archibald

I am scratching my head over this too. Isn't it the main question in the OP?

As far as I can see, there is no requirement for teacher-pupil relationship.

Now, unless someone wants to put me right on that, I propose we close the thread and go back to the one it as born out of. Not literally born, obviously. :]

I'm only half kidding (about closing the thread, the born thing is an attempt at levity) since there may be related points, aren't there always? :] . But, isn't at least the OP question answered in itself? :constern01:




Going back slightly, we were asked to look at Kittel's dictionary, and a quote was extracted from that, in support of the teacher-pupil thing.

But, that quote, it seems, relates to Classical Greek.

When I read further on, to Kittel's discussion on the word in the NT (page 13), I read:

".....to receive in fixed form, in the chain of Christian tradition",

which is specifically in relation to the 1 Cor passages (1 Cor 11:23 & 15:3- )

or

"to inherit the formulated laws of Christian morality"

(here citing 1 Thessalonians 4:1)....

And there follows an interesting commentary on Paul's use of the word, with special attention given to Galatians 1:12.

Now, unless I am missing something, Kittel's does not seem to opt for 'master to pupil' for what we are talking about here, the NT.

Even when Kittel's discusses the OT (or should I say, specifically, 'Judaism'), the emphasis does not seem to be master to pupil either, and on page 12, seems to include 'The Torah' as an authority.

In fact, it seems that the master-to-pupil thing is limited (as 'limited of necessity', I mean) to Classical Greek.

Which I think someone else (Iskander) has already said?

Now if that is not to be case closed, someone needs to put me straight.

TedM

Spin, you aren't interacting with what I'm saying -- you are appealing to an argument of consistency based on assumptions that may or may not be true. And, are you intentionally avoiding my question above? Are you conceding that this word could refer to a person to person transmission of a tradition or not?

Secondly, can you point to any examples of where another word is used to pass along a tradition/creed between people that don't have a master-pupil relationship? If you can't then why should we expect ANY other word than what is used?

You guys can point out all day how it is used for master-pupil relationships in the rabbinical tradition but that doesn't address the question.

archibald

Now I'm confused again, Ted. Probably my problem, rather than yours. :]

What meaning is it that you wish to include (ie. not exclude)?

Can you give an example of such a meaning for 1 Cor 15?

TedM

I want to know if the word in question can be used to denote a meaning of passing along a tradition. Period. Without the master-pupil qualifiers. If the answer is really 'yes' then what word is used for just a person-person transmission of a tradition, and where are the examples of that?

If they can't give examples, then I conclude they have no basis for restricting it to master-pupil and that particular restriction came about in error.

The objection from spin is that Paul would never have said he got a tradition from his 'master' or 'teacher' and I agree. However, Paul very well would have said he got a tradition from some unnamed person since it is not a revelation--it is just a tradition/creed.

aa5874

Even Robert Price ADMITTED that he has NO direct evidence to support his OPINION.



Again, Robert Price BELIEVES he is right even though his OPINION is FREELY ADMITTED to have ZERO TEXTUAL evidence.


Robert M. Price Apocryphal Apparitions

archibald

Seems to me to be a straight 'yes'.

I think this is where I'm not sure what you mean. There may not be such a word. The one that is used is the one that we are discussing. It's just not exclusive, apparently. No? Is it not irrelevant whether there is another such particular word or not?

It seems to me they have no basis, but I'm not sure how 'not finding the personal example' contributes (see my line, above).

Yes. That seems to be likely. In fact, Kittel's dictionary seems to conclude this.

Mind you, I am not yet entirely sure of the significance of the distinction, or how one or the other necessarily helps or hinders a non-interpolation or an interpolation hypohesis. One reason I say this is that Toto (who I had thought of as leaning to the interpolation side) cited 'passing on of tradition' in Price. The other reason is that Spin quoted Kittel's, so presumably he also is allowing 'tradition'. So I am still wondering what is being contested. And more to the point, why (on either 'side')?

Maybe I am just not thinking straight.

TedM

or maybe I'm not. Spin is not allowing 'tradition' without the qualifier--between master-pupil. At least that is how I have interpreted his postings.
If that is right his is an open and shut case--the word is not something Paul would use because he didn't get any part of his gospel from his teacher or master.

IF that is not right--ie the tradition could have come from anybody--then it is an argument of consistency between 1 Cor and Paul's other verses. It comes down to the content--what is it that was passed on, revealed, etc..and can they be different things? If they can be different things then their sources can be different--God in one case and someone other than Paul's "teacher" or "master" in another.

gotta run for a bit..

aa5874

That is exactly what you should NOT do. You have ZERO TEXTUAL evidence from antiquity to agree that "Paul" would NEVER have said he got a tradition from his 'master' or 'teacher.

The Pauline writings are DATED by paleography from the mid-second century to the third century. There are No Pauline writings that can be CONFIRMED to have been written by a 1ST century character called "Paul" before the Fall of the Temple.

Toto

The last two posts by aa5874 are hopelessly confused. At this point, the issue is not whether these passages were interpolated or not, or whether there is textual evidence of an interpolation.

Price's point, which spin's sources confirm, is that "received / delivered" (paralambanein / paradidonai) are standard terms for the passing on of a tradition, which is done from teacher to pupil by learning to recite precise language, which is how tradition is passed on.

The distinction is that this is not a casual passing on of information or rumors, but part of a formal process.

Could someone remind me of the purpose of this thread or what TedM was trying to prove.

archibald

I think it may have started from this:

I say this because........................... it's in the OP.

So, unless it's a misquote, I think it's reasonable to also ask what Spin putting forward, not just Ted. And I doubt if 'proof' was on anybody's mind. At least, I assume/hope not. :]

It does seem to me the original issue was interpolation, and though this spin-off thread is, strictly speaking, not necessarily about interpolation, the question of 'who used the word' would presumably arise immediately after it can be agreed what it might or might not have meant. And I'm not sure the two things (the word and who used it) are at all separate in any case. And Price's comment was in the context of an interpolation suggestion?

Toto, I am inclined to think you may be in a very small minority if you don't think this isn't ultimately about interpolation.