Layman

By selective parsing, JA attempted to give the impression that Luke T. Johnson stated that the author of Luke/Acts was not concerned with writing history and was not a historian. I clarfied the portion of Johnson's quote I did see, explaining that LTJ was merely saying that Luke was not the kind of historian who would have spelled out Paul's fate. I wanted to add to that by providing a more full exposition of LTJ's opinions on this matter:

Luke T. Johnson, The Acts of the Apostles, page 3.

Amaleq13

I realize that Layman has attempted to establish the existence of an “apostolic tradition” earlier than the 2nd century against the claim of Doherty that no such thing exists.

As Jacob has convincingly shown, however, his argument is not credible. I have merely added some icing to the cake that Mr. Aliet has thoroughly baked.

He has shown that Layman does not consistently adhere to Doherty’s use of “apostolic tradition” to refer to pre-resurrection teachings but, instead, has attempted to expand the meaning to include ultimately irrelevant evidence of post-resurrection beliefs.

Papias provides the earliest evidence of an effort to consolidate an “apostolic tradition” but Layman does not want to defend the reliability of this information. It should be obvious that Doherty is noting the absence of a reliable tradition of pre-resurrection teachings since he already acknowledges that the first Gospel story existed in the 1st century. That Papias cannot be considered a reliable source is evident from the apparently false information he accepted with regard to the death of Judas and the attribution of 2 Baruch to Jesus. Even the Catholic Study Bible doubts his testimony with regard to his reference to Peter’s secretary authoring the Gospel attributed to Mark. That same reference text also expresses doubt that Matthew is the author of the Gospel attributed to him. Given this apparent lack of reliability, there is no reason to accept Layman’s assumption that Papias’ sources establish the existence of an “apostolic tradition” in the 1st century.

His attempts to identify certain, apparently unmentioned, portions of Paul’s gospel as deriving from former disciples of Jesus has also been shown to lack credibility. As Toto has pointed out, there are good reasons to suspect that the kerygma Paul appears to quote (1Cor15) is a later interpolation but, even if it is assumed genuine, Layman’s interpretation of this as information “received” from Jerusalem blatantly contradicts Paul’s explicit statements elsewhere. First, he claims to have taught his gospel for three years before speaking to any of them. When he does report initial contact with Cephas, he is careful to precede that with the explicit claim that his gospel did not come from any man. Second, fourteen years later, he is compelled by a revelation to share the gospel he has taught to the Gentiles with the men at Jerusalem. They approve of it but Paul explicitly states they “added nothing”. In addition, Paul disparages their “high reputation” as ultimately irrelevant. Layman has yet to offer any explanation how Paul could reject their reputation if it was based on knowledge of their previous experiences as disciples of Jesus. In the end, Layman has provided good reasons to doubt that Paul ever learned anything directly from these men and good reasons to doubt that Paul considered them to have been former disciples of Jesus.

What remains is Layman’s attempt to assert that “according to Scripture” can only refer to Paul’s knowledge of prior events that fulfilled certain Scriptural passages. Unfortunately for his assertion, Layman has failed to show that Paul ever refers to witnessed events taking place prior to a recognition of the events in Scripture. When his actual statements are considered, Paul is clearly talking about faith in the reality of the events rather than reliance on eyewitness accounts. For example, rather than refer to a witnessed event Paul appeals to the belief of the Galatians (3:1) in the description of Christ crucified that he has provided to them. In addition, Layman has yet to support his claim that it is “fanciful” or “bizarre” to understand the phrase to mean “learned from Scripture”.

Please note that none of the above, contrary to Layman’s repeated unsubstantiated assertions, requires an a priori assumption that no living Jesus existed.

This particular horse's corpse has been beaten beyond recognition and I have to agree with Jacob that there appears to be no good reason to consider the claim any further absent new evidence or argument.

Ted Hoffman

Amaleq asked : "The gospel Paul describes in the letter to the Corinthians, as was shown in the previous post, obviously cannot be an "oral tradition" learned from the men at Jerusalem. Paul disparages their reputation and essentially denies they taught him anything. However, it cannot be denied that most scholars consider this to be information that Paul is repeating rather than creating. This is not because of his use of the "received" but because of the structure of the information. That structure appears to indicate it to be a kerygmatic formulation, a memorized catechism of proclaimed beliefs."

I would agree with this assesment. There were stories (oral traditions) that were circulating with sayings and the like, which were attributed to no one in particular, but were mostly drawn from midrashic reading of the OT.
More : " The origin of this information can only have been the members of the Church of God that he claims to have been persecuting. Obviously, he had to know what they believed in order to find it worthy of condemnation. He knew, from what he had heard them proclaim, that they believed Scripture contained never before recognized prophecies that the Messiah would die, be buried, and be raised. He knew, from what he had heard them proclaim, that the Risen Christ appeared to several people. He knew what they believed but he did not believe it, himself."

You mean he did not believe when he was Saul?

My thoughts are that Paul believed what they believed and was simply attempting to win a flock for himself as a credible apostle - as the new kid on the block, plus his background as Saul. I also believe that Paul believed that the apostles he talks of in 1 Corinthians 12:28, who he calls the Jerusalem Group in Galatians 1 and 2, came to the Lord in like manner as him.
He states that they were apostles (called) before him in Galatians and in 1 Corinthians 9:1, he asks: "Am I not an apostle? Did I not see Jesus our Lord?"

It means Paul regarded his calling to apostleship to have been the same as that of the other apostles. Thus its not that he disbelieved what they believed: they were just rivals. He never believed that they saw a HJ any more than him. And I think he also never presumed that they believed a HJ - otherwise he would have gone to them and asked them what Jesus had said on certain matters: they too were called, just like him, except they were called before him.

2 Corinthians 11:14 and Galatians 1:11-12 convey this idea clearly - Paul's standards of legitimacy of apostleship and the kerygmatic channels etc.

I think his christophany was fabricated by a Paulinist as Price explains.

GakuseiDon

So a tradition is not a tradition if it is wrong? That's what you seem to be saying. How many pericopes what it take to constitute a tradition? I don't think volume or correctness stops something from being a tradition, as long as it can be shown that it is being passed from generation to generation. An apostolic tradition (I assume) would be one that could be tied to the apostles.

This is what Papias says: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html
Papias mentions "instructions from elders". He mentions "what was to be got from books". And he mentions "sayings by the disciples of the Lord".

Put together, this looks strongly like a case for an existing apostolic tradition AFAICS. Is there evidence that Papias was making this part up?

If not, then it is strongly suggestive that there was some kind of tradition involving the apostles at around the end of the 1st century. I can't imagine "sayings by the disciples of the Lord" to be referring to anything else.

As far as the sayings being pre-resurrection, Papias also says:

GakuseiDon

Also Polycarp, writing around 130 CE: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...p-roberts.html
Also:
So, we have Polycarp saying that the apostles preached the Gospel, and a quote traditionally attributed to a pre-resurrected Jesus.

Amaleq13

I wrote:
He knew, from what he had heard them proclaim, that the Risen Christ appeared to several people. He knew what they believed but he did not believe it, himself.

Yes. As Saul, he rejected the beliefs of the Church of God but the revelation showed him their beliefs were true. Obviously, this assumes that there was a true conversion experience.

Ted Hoffman

I dont know where you get the "around the end of the 1st century" part, but Papias is well under Doherty's umbrella. He says those that knew the gospel did so by rehearsing the commandments, and from truth itself (revelation - sophia?).

Amaleq13

I'm not saying "wrong", I'm saying "unreliable". An unreliable tradition cannot offer a credible objection to Doherty's claim.

I think my earlier post made it clear how Doherty is using "apostolic tradition". Only if you can put the word "reliably" before "tied" in the above sentence would it be relevant.

No but there are legitimate questions about the reliability of his sources. Even the online Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that he may have been relying on followers of the followers of the apostles. Ever play the kid's game Telephone?

Both the canonical Gospels and those that didn't make the cut contain sayings attributed to Jesus and their disciples that even Christian scholars acknowledge are not authentic.

GakuseiDon

What about Papias's comment of "a disciple of the apostle who leaned on the bosom of Christ"? Was that idea gained through revelation?

Amaleq13

Schoedel writes about Papias (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, p. 140):

"Eusebius already doubted the reality of a connection between Papias and the apostle John on the grounds that Papias himself in the preface to his book distinguished the apostle John from John the presbyter and seems to have had significant contact only with John the presbyter and a certain Aristion (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.3-7)."

Schoedel goes on to agree that Eusebius is probably correct in this view.


From Kirby's website (actually my copy of his CD):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html