archibald

At last, some corroboration. Kittel's and the Greek-English site I have been using both cite, 'paralambanatei' for the same verse (Matthew 24: 40).

Now, it doesn't seem, in either, to involve a master or a pupil.

archibald

Now, in some ways, your post is clarifying, but at the same time I am once again reminded of why I personally will probably never be able to feel certain about any conclusions that I, as someone who unfortunately won't be spending the next 3 decades only studying this issue, may provisionally lean towards.

OTOH, I am inclined to think that nobody else can ever be certain either. :]

But, just to ask one more thing, are you saying that, essentially, in addition to different interpretaions of a word, it is up for grabs what the word was that was actually used at the time of writing? If not, I am still wondering why Biblios claims paralamwhatever, and another site does not.

TedM

??

Your statement "but the second is Thayer, which gets to the issue in point 2.b, but.." , and your quote re Socrates in blue above led me to think that. I couldn't decipher anything about Thayer at the actual blueletterbible site.


The question is what 'it" refers to:

I claim that "it" is not knowledge of the basic 'facts' of Jesus' life and resurrection nor of resurrection appearances to other people. Therefore it is different information that is in question. If the info received in Galatians is X and in 1 Cor 15 is Y, then the sources of those different pieces of info could well be different. You can't conclude that Paul meant it was from God in 1 Cor 15 because that's what he meant in Galatians.



Glad you enjoyed it

Iskander

I am saying that religion is what Lewis Carroll had in mind when he made Alice say: If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?

archibald

Yes, this doesn't seem out of kilter to me either. In fact, if he uses paralam.. in the Galatians verse, in association with 'from man', then..............he could easily be using it again in relation to 'from man' in the latter (1 Cor 15) case, and thus be saying that he DID get 'it' ( the basic facts) from men, in 1 Cor 15, as distinct from getting his 'gospel' from men.

But there is a fly in the ointment here. The first thing he says in 1 Cor 15 (before any stuff about 'basic facts') is 'I received...... that Christ died for our sins according to scriptures' which part DOES seem to be the 'gospel', which he says he didn't receive from man, in Galatians.

:huh:

Anyhows, does matthew 24:40 (see my post above) at least support the case that 'master-pupil relationship' is not a necessary ingredient? Seems a bit clearer to me, at first glance.

archibald

I'm not sure. I thought we were limiting ourselves to the hopefully simpler issue of translation of words, not religion, per se. :]

So, I'm not sure you answered my question, yet. Maybe you are saying I am right. The 'original' words themselves are up for grabs?

In which case, I may think about just giving up.

Iskander

I am sorry if I have failed to answer your question.

I meant that words are part of the world Alice described. Yes , in religion words are up for grabs because what they promise can only be realized after death. Words for that purpose are like gibberish to the unbeliever but can mean anything to the believer.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.


The Jabberwocky means nothing to me ,but those words are up for grabs and someone will make sense of them.

TedM

I hadn't thought of that. There is no need to apply the 'authority' to Gal 1:12--sure he GOT it from an authority(God) but that doesn't mean he was saying he didn't get it from a different authority(people like James). It could have simply meant he didn't get it from any human being.

yes and no..'died for sins' is different than 'salvation through faith' or 'salvation without works'.


There are a bunch of uses without that. I was thinking that this was further restricted to receipt of information as opposed to any other usage.

spin

And I did, too. There's just a list of fragments cobbled from various places without anything useful.

So you're basing your quibbling on strongs. FFS. That's the tool of the df fundamentalist.

If you looked at the Thayer material, there's alink straight underneath that says "Click Here for the Rest of the Entry". Clicking actually does give the rest of the entry.

On what do you base that claim? A previous clause tells you what the "it" is, "the gospel".

This doesn't make any sense to me. Perhaps if you put it in baby language I might get you. You're such a mathematician.

Just to restate the issue, the receiving in the transmission of the tradition is what we are looking at, and that reception is one of "superior" transmitter to "inferior" receiver, god to Paul, Paul to the Corinthian audience. That you find issues weird about the two passages you refer to doesn't help you deal with the significance of what we are looking at.

I gotta get something out of it, right?

TedM

I did that before, and saw under #2a "to receive something transmitted" and under 2b "to receive with the mind; by oral transmission". Both seem to be supportive of my speculation, so it seemd you were conceding that at least 'in theory' this could have meant something other than a master-pupil kind of transmission. Is that right, and are you?


ok, my words aren't always clear. It's just the same argument I made earlier. I'm just saying that the source for the 'gospel' revelation in Galatians doesn't enable us to conclude anything about the source for the 'gospel' creed in 1 Cor because the revelation probably was different than the creed. It goes back to my claim that Paul's 'gospel' includes a number of teachings: Jesus lived and died and was resurrected. The resurrection means salvation from sins. Salvation comes through faith and is available to all people. He can use the term 'gospel' to refer to any one of these teachings. Because we can't know that he is using 'gospel' the same way in both epistles, Gal 1:9 is not necessarily a valid comparison.