Gamera

Perseus lookup tool provides all the known examples. They support my conclusion. euaggelion virtually always refers or involves a narrative. It means literally "good news" -- a relating of a good event.

Seems the burden is on you, Toto and Chris to show otherwise. I'm not saying the meaning didn't get stretched at times. but it seems to always involve a story, an event, which is my point -- Paul preached a narrative about Jesus; his epistles refer to that preaching, while discussing the meaning or implications of the story (not the story itself,which he already in every case already preached to the audience).

I think this is indisputable and that you all are confusing preaching the gospel with writing epistles.

Chris Weimer

Paul's "gospel" (literally good news in both Old English and Greek) is not necessarily that Jesus died and was resurrected, I think, but more of what that means instead. Yes, in order for it to have any meaning, Jesus would have had to live, die, and be resurrected, but the word itself doesn't entail a narrative.

BTW - the conquering of death by Jesus is an event. That works for both mythicism and the normal view, at least as far as people like Doherty interpret Paul. There are much better reasons to think that Paul thought Jesus to have existed, and this interpretation of euaggelion just doesn't cut it.

Gamera

Uses of the word seem to almost always involve a narrative, which is what the word's etymology after all implies. An event is a narrative -- even if it's as simple as Jesus was this person who had this background and his death freed us from sin, death, etc. That's a narrative.

You can't get to the "meaning" of good news, without describing the event. The event of Jesus' death makes sense only if you tell his biography (why did Jesus' death matter as opposed to any other person dying).

This accords with the semantic range of the word, as well as how Paul uses it. I don't think your gloss rebuts that.

It only works for the mystical view if Jesus is a person to whom a biography can be attributed, and that he lived and then died by crucifixion. That's outline fits the historical Jesus far better than than any contruction of the mystical Jesus. Again, euaggelion that merely says Jesus has conquered death is meaningless and doesn't accord with the word usage unless the event is in the context of a narrative telling how and why he conquered death, why and how he was crucified, and why and how he was special. In short, a narrative.

spamandham

A narrative generally implies some kind of story, and not simply a creed. Further, a narrative does not imply any kind of news, good or otherwise, in general. If it is your claim that Paul's 'good news' is more than simply what he states it to be in 1 Corinthians 15, I'd say that's up to you to demonstrate.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul explicitly states what his gospel is, and it's a creed, not a narrative. This is just silly.

Gamera

.

That's my point. A gospel is not a creed, it's a narrative, and Paul indicates he preached a gospel. While he doesn't mention the details of the narrative in his epistles' references to his preaching, what details he gives indicate a narrative --namely a biography of Jesus.

You must be reading a different 1 Cor. 15, which clearly refers to a narrative involving Jesus:

Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast--unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9


What are you failing to see here:

1. Paul says he gave them a gospel, and the gospel involved one Christ who died (and thus had to have actually lived) -- and elsewhere he tells us he died by crucifixion, which implies a trial, punishment, etc.

2. He was buried (an action invovling people doing something).

3. He remained dead for three days and then rose from the dead. (that's an action is there ever was one)

4. Then this Christ appeared to Paul and others, most of whom are still alive and can attest to the incident, presumably not merely as a wraith, but with some interaction.

5. Finally, he says this death of one Christ had some salvational value presumably due to something that made Christ different (like being the Son of God, but at the very least being some form of messaiah as Paul understood it), which is a biographical claim.

So you're telling me you don't see a narrative here, just theology. Who's being silly?

gurugeorge

I wasn't discussing the epistles per se, I was pointing out that the way you responded to Toto when he responded to your examples of how the epistles supposedly show (according to you) that they are talking about a narrative, was question-begging, as is your post above (and the posts above that in response to Chris and Spamanham, for that matter).

spamandham

Are you proposing that Paul's gospel is more than what he states it to be in 1 Corinthians 15? If not, then we seem to be quibbling over what qualifies to called "narrative". If yes, it's up to you to demonstrate your position.

No Robots

In 1Cor 11 Paul narrates the story of the Last Supper, which is part of the Gospel.

Of course, though, it is Christ himself who is the Gospel, the Good News. The narrative of his words and deeds is how we attain knowledge of the Gospel, which, again, is Christ himself.

Amaleq13

How does the 1 Cor 15 incorporate the "the gospel of the uncircumcision" that Paul claims to preach in Gal 2:7?

If it doesn't, then Paul is applying the term to multiple concepts with regard to his own preaching.

How can one equate the "gospel" described in 1 Cor 15, given that it quite clearly must have been obtained from other men, with Paul's assertion in Gal 1:12 that he preached a gospel that he obtained directly from the risen Christ by revelation?

That the term applied to at least two different concepts within Paul's Christian community is explicitly stated in Gal 2:7.

That Paul applied it to different concepts that he, himself, preached seems rather explicitly stated in the text.

Gamera

No, I'm not at all. I'm quoting what he refers to tangentially as his gospel. He doesn't go into detail in 1 Cor 15 or in any epistle. What he does is refer to his gospel, and the references involve biographical elements from the life of Jesus, which he specifically mentions. I cited them for you. They are clear. Your objections seem simply stubborn at this point.

Deal with the language I cite rather than making general denials.