archibald

Yes. It seems that way to me too. And I must be missing something (wouldn't be the first time) but what is the significance? I'm genuinely not clear, not least because this started out in a thread on 1 cor 15 as an interpolation, but now it's being discussed, by the same people who think it was an interpolation, as if Paul might have said it. I'm not suggesting they're contradicting themselves. They probably aren't. It must be me who's confused.

hjalti

The significance is that in other places (e.g. Galatians) Paul stresses that he didn't recieve his gospel from anyone, he emphasizes his independence. So that makes this a strange thing for Paul to say.

Add to that to the fact that in the 2nd century we had people like Marcion saying that Paul was the apostle and we also had people like the guy who wrote Acts who wanted to make it clear that Paul was obedient and dependent on the others (see Acts), and you get a much more plausible scenario for someone to write this.

archibald

So how do we know he didn't mean he got it from Jesus?

And generally speaking, aren't we running the risk of expecting Paul to be uber-consistent and thorough across a period of time and when writing in different circumstances? I mean, he's not here now, and we can't ask him, so we are limited to speculating, but it's not unknown, by any means, for people to seemingly contradict themselves in a body of writing. I can even think of one small example of something which has cropped up recently in this forum, where some (nameless) person was shown to say two contradictory things on different occasions. Do we know if Paul kept copies of his letters so he could scrutinize them for consistency in hindsight? Wasn't the whole 'project' something he was feeling his way through? And when I try to think of what a religious fanatic from such ancient times, who has visions, might be like, should I hypothetically find myself trapped in a lift with him for several hours.........well, perhaps you get what I'm pondering.

TedM

In Galations he says he got his 'gospel' from no man. That could be referring to gospel of salvation by faith without need of law which Paul preached for the Gentiles. Since Galations is a defense of his preaching of faith over upholding Jewish law(primarily the issue of circumcision for Gentiles), this seems most likely to be the focus of his claim regarding his gospel...

see next post.

TedM

However, one part of his 'gospel' obviously is the claim that Jesus was Messiah, and had been resurrected. That, and not salvation by faith, is what is addressed in 1 Cor 15:3-8. I believe THAT part of his gospel he received from others since he wasn't claiming to be the first Christian and he says (in Galations 1) that the Jewish Christians had heard that he was preaching the same faith(belief in something) as they had. I think they were referring to the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus and its relationship to God's plan for salvation of Jews.

He could still claim that God was the source of this information even though he also received it from others, but it would make more sense to me if he was not making that claim, but was just saying he was taught by someone else without a 'master-pupil' relationship.

ted

archibald

He does use the word 'receive' rather a lot. I take it some sort of pattern analysis has been done by some learned chap/chapess regarding the different contexts in which he uses different terms? I see that he used the same word when claiming he received his gospel from Jesus in Galatians, for example.

archibald

There seem, as ever, to be almost inumerable options and possibilities. Cognitive dissonance? Slipping up on his doublethink?

I mean, he wasn't exactly edited (at the time) and peer-reviewed.

By the way, what makes you so sure that reference to earlier Christians hearing he was preaching the same faith as them is not an interpolation? :constern01:

aa5874

Please, in Galatians the Pauline writer STRESSES his dependence on the Resurrected dead called Jesus Christ.

It is EXTREMELY important you WRITE exactly what the EVIDENCE states.

Galatians 1 The Pauline writer CERTIFIES his DEPENDENCE on the RESURRECTED dead, Jesus Christ.

Your "facts" are NOT corroborated. Apologetics sources are UNRELIABLE. They are CONTRADICTORY. Hippolytus in "Refutation of ALL Heresies" did claim that Marcion used the writings Empedocles and NOT the Pauline writings.

Marcion's Son of God was NOT born or made of a woman and a Pauline writer claimed the RESURRECTED Jesus was made of a woman.

The FACTS are that the Pauline claims that he RECEIVED his gospel from the RESURRECTED dead is FALSE and that the Greek word for "RECEIVED" does NOT require a TEACHER-STUDENT.

The very Pauline writer claimed he was NOT TAUGHT his gospel.

Galatians 1 The Pauline writer CERTIFIED that he did NOT require a TEACHER-STUDENT relationship in Galatians.

TedM

Yes. Would an interpolator use that word too? Would the interpolator try to pass Paul off as a pupil? Or, is it more likely Pauline in origin? If Pauline then, the question is why would he say that? Would it really make sense for him to say that God told him about appearances to Cephas and others? Or is he repeating what he was taught/told by someone else?

I would doubt an interpolator would try to make Paul sound like a pupil because it would be contrary to his reputation and orthodox history. It sounds to me like a word Paul used and that it did not refer to getting it from any authority--man or God. The most reasonable explanation (if it included the list of appearances) would be that it referred to a creed he learned from others, though not as a pupil.

It is also possible that the part beginning with the list of appearances was interpolated--and that the words prior to the list were Pauls:
"I received (from God) that Jesus died, was buried, and raised according to the scriptures...so if Christ was raised from the dead, why are some of you saying there is no resurrection of the dead?"

archibald

Indeed, that seems like another possibility.

And speaking again in a broad sense (and you know me by now, sometimes that's all I'm qualified to do. Ha ha) I think we are scrutinizing and poring over the smallest details (often moving across time and place and circumstance) in a way in which Paul himself probably never did. I must go home tonight and root out from the attic all those letters I wrote to Shiela Maguire in the 1970's to see how consistent I was. :]

I've lost count of the number of times I've heard one phrase from Galatians held up as something iconic which he could not have varied from. And given that it may have been a bit of a fib.....