming President and the also the only time when your use of "President" was obviously anachronistic.

Should we question all your uses of "President" based on this unique case? We look at them and find that none have any similar evidence of retrojection. Should we wonder if the preface to your note might be a retrojection as well? After all, you used a preposition that many people use to refer to a note that was originally given to someone else. Some people use it to refer to notes that are given directly and you never use it to refer to a note originally given to someone else but should we ignore that and wonder?

It shows no evidence of retrojection.

Other people use your preposition to suggest an indirect source but you don't.

Understanding it as it appears fits with everything else we know.

Looks to me like we've got no reason to think this information came from Bush before he was President. Somebody would be entirely justified to state that you obtained this note from President Bush and entirely justified to dismiss any notion that you actually got it second hand from somebody who knew Bush while he was governor because it was utterly without substantiation.

If we had 10 examples of Paul using 'apo' to refer to secondhand information, your claim that he probably meant that in this passage would certainly have more credibility. Assuming there weren't hundreds of the opposite, I would think that establishes a tendency on his part.

Well, that is how a particular usage gets to be more common isn't it?

Not really because any given writer could be part of the minority usage group. Look, I hated studying probability and it still gives me a headache. I am entirely willing to have someone who knows the math better explain to me how I am wrong but I think you are using the notion of common/uncommon usage inappropriately.

I assume that 55% is closer to reality than 99% but I don't know that anyone actuallys has the actual number. The point is that the percentage really doesn't tell us anything about a given individual. What is the total population? How many ambiguous examples exist? What factors are involved in the choice being made? All of these questions are what it seems to me one needs to know to create an actual probability for guessing Paul's intent.

I want to accept conclusions that are supported by the evidence and best explain that evidence.

I am when they are based on evidence but not when they are based on unsubstantiated speculations.

Yes. I think I am definitely more interested in avoiding accepting false conclusions than you are. Less than spin but more than you.

Thank you for not taking offense at some of my earlier remarks. I apologize for my less-than-friendly tone. If you ever visit the Anchorage area, I'll buy you a drink.