Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 09-10-2007, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

There it is...

...in Paul. No need to appeal to Acts for knowledge of Paul's prior persecution.

dog-on · 09-10-2007, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

There it is...

Galatians 1.13, 16b-17a, 22-23:

For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure, and tried to destroy it....

I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me....

And I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ, but only they kept hearing: He who once persecuted us is now finally preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.

Ben.

Come on Ben. You know I think these are interpolations that came with the Luke/Acts package.

Ben C Smith · 09-10-2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Come on Ben. You know I think these are interpolations that came with the Luke/Acts package.

Yes, I recall that from prior contact (though to be quite honest I do not remember the exact extent of your alleged interpolations). But that is not what you said. You said that Ted had his Acts showing; you did not say that he had his interpolated Galatians showing. I think it is clear that Ted did not get any of the information he presented from Acts; rather, he got it from the extant text of Galatians.

Your judgment that certain passages from Galatians are interpolations does not turn them into passages from Acts.

Ben.

Gamera · 09-10-2007, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I looked up the occurrences of eti in the NT, starting with Paul's epistles.

Here is the link:

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2089

I don't see any obvious instance where eti appears to have the meaning Doherty attributes to it (which I take to be something like "nonetheless")

Rather it is used almost exclusively in the temporal sense, with a number of instances as an intensifier ("even more"). I don't even think the lexical definiton accords with Doherty's claimed usage.

I think Doherty has made the mistake of assuming Greek eti, because it is translated into the English "still" in the temporal sense, has the same semantic range of English "still," which includes the nontemporal "nonetheless." It doesn't appear to have that range. Therefore, the burden is on Doherty to support what appears to be an unusal construction of a common Greek word.

I resent having to spend the time which I know will be required on this posting, but my honor, honesty and scholarship have been mightily impugned. I didn’t lose sleep over it, and I’m used to this sort of thing, but this time Gamera has gone further than I can allow. And he has demonstrated more about his own deficiencies than he has about mine.

I based my translation of “eti” on my two Lexicons, and the Greek passages in question in Romans, plus referring to a couple of others. It was certainly not based on applying my English dictionary definition of “still”. What I did not do was check every occurrence of the word in the New Testament. I certainly don’t do that on every occasion—though I have done it for something like “sarx” and “soma”—and I might ask for a show of hands from any here who consistently do so. For that ‘omission’ I hardly think Gamera was justified in running his bulldozer over my scholarship and personal integrity and using the language he did. That’s a sign of a rabid personal hostility, which I have encountered only on a few occasions. (Anyone remember Ed Tyler?)

To make matters worse, Gamera has heaped scorn on me on the basis of very poor investigation and scholarship of his own. In other words, his contention that my reading of “eti” is wrong is on very shaky ground. Let me repeat some of his words above:

Quote:

I think Doherty has made the mistake of assuming Greek eti, because it is translated into the English "still" in the temporal sense, has the same semantic range of English "still," which includes the nontemporal "nonetheless." It doesn't appear to have that range.

That choice of the word “appear” is unfortunate, for it reminds us of his past forays into semantic range investigation—not ones that were too confidence-building (for us) about his abilities to understand word usage (even with half a dozen of us attempting to show how misguided he was). It also indicates that he is not 100% confident himself that what he is saying is accurate, and yet on that basis he was still [i.e., nonetheless] willing to dump all over me. To use his own word, “astounding.”

Be that as it may. He provided us with a link to a site (StudyLight.org) which “appears” to be his sole source for that investigation of semantic range. No wonder it took him only 30 minutes. It also “appears” that he did not actually investigate the Greek texts, or check his site’s one set of translations with other ones. Not only would that have taken him quite a bit longer, it might have led him to be a little more circumspect in his criticisms.

First let’s look at definitions. Eti in Bauer’s Lexicon takes up a full column. About one-third of that is devoted to #2 “in a sense other than temporal.” What did Gamera say? “Rather it is used almost exclusively in the temporal sense, with a number of instances as an intensifier ("even more"). I don't even think the lexical definiton accords with Doherty's claimed usage.” Another “I don’t think.” He’d have known otherwise if he had bothered to actually check a lexicon.

Now let’s look at a couple of passages and their use of eti, and we’ll see if Gamera is right in scoffing at the thought that the word can convey “the nontemporal ‘nonetheless’.”

Romans 3:7 – “If through my falsehood God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still judged a sinner?”

Most translations use “still” which is ambiguous. NEB gives it a ‘time’ wording (“why should I any longer be condemned as a sinner?”), but I regard that as misleading. The New American Bible has a more reasonable rendering: “why must I be condemned as a sinner?” Here there is no temporal element, the thought is in opposition to the first part of the sentence. ‘If my lie abounds to the glory of God, why am I still (i.e., nonetheless) judged a sinner?’ The thought has nothing to do with whether Paul was judged a sinner in the past. It is: If A, why nonetheless am I considered B? If I am a suspect in a crime, I can say to the police: “If you’ve got a confession from someone else, and I’ve given you an alibi for the time of the crime, why do you still (i.e., nonetheless) regard me as a suspect?” One could read it “why do you still (i.e., continue to) regard me as a suspect,” but a “nonetheless” reading is equally possible, and logically speaking (though I’m not sure how often Paul was logical) the confession and the alibi are set against the present state of being a suspect, and they are best set off against each other in a “nonetheless” way.

But let’s take a look at the website Gamera consulted. What is their translation of Romans 3:7 (the very first one of those he says he consulted)?

“For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?”

This wording should have at least suggested a “nonetheless” meaning to him, if he didn’t have his mind shut to any such possibility. “Still” can convey the sense of continuity in time, but “yet” far less so. The “yet” implies “even given such a thing.” Try my analogy again: You have the confession and the alibi, yet [i.e., even given such things], you regard me as a suspect.

Next, let’s look at an even clearer sense of “nonetheless.”

Romans 9:19 – “You will say to me then, why does God still blame us?”

Paul has just said, “God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.” The hypothetical question Paul then poses amounts to this: ‘Since God determines our sinfulness or lack of it, why then should we be blamed for our actions, since who can resist God’s will?’ There is no question here of being any longer blamed for our actions. It is the juxtaposition of two incompatible ideas, set off against each other by a “nonetheless” idea. 'God determines our will, yet should he nonetheless blame us?'

Again, most translations use the ambiguous “still” for eti. Still [i.e., nonetheless], we can note that the New American Bible drops any word for eti altogether: “Why, then, does he find fault?” It presumably doesn’t want to convey any sense of time which doesn’t belong. The “nonetheless” meaning is the only one that can be taken here.

Let’s look at what Gamera’s StudyLight website give as a translation for 9:19:

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

If Gamera hadn’t had his mind closed, he could surely have sensed the meaning of “Why doth he nonetheless find fault?”—which is about as clear as it gets in any translation of this usage of eti, without actually using the word “nonetheless”.

There is still [i.e., "added to what is already at hand, nontemporal," as Bauer says] another verse that illustrates the same thing, though perhaps with a touch more ambiguity. Of the two appearances of eti here, it is the second (its ‘re-appearance’) that is the pertinent one.

Galatians 5:11 – “If I am still [i.e., continuing to] preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted?”

Apparently, the Galatians have reported that some are accusing Paul of advocating circumcision. He answers, ‘if I were doing that, why would I (nonetheless) be persecuted by the Jews?' Yes, there can be a sense of “continuing to be persecuted,” but the primary thought is the juxtaposition of alleged preaching of circumcision and the fact of present persecution. That is a “nonetheless” relationship between the two thoughts. Again, most translations here use the ambiguous “still.” Unfortunately, I can’t appeal to the NAB this time, because it goes in the opposite direction and understands a “continue to” meaning. However, the fact that they opt for that meaning here, while not in the two earlier passages, indicates that they indeed have a “nonetheless” meaning in mind for the others.

Considering that Gamera missed all of these passages that are quite suggestive of “nonetheless”, I guess he should have spent more than 30 minutes on his own semantic range investigation.

All three of those verses are listed under Bauer’s definition #2, “in a sense other than temporal.” In fact, as a group, they are given a sub-definition of their own: “c. in logical inference.” Bauer limits this to interrogative sentences, because that’s all he has to work with. (But any of these sentences could be turned into a direct statement.) Not surprisingly, Bauer lists the two passages that have been at issue here, Romans 5:6 and 5:8, under the “temporal” definition. But is that justified? Lexicons and commentaries, not to mention translations, regularly interpret meanings according to Gospel assumptions. And these two verses, unlike the others just examined, are indeed critical for Gospel assumptions. So let’s look at those two verses we have been debating:

Romans 5:6

Ei ge Xristos ontōn hēmōn asthenōn
For Christ, us being weak,

eti kata kairon huper asebōn apethanen.
yet/still at the (right) time for sinners he died.

I broke up the verse, not to a priori claim eti for the second part, but so that the lines could fit on the board without being broken. Still [i.e., nonetheless], I pointed out that here any translation that Christ died for us while we were sinners, or at some specific time that we were sinners, is unfounded, since the “yet/still” is attached not to us and our weakness, but to the fact of him dying. So that a proper translation of this verse should be something like: “Even though we are/were weak, Christ still/yet [i.e., nonetheless] died for (us) sinners.” (The ‘time’ element in this verse is not the “eti” it is the “kata kairon”.)

Now, I also made the point that eti belonged to the second part of the verse and not the first because it always precedes the idea it modifies, not looks back. That was what I did not verify by a check of my Greek Concordance and Greek text of the NT. But I have now taken the time to look at every passage in the epistles using eti. Not one places the word following the thought that it modifies. For example, Galatians 3:25 – “Now that faith has come, ouketi [no longer] are we under a tutor,” not “we are under a tutor ouketi.” This adverb, throughout the epistles, always precedes what it modifies. I have not taken further time to examine its appearances—or even its reappearances—in the Gospels and Acts. I hope and trust that those 42 occurrences will remain consistent to that. (Of course, I realize that failing to do this further research thoroughly discredits my scholarship and renders naked my nefarious agenda.)

Consequently, every translation that renders Romans 5:6 as “when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly/wicked” [NIV and NEB], or “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly” [NASB], or—well, I don’t need to spell them all out, even the NAB let me down again—is reading something into it that is not evidently there. Could they all be wrong? (Well, it wouldn’t be the first time.) The eti needs to modify what follows it, not what precedes it. Why would this passage alone be an exception to the standard word order? And so the proper translation ought to be:

“(Though) we were weak, still [i.e., nonetheless] Christ died for us.”

There seems to be a further misreading, in that the Greek does not pinpoint the time of the state of being weak or sinners, and thus translating it as “when we were…” is unjustified, at least as a certainty. The Greek is “hamartōlōn ontōn hēmōn / asthenōn (us being sinners/weak). That is not quite the same as saying “when we were sinners/weak.” (I'm not saying it cannot ever be understood that way, just that it is not necessary--unless, of course, you are going to read the Gospel context into it.) It is in fact setting in opposition a state of being, against the fact of the dying of Christ. It can simply be a stated anomaly: ‘even though us being…Christ died.’ The whole thing is shot through with the idea of “nonetheless.”

On the point of ‘anomaly’, note that in the three “nonetheless” suggestions for eti above, the structure of the thought is one of opposition. That is, something is stated to be, then something is set up in opposition to it that should not be, or not be expected to be. That is precisely the structure of 5:6. You say it isn’t, necessarily, especially if not ‘forced into’ a “nonetheless” meaning? Look at the intervening verse 7, a plain statement of anomaly: “Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man…” Given a righteous man, it is not to be expected that someone will die for him. Yet God has done the unexpected for us (v.8a). Thus, it is clear that the thought in both verses 6 and 8 is that Christ died even though we were sinners: the statement of an anomaly, something unexpected given something else. And yet [i.e., nonetheless] no translation allows the verse to be rendered in this fashion, even though the context spells otherwise, and no other passage is found in the epistles in which eti follows the thought it modifies.

But there’s another solution. The Greek text used in the King James Version shows an alternate reading for verse 6. There, instead of the eti appearing between “weak” and “at the right time”, it appears [definitely not “reappears”] at the very beginning of the verse, just before “Christ”: “For still (eti) Christ, (though) us being weak, at the right time died for sinners.” This separates the “still” entirely from the “being weak” and attaches it to Christ and his action. Since in that case it cannot have any meaning of ‘continuing to do’, it logically takes the “nonetheless” meaning of my suggested translation: “For nonetheless Christ, even though we were sinners, at the right time died for us.” Of course, we wouldn’t word it in that order in English. Which reading is more likely the original? Why would it be moved later to more clearly attach it to Christ? Whereas, a later transposition of it might have been made to try to indeed attach it to “us being weak.” On all counts, the standard translation of verse 6 is highly suspect.

(And it shows how moot all of our fine, carefully tailored-to-the-text arguments probably are, since we have no idea exactly what the original text, and the original ideas it represented, may have been. Any picture of the initial view of Jesus by the likes of Paul may very well be tainted by what later phases of the faith have done to it. Do I need to appeal to Ehrman again?)

But going on the assumption that we can rely to some extent on the surviving text, what does this mean for verse 8b? There the word eti is indeed attached unmistakeably to “us being sinners” (and the KJV does not cooperative by offering an alternate reading):

hoti eti hamartōlōn ontōn hēmōn
that still sinners we being

Xristos huper hēmōn apethanen.
Christ for us died.

If we read verse 6 as I’ve indicated we should, the meaning must be more or less the same here. But the eti here still [i.e., nonetheless] doesn’t have to involve time, despite its position. It can have the meaning of Bauer’s definition 2.c., as part of “a logical inference.” It’s also, like verse 6, a sentence that has the ‘contrary to expectation’ structure. In fact, it’s really a restatement of verse 6, just differently phrased. “Even though we are/were sinners, Christ died for us.” The ‘nonetheless’ idea has just been transferred onto the other of the two opposing elements. It might even be read (though I won’t press it) without such a transfer: “that nevertheless, we being sinners, Christ died for us.”

But there is another consideration here that no one, including myself, has previously noticed. What would it mean, in either verse, for Paul to have said, “Even though we were still sinners”—in the temporal sense? What sense would that make? Were we ever not sinners? Have we since ceased to be sinners? (Maybe so, since Paul wants to say and hopes that it’s now true.) But when would Christ have died otherwise? Would he have come at a time when we were not? We were at least still sinners when he did die for us. It couldn’t have been otherwise. The thought is thoroughly redundant, and faintly illogical, especially as expressed in English with its unnecessary inclusion of the “when” idea.

“When I was […] an ex-con, people still [i.e., nonetheless] showed me some respect.”

In the […] the word “still” in the sense of ‘continuing to be’ would be redundant and essentially meaningless. Whereas, ‘even though I was (and still am) an ex-con, nonetheless people show(ed) me respect’ makes perfect sense. (Maybe I should substitute “mythicist” for “ex-con.” Unfortunately, the thought would not always be true.)

Finally, if we have rightly removed the specific idea of “when” in Romans 5:6 and 8, then there is no necessary contemporaneity of any sort between “being weak/sinners” and the dying of Christ, not even Christ’s act taking place during the span of time since Adam, when humans have been sinners. I agree that other contexts and considerations might suggest that, but not this particular one. The background to the thought could entail: “Even though we are/were sinners, God saw to it that Christ died for us before time even began [pro chronwn aiwniwn]”—(he just kept it hidden all these long ages). “Even though I've been penniless, the government in its wisdom set up a system of welfare benefits before I was born”—(and they just decided to inform us about them now, the @!%#s).

Well, I have to admit that all of this has taken me a lot longer than 30 minutes—five hours, in fact. It’s obvious that I’m not the scholar you are, Gamera.

(P.S. Even though I would have liked to make a few comments on Ben’s and Kevin’s latest posts, nonetheless I have no time left. Gamera’s insulting remarks could not be allowed to stand. Perhaps they might like to comment on some of things I’ve said in the latter part of this post.)

Earl Doherty

Regrettably, this seems to be a tour de force of obsfucation.

Nobody is claiming the eti doesn't have a lexical definition that it is limited to the temporal. Rather, the point is, the nontemporal sense is not the nontemporal sense you used in your translation.

This very long post seems to be calculated to obscure the fact that the sense you used -- "nonetheless" -- is not warranted either by lexical entries or a review of usage in the NT.

I conclude from this that you did exactly what you appear to have done -- assumed that since eti is translated as "still" that eti has the same semantic range as English "still." That does not seem to be the case.

I note that in your prior response you indicated that you didn't trust my review and were planning to "look it up yourself." But instead of doing that, you've made a longwinded argument that eti has a nontemporal sense, which of course is not the issue. The issue is whether it has the sense you used in your translation, i.e. "nonetheless."

Unless you can find a passage in which eti has the meaning of "nonetheless" your whole position on these passages appear totally unwarranted and quixotic.

Get back to us when you have some real scholarship to supported your quirky translation, rather than a sense of bruised ego. Meantime, just as I showed your confused translation for the Greek equivalent of appear was, well, confused and not well researched, so too does it appear that your translation of eti is confused.

Gamera · 09-10-2007, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

That choice of the word “appear” is unfortunate, for it reminds us of his past forays into semantic range investigation—not ones that were too confidence-building (for us) about his abilities to understand word usage (even with half a dozen of us attempting to show how misguided he was).

Strangely, as in that case, you failed to provide us with any evidence that you actually did a review of the semantic range of the word for appear, either in English or Greek. Instead, you relied on lexicons, and apparently have made the same mistake with eti, but only worse, since the lexicon definition of eti doesn't include the translation your entire argument relies on. At tleast with "appear" you had the excuse of lack of diligence. With eti, it seems you have simply made up a convenient translation.

gstafleu · 09-10-2007, 09:43 AM

[QUOTE=Ben C Smith;4770945]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

You have to treat some significant portion of 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 (or thereabouts) as an interpolation, then, right?

You're right, I forgot about that passage. But I'm still not sure if it helps your case. Let me try to restate a bit more clearly.

Logically we have the following. Christ did his sacrifice at a time I'll denote as T=0, simply because for our purposes here, that is where the counting starts. We are, I think, in agreement that before faith can arise (in people), people have to find out about the sacrifice, and the time they do this I'll denote as T=D. The question now is: what is the magnitude of D? You, I think, argue for D=0. This could be, but first let me outline the other possibility.

If the sacrifice took place at an indeterminate time in the past, as Doherty argues, the D cannot be 0. People found out about it around the time of Paul. You are right to point out the passage in 1 Cor 15. This could be an argument for D=0, in case the sacrifice was witnessed by eye witnesses, which I suspect is what you think. But is this necessarily what it says?

This passage says essentially two things. First that Christ did a number of things, according to the scriptures. As has been argued extensively, here and elsewhere, that can easily been interpreted that the "witnesses" got these ideas by reading the scriptures. The second thing the passage says is that Christ was "seen" by a number of people. This can easily be interpreted as the kind of revelation that Paul says he himself had. After all, Paul says that he saw Christ as well, and it is generally agreed that Paul never saw Christ physically. (Plus, this can be something someone threw in to establish a pecking order, but we can ignore that for now.)

So while you are right that there is something about people "experiencing," one way or another, Christ's sacrifice before Paul's reporting on it, it is not necessarily the case that this indicates eye witnesses--and in the case of Paul, who says he also "saw" something, we know he wasn't an eye witness. And if the people mentioned in the passage "experienced" the sacrifice via scriptures and revelation, then a certain time elapsed between the sacrifice and these experiences. Unless the revelation experiences were coincident with the sacrifice. We can rule this out, I think, because the passage indicates that the "seeing" did not happened for everyone at the same time.

The only case in which we can be fairly certain that D=0 is if we read the gospels into Paul. In that case there were indeed eye witnesses to the event, which means (some) people immediately found out about it. But then we don't read the gospels into Paul, do we

?

So we are still left in a situation where we have no reason to assume that D=0. In other words, some time elapsed between Christ's sacrifice and people finding out about it. That means that the "availability of the blood" did not itself initiate faith: it opened up the possibility of faith, once people found out about it.

Gerard Stafleu

EarlDoherty · 09-10-2007, 09:52 AM

Before I post what I wrote before seeing the latest installments by Ted and Ben, let me make a couple of comments in regard to those:

There is no doubt that faith in Christ existed before Paul, and that it involved “Christ crucified”, otherwise Paul could never say that “we all preach the same thing,” and overlook such a difference in Galatians 2. It’s also borne out by pre-Pauline hymns like Phil.2:6-11, although there could be some doubt that the death the descending god originally underwent was crucifixion, since it seems to have been Paul who added “even death on a cross”. Perhaps the very first inventors of the Christ cult did not spell out crucifixion, but it was left to the Jerusalem sect, with Paul subsequently in agreement, to make that a doctrine.

However, we cannot assume (as per Ben) that Paul was the first to even envision preaching the crucified and risen Jesus to the gentiles. 1 Cor. 10-11 reveals a whole slew of “apostles of the Christ” going about preaching him in places beyond Palestine, and some scholars have rightly recognized that in his very hostile passages about them, he is not speaking of the Jerusalem group. While he condemns some of them for preaching “another Jesus”, and in 1 Cor. suggests that even Apollos is not preaching a “Christ crucified”, we cannot assume that the latter idea was the sole possession of the Jerusalem circle + Paul.

So where does this leave us as far as Paul’s own “gospel” is concerned? If we apply Gal. 1:11-12 to 1 Cor. 15:3-4, Paul can still be claiming his own info from scripture (kata tas graphas) even if the basics are being taught by others, especially if they, too, got it from scripture. Paul can put his own spin on it to justify speaking of a distinct revelation of his own, which perhaps he is doing by saying that Christ “died for our sins”. The self-centered urge to focus on himself and his private revelations from God (which we find throughout his writing) could also lead him to ‘bend the truth’ a bit by downplaying what others have received in the form of “spirits” and playing up his own.

But the key is in the determined attempt to distinguish between the “gospel” spoken of in Galatians and the one in 1 Cor., (Ted is following in a long line of similar attempts). Note that there is no reference to preaching to the gentiles in the “gospel” of 1 Cor. If that was the sole or main thrust in Paul’s preaching, as Ted claims, why is there no mention of it when Paul is itemizing his gospel? (Note what I say below about its source.) And as I repeatedly point out in regard to Rick Sumner’s interpretations—echoed by Ted—there is far more offered and stressed by Paul in regard to the “mystery” or his own message than just the gentiles new role.

And Ted’s attempt to apply “salvation by faith now available for the gentiles” as the “gospel” referred to in Gal. 1:11-12, cannot be proven by the text, or by common sense. Note what Ted says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted

…the revelation that came from no man, was that salvation through faith wasn't only available to the Jews, but was available to all of those who believed in Christ, including Gentiles such as those Galations he was writing to.

Yet Paul has just spent 10 verses previously castigating gospels contrary to his own, with nary a mention of those contrary gospels as having anything to do with “salvation available to the gentiles” pro or con. But the most important is this, and I’m surprised it escaped both Ted and Ben. Gal.1:6 – “I am astonished to find you turning away from him who called you by grace and following a different gospel.” Are the Galatians—gentiles—going to turn away from a gospel that preaches salvation available to them??? Clearly, this is not the “gospel” of salvation to gentiles that Paul is speaking of here, and so there is no justification for making some saving distinction between the “gospel” of 1:11 and that of 1 Cor. 15.

What’s left? Simply a gospel about Jesus and his nature and/or what he had done. In the context of other passages where Paul condemns others for preaching “another Jesus” he is indeed speaking of a basically different reading of scripture, producing a “different spirit [i.e., revelation]” as he notes in 2 Cor. 11:4. There he castigates the Corinthians for accepting someone else’s “different revelation” from the revelation he gave them.

Finally, of course the “coming of faith” preceded Paul. He was part of a wide movement that imagined that God had revealed the Son and his role (part of the whole ‘intermediary Son/Logos/Wisdom’ philosophy of the age found in both Greek and Jewish philosophy), and Paul, even if he sometimes speaks in a self-centered fashion, is referring collectively to that movement. He is simply at pains, as often as he get away with it, to place the focus on himself, as the prime, superior expression of that movement, basically the one who actually has gotten it perfectly right. And there is no doubt that he was offering a more sophisticated version than probably anyone else.

Now, on to my previously written response on the “received” business…

Ben, I think you are overlooking quite a bit. From my website article (#6), “The Source of Paul’s Gospel”:

Quote:

…Quite apart from the specific verb being used and any claims as to its usual meaning, we need to compare ideas expressed by Paul in two different passages, the one here in 1 Corinthians 15:3, and another in Galatians 1:11-12:

For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not the product of men. For I did not receive (parelabon, from paralambano) it from any man, nor was I taught it, but (I received it) through a revelation of/about Jesus Christ.

Paul could not make himself any clearer. The gospel he preaches is not something passed on through human channels. He “did not receive it from any man.” If the verb “received” in 1 Corinthians 15:3 is claimed to represent such a thing, then the statements in the two passages stand in direct contradiction to one another. Given his passionate declaration in Galatians, it is not likely that Paul would turn around and say to the Corinthians that he in fact got his gospel “from men.”
….
We are entitled to assume the strong likelihood that Paul would be consistent in his statements about the source of his gospel, namely that it is something he received through revelation, regardless of the particular verb he uses. The unambiguous nature of the passionate declaration in Galatians must be allowed to govern the meaning in 1 Corinthians 15:3.
.…
Instead, each apostle’s doctrine and knowledge of the Christ comes through the Spirit, through revelation from God. It is God who has called Paul, God who supplies the gospel about his Son. Remember that Paul just before the passage in 15:1-4 has spoken in no uncertain terms of divine communication: “Did the word of God originate with you? Are you the only ones to whom it came?” With such sentiments hanging in the air, what source can we assume Paul is speaking of when he goes directly on to state the saving gospel he has “received”?

To secure this conclusion, however, we must be able to see the actual verb Paul uses, paralambano, as compatible with the idea of divine revelation. Two considerations tell us that it is. The first is how Paul uses the verb in the Galatians passage. Let’s look again at the key verse 1:12:

For I did not receive (parelabon) it (his gospel) from any man, nor was I taught it, but (I received it) through a revelation (apokalupseos) of/about Jesus Christ.

Paul makes our task a little less than automatic, since he does not actually repeat the verb in the last phrase. But we all do this sort of thing in speech and writing, and when we do, the natural understanding is that we are silently supplying a verb we have just used, not something else. The understood verb in the final phrase above cannot be the “taught” verb just preceding it, since this would be in clear contradiction to the idea of revelation (apokalupseos). We are left with the most natural understanding of “but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ,” the “received” being the same verb Paul has used in the first phrase of the sentence, “I did not receive it from any man.” And in fact, this is how most translators and commentators render it. Thus, in this one sentence, Paul has used the verb paralambano in the sense of receiving a passed on tradition, as well as in the sense of receiving a revelation.

The second consideration which makes paralambano compatible with the idea of divine revelation is its usage in the wider Graeco-Roman world. As long ago as Schweitzer it was recognized that: “In the language of the mysteries, paralambano and paradidomi signify the reception and communication of the revelation received in the mysteries” (The Mysticism of St. Paul, ET ed. 1956, p. 266). …

Even in rabbinic usage, to which the most frequent appeal is made, the idea of “received” is not always confined to the idea of passed on teaching through human channels. Hyam Maccoby, in Paul and Hellenism (p. 91-2), refutes Joachim Jeremias’ argument that paralambano corresponds to the Hebrew ‘qibel’ which always refers to reception as part of passed on tradition. Maccoby proves that this is not so by quoting from the Mishna: “Moses received (qibel) the Torah from Sinai.” Here we have “received” used in the sense of direct reception from the divinity himself. Thus, it would seem that nothing stands in the way of interpreting the “received” of 1 Corinthians 15:3a as meaning that Paul’s gospel is a product of perceived revelation from God, based on Paul’s reading of scripture, as he twice states [kata tas graphas].

Some might point a few lines ahead to verse 11, where Paul says: “This is what we all proclaim, and this is what you believed.” But there is no problem here. Just because certain others preach a doctrine about the Christ which may be similar to Paul’s own does not mean that he got it from them. If all Christian missionaries are dependent on divine revelation (those who come to similar conclusions are reading the same scriptural passages), Paul can claim his own personal channel in this regard. And he may well have his own particular twist on what others preach. “Dying for sin” may be a specific Pauline interpretation of the salvific purpose of the spiritual Christ’s death.

We might also note that paralambano is used in Col. 2:6, “you have received Christ Jesus,” meaning to take in the spirit of Christ (although Bauer prefers to translate: “you have accepted”). Similarly, 1 Cor. 11:23, “I received from the Lord”: this is hardly by tradition, but by perceived revelation.

Incidentally, I found that quote from Schweitzer through Maccoby’s Paul and Hellenism, but I regrettably discovered that Schweitzer did not quote any references, although I hardly think he could have made such a statement without having found any examples of it in pagan literature.

As for my last posting, Ben, do you agree with my thoughts that the “while we were still sinners” seems redundant and illogical, thus calling into question the usual translation of those passages in Romans 5:6 and 8?:

Quote:

What would it mean, in either verse, for Paul to have said, “Even though we were still sinners”—in the temporal sense? What sense would that make? Were we ever not sinners? Have we since ceased to be sinners? (Maybe so, since Paul wants to say and hopes that it’s now true.) But when would Christ have died otherwise? Would he have come at a time when we were not? We were at least still sinners when he did die for us. It couldn’t have been otherwise. The thought is thoroughly redundant, and faintly illogical, especially as expressed in English with its unnecessary inclusion of the “when” idea.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty · 09-10-2007, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Strangely, as in that case, you failed to provide us with any evidence that you actually did a review of the semantic range of the word for appear, either in English or Greek. Instead, you relied on lexicons, and apparently have made the same mistake with eti, but only worse, since the lexicon definition of eti doesn't include the translation your entire argument relies on. At tleast with "appear" you had the excuse of lack of diligence. With eti, it seems you have simply made up a convenient translation.

Strangely, this response fails to grapple with a single point I made in my posting about my survey of eti, other than to simply claim that Bauer doesn't include my translation. I think he does, in the #2c. My analysis centered on the 5 passages in question being "logical inferences": an existing state vs. a non-expected response to it which is nonetheless provided. That is the way Bauer treats 3 of them, and should have treated the other 2.

As for "appear", are you kidding? Not only myself, but a half a dozen others on this board gave you all sorts of examples of and arguments about the semantic range of "appear" vs. "reappear", all which disproved your contentions about it. (Astounding!)

Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith · 09-10-2007, 10:25 AM

Hi, Gerard.

Please understand that I was addressing a fellow historicist who appears to agree with much of the argument I presented elsewhere for Paul being a rough contemporary of Jesus. My argument that time D equals 0 (to use your terms) comes from various threads in that original post. I was not making such an argument afresh.

But, since you are bringing it up, let me briefly recast one of those arguments for you.

From Galatians 3.19 we learn that the law was meant to last until the seed should come:

Why the law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made.

From Galatians 3.16 we learn that the seed was Christ, and indeed we can see that the very phrase the seed to whom the promise had been made is a pretty explicit back reference to this verse:

Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say: And to seeds, as referring to many, but rather to one: And to your seed, that is, Christ.

From Galatians 3.23-25 we learn that this end point of the period of the law is also the beginning point of the era of faith:

But before faith came we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the law has become our tutor unto Christ, that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come we are no longer under a tutor.

So (A) the law was in effect until the seed (Christ) came and (B) the law was in effect until faith came. IOW, the coming of Christ must be the same time as the coming of faith.

So when did faith come? From Romans 10.14-15a we learn that one cannot have faith without preachers or apostles:

How then shall they call upon him in whom they have not put faith? And how shall they put faith in him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent [or apostled, so to speak; same root word]?

It would appear that the era of faith had to start with apostles. Now, my question to you is this: Does Paul know of any apostles before Cephas and James and the others named in 1 Corinthians 15? If so, who are they? If not, then I suggest that the coming of Christ, which has to coincide with the coming of faith (based on how long the law was supposed to be in effect), also has to coincide with the sending of apostles.

The recency of all this also comes out in passages such as Romans 3.21-22:

But now apart from the law the justice of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the justice of God through the faith of Jesus Christ for all those who have faith; for there is no distinction.

If the era of the law is just now (recently) ending, as this verse makes it sound (though doubtless there are ways to mitigate the force of now here), and if the era of the law was to last until the seed came, then the seed must have come very recently.

It is, of course, possible to poke holes in this sequence by calling certain portions of the epistles interpolations. That is fair. But I think that the Pauline epistles as they stand point almost inevitably to a sacrifice by Jesus that was contemporary with the apostles named in 1 Corinthians 15.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 09-10-2007, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

However, we cannot assume (as per Ben) that Paul was the first to even envision preaching the crucified and risen Jesus to the gentiles. 1 Cor. 10-11 reveals a whole slew of “apostles of the Christ” going about preaching him in places beyond Palestine, and some scholars have rightly recognized that in his very hostile passages about them, he is not speaking of the Jerusalem group.

Do you mean 2 Corinthians 10-11?

You may be right. Maybe there were apostles to gentiles before Paul came around. But I am not sure that 2 Corinthians 10-11 entails this viewpoint. How do we know that these superapostles were not Pauline copycats? That is, how do we know that they were doing this before Paul came on the scene?

The main thing I am saying, really, is that Paul seems to have preached to gentiles first with respect to the Jerusalem group. That is, I find certain portions of the gospels and Acts less than credible when they start imputing an explicitly gentile mission to Jesus or to Peter before Paul ever came around.

Quote:

But the most important is this, and I’m surprised it escaped both Ted and Ben. Gal.1:6 – “I am astonished to find you turning away from him who called you by grace and following a different gospel.” Are the Galatians—gentiles—going to turn away from a gospel that preaches salvation available to them???

No, they are turning away from a (Pauline) gospel that preaches salvation for gentiles qua gentiles (that is, sans circumcision and other Jewish markers).

The perceived discrepancy (and I do not use the word perceived here in order to imply that it is not a discrepancy) between the receiving of the gospel in Galatians 1 and the receiving of the gospel in 1 Corinthains 15 is one that I am still working on. I do not think any essential aspect of my current case rests entirely on the outcome of that investigation.

Quote:

As for my last posting, Ben, do you agree with my thoughts that the “while we were still sinners” seems redundant and illogical, thus calling into question the usual translation of those passages in Romans 5:6 and 8?:

Quote:

What would it mean, in either verse, for Paul to have said, “Even though we were still sinners”—in the temporal sense? What sense would that make? Were we ever not sinners? Have we since ceased to be sinners? (Maybe so, since Paul wants to say and hopes that it’s now true.) But when would Christ have died otherwise? Would he have come at a time when we were not? We were at least still sinners when he did die for us. It couldn’t have been otherwise. The thought is thoroughly redundant, and faintly illogical, especially as expressed in English with its unnecessary inclusion of the “when” idea.

Sorry; I was not reading your exchange with Gamera, so I missed this.

I am going on a business trip here shortly, so may have to stay out of it, at least for now, but let me give this brief summary of my views on the grammar here.

1. There are ways other than temporal to take the present tense participles of the genitive absolutes (in verses 6 and 8) or of the nominative participial phrase (in verse 10), even though the present tense quite normally would indicate time contemporaneous with the main verb. There are probably also ways other than temporal to take the adverb eti.
2. However, how likely is it that the present tense of the participle is strictly nontemporal when used in conjunction with eti? Furthermore, how likely is it that the eti is strictly nontemporal when used in conjunction with the phrase at the right time?
3. The genitive absolute can and quite frequently does have a concessive force (although or such) all by itself. Why add the eti at all, then? Just for emphasis of some kind?

You asked:

Quote:

Were we ever not sinners?

I believe this is the wrong question, since I think the usual force of the word still would be to point forward, not backward. That is, if I say that at the time of event X I was still a child, my listeners do not think back to a time before I became a child; rather, if anything, they think forward to a time after my childhood.

Quote:

Have we since ceased to be sinners? (Maybe so, since Paul wants to say and hopes that it’s now true.)

This is the right question. And I think you have given the right answer. Regardless of whether the saint still actually sins from time to time, I do not think Paul would tend to characterize a saint as a sinner.

Quote:

When would Christ have died otherwise? Would he have come at a time when we were not?

Well, that is my question for you. At times it sounds like you think he died before sinners even existed (or in a timeless sense that cannot even be related to our chronology). That is the interpretation that I think is quite odd. Your at least hypothetical acceptance of the notion that Paul is envisioning some unspecified timeframe after Adam (if only for the sake of making sense of scriptural promptings) is much better.

To put all this another way, let me compare two scenarios:

1. The death of Jesus either preceded or had no temporal relationship at all to the existence of sinners.
2. The death of Jesus happened at some time when there were sinners on whose behalf Jesus could die.

To which of these scenarios do the verses seem to point? Let me translate the (common) Greek genitive absolutes as (less common) English absolutes:

For still Christ, us still being weak, at the right time died for the irreligious.

But God commends his own love toward us, in that, us still being sinners, Christ died for us.

For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of his son, much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

I submit that a strictly atemporal notion would have arisen only under the influence of a theory such as your own, while some kind of temporal notion would have arisen even if the gospels and later Christian literature had never existed. It is just so natural in the Greek.

I might add that, had Paul intended to say that Jesus died at a time before there were any sinners, it would have been very easy to do so. He could, for example, have used a future participle (compare 1 Corinthians 15.37, the body which is to be [in the future]).

Ben.

09-10-2007, 10:25 AM	#109
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	Hi, Gerard. Please understand that I was addressing a fellow historicist who appears to agree with much of the argument I presented elsewhere for Paul being a rough contemporary of Jesus. My argument that time D equals 0 (to use your terms) comes from various threads in that original post. I was not making such an argument afresh. But, since you are bringing it up, let me briefly recast one of those arguments for you. From Galatians 3.19 we learn that the law was meant to last until the seed should come: Why the law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed should come to whom the promise had been made. From Galatians 3.16 we learn that the seed was Christ, and indeed we can see that the very phrase the seed to whom the promise had been made is a pretty explicit back reference to this verse: Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say: And to seeds, as referring to many, but rather to one: And to your seed, that is, Christ. From Galatians 3.23-25 we learn that this end point of the period of the law is also the beginning point of the era of faith: But before faith came we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the law has become our tutor unto Christ, that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come we are no longer under a tutor. So (A) the law was in effect until the seed (Christ) came and (B) the law was in effect until faith came. IOW, the coming of Christ must be the same time as the coming of faith. So when did faith come? From Romans 10.14-15a we learn that one cannot have faith without preachers or apostles: How then shall they call upon him in whom they have not put faith? And how shall they put faith in him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent [or apostled, so to speak; same root word]? It would appear that the era of faith had to start with apostles. Now, my question to you is this: Does Paul know of any apostles before Cephas and James and the others named in 1 Corinthians 15? If so, who are they? If not, then I suggest that the coming of Christ, which has to coincide with the coming of faith (based on how long the law was supposed to be in effect), also has to coincide with the sending of apostles. The recency of all this also comes out in passages such as Romans 3.21-22: But now apart from the law the justice of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the justice of God through the faith of Jesus Christ for all those who have faith; for there is no distinction. If the era of the law is just now (recently) ending, as this verse makes it sound (though doubtless there are ways to mitigate the force of now here), and if the era of the law was to last until the seed came, then the seed must have come very recently. It is, of course, possible to poke holes in this sequence by calling certain portions of the epistles interpolations. That is fair. But I think that the Pauline epistles as they stand point almost inevitably to a sacrifice by Jesus that was contemporary with the apostles named in 1 Corinthians 15. Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.