spin

I've been trying to tell you that I don't care about your man. I asked "where would such an idea come from, if one could make the notion tangible with sources?"

The magic word here was "sources". We need to stay with what comes directly from the primary sources, if we are to maintain functional communication. It is from the sources that evidence is derived, nowhere else.

Your man is deep in exegesis. Paul is explicit in what he says. He received it from the lord. If that doesn't mean that he received it from the lord why did Paul say he did? For that matter, we probably both agree that Paul wrote before the writer of Luke, now which was what happened,

1. Luke got the meal passage from another source than Paul?
2. Luke got it from Paul?
3. Paul's work got it by interpolation, based on similar subject matter?

(I have argued elsewhere for the latter, because I don't find the material coherent, but that just may be me.) Whatever the case, we are left with Paul saying he got the gospel he passed on from the lord, which seems to exclude a tradition. Why don't you accept that?


spin

No Robots

It is evident once you begin to investigate the sources of the Gospels that they must be essentially the same as those for Talmud.

Because dead men don't wear plaid ie. they don't transmit text. At the same time it is evident from the phrasing and from Paul's own explicit statement that he didn't make it up. Ergo, it is a transmission of tradition.

spin

I don't understand what this has to do directly with your claim "that the actual sayings of Christ were carefully transmitted". So far, this just seems to be a bald assertion.

No eisegesis, please. Read Paul's lips. They say he got it from the Lord. They don't say he received it from others. Work with the text. What is the problem of him in a rapture receiving it from the lord?


spin

No Robots

I'm afraid that if you want to pursue this further, you may have to read something after all.

Is this not eisegeis on your part?

spin

So you've got no evidence to present here?

Merely a counterproposal to show how the text can make sense as is. I'm just going with what Paul says, ie he got it from the lord and suggesting one way it could have happened. How would Paul have got it from the lord, if he got it from the lord (as he says)? Whatever the case, you don't seem to have any reason to dispute Paul's claim for the source of this gospel.


spin

No Robots

Yeah, I think I do have some, but it might lead us a little astray to go into this right now. Give me some time.

I am all for reading what is actually said. It makes me wonder, though, why you don't take "born of a woman" at face value. In any case, I think that it is clear, as Gerhardsson indicates, that in this passage Paul is doing two things: he is repeated a traditional statement, and he is developing it. It is because of the latter that he feels it necessary to say that he "received it from the Lord", as distinct from the quotation in verse 15 which he just quotes without development. I am certain that in his view his development of the theme of the Last Supper is born of mystical insight which he calls "receiving from the Lord." As Spinoza puts it:

God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. In this sense the voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice of God.

I think it is evident that Paul heard this voice.

spin

I'm agnostic on the MJ proposition, but then I have flogged the example of a non-entity called Ebion, fabled eponymous founder of the Ebionite movement, accepted by Tertullian as real and eventually given a birth place by the time of Epiphanius, so you certainly don't need a real source for a given tradition. Whether that is the case with Jesus doesn't matter. It's functional and other guessing isn't any better.

You can think what you like. I gave you at least three competing scenarios for the relationship between the so-called tradition statement and the gospel of Luke, which you showed no ability to discern from.

So here we are: no evidence to support this stuff.

If it will make you happy to think so.


spin

yalla

Paul
Galatians 1.11 ff

"For I would have you know, brethren
that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel
for I did not receive it from man nor was I taught it...."

Paul is explicitly saying it is NOT a transmission of authority.
Why do you think he is wrong?
Is he, in your opinion, lying? Or somehow mistaken? If so, how so?

He tells us where he got his gospel from. Specifically.

Gal. 1.12

"... but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ".

Why do you dispute what Paul himself says?
Do you, once again, think he was mistaken or lying or something else?

cheers
yalla

Vorkosigan

Actually, I had already pointed out that one of Gerhardsson's assumptions is that Mark has never read Paul. That is not one of mine. Without that assumption, the textual links between the two are clear, at least to me. Thus, Paul citing the "tradition" is actually a case of Mark referring to Paul. I am also hip to citing in the other direction, a Pauline forger copying Mark. I think perhaps you or Gerhardsson should lay out a case for Mark not having read Paul.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

It is evident once you begin to investigate the sources of the Gospels that they must be essentially the same as those for Talmud.

A truer word was never spoken: both, in many cases, are made up by composing on earlier literary texts.