The G Man

Hello!

Various parties over on Christian Forums have finally cajoled me into reading The Jesus Puzzle - which I'm currently doing. And I've been made aware that I'll probably get a better response to questions over here. So here I am.

So, on παραλαμβανω...

However, it was a verb also used in the Greek mysteries and in religious experiences generally, to refer to the reception of a revelation from a god. Paul himself applies it in both ways in a crucial passage in Galatians 1:11-12:

"For I neither received it [ie, the gospel Paul preaches] from (any) man, nor was I taught it, but [understood: I received it] through a revelation of Jesus Christ." [NASB]
- The Jesus Puzzle (p. 44)

So my question is, is there a reference for this use of παραλαμβανω to mean the reception of a revelation from a god? I can't find it in Liddell Scott.

As far as the quote from Galatians goes the 'understood' I received it seems to be unwarranted. If this suggestion is left out then the nor was I taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ seems to work just as well. In other words, isn't it more natural to read the Greek with the δι αποκαλυψεως qualifying the εδιδαχθην rather than the earlier παρελαβον?

Thanks!

S.C.Carlson

What is the underlying issue?

I would say that παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον (I received from man) and ἐδιδάχθεν (I was taught) in Gal 1:12a are being used more or less synonymously here, which would mean that δι' ἀποκαλύψεως (by means of a revelation) in v.12b would be qualifying the idea given by both verbs in v.12a.

I would be wary of trying to tease out a distinction between the two and try to assign δι' ἀποκαλύψεως (by means of a revelation) to either verb as if the other verb was not also intended.

But perhaps there's some underlying issue I'm not getting....

Stephen

The G Man

Essentially, is it reasonable to interpret παραλαμβανω as referring to receiving revelation rather than a tradition or inheritance which seems to be the more normal sense of the word? It seems (to me anyway) that we always read the latter sense in Paul's letters when we find it in the second or third person. But Doherty argues that we should understand it in this special sense of receiving revelation whenever we encounter it in the first person. To be fair, he doesn't explicitly argue that but it seems to be the practical upshot.

S.C.Carlson

If Doherty is arguing that παραλαμβανω is a technical term for receiving a revelation rather than a tradition, then he'll need some affirmative evidence for it. To the extent that Gal 1:12 is relevant, it shows explicitly that παραλαμβανω is used with human tradition.

Stephen

Toto

Robert Price discusses that verse here

Doherty's discussion and justification for regarding the transmission as by revelation is hereThe Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (or via: amazon.co.uk)

The G Man

Thanks for that. A couple of comments on Doherty's website...

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.

This feels like a bit of a fudge. How is διδασκω in such clear contradiction to αποκαλυψις? The word διδασκω appears quite often in the Septuagint with God as the subject - for instance Psalms 119:108 or Proverbs 30:3.

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).

It's going to take me a little while to get hold of the book. Is anyone able to summarise Schweitzer's argument?

Maccoby proves that this is not so by quoting from the Mishna: “Moses received (qibel) the Torah from Sinai.”

I could be wrong but isn't the Mishnah substantially post-Pauline?

The Price is going to take a little longer to digest.

Toto

Schweitzer's book is not readily available (There is a student book review here). You might need to go to a university library. But I get the feeling that this is a tangential matter to Schweitzer's main argument.

Yes. I don't know if the underlying meaning of the word would have changed.

Robert Price seems to write for fellow scholars. He likes to throw in references to prior scholarship as if his readership had all read and studied it, and can realize what he is talking about from a casual reference. It makes for tough going sometimes for those of us who are amateurs.

S.C.Carlson

Thanks for the quote of Doherty that cites Schweitzer. Unfortunately, Schweitzer's statement as quoted is rather ambiguous on the key point. (Does paralambano refer to the actual reception of the revelation or merely to the traditional type of transmission once it was revealed?)

Thus, it would be necessary to check Schweitzer to see if Doherty correctly understood him, and it would be necessary to check if Schweitzer correctly understood his sources. It is a shame that (at least in this section) Doherty did not also cite a primary source directly to save us some work in verifying his assertion.

As for Price, while it too would also be nice if he cited primary sources, his silence is more understandable because Price is actually invoking the majority position among scholars. Although scholars often assert that the burden of proof is on anyone advancing a claim, in practice, the burden always seems placed on the one advancing a minority position. In this case, Doherty is taking a minority position, and so it is reasonable to expect more from him (than Price, say) if he's going to be persuasive on this point.

Even so, it's important to follow the references, because there are lots of cases in which the minority position is actually correct, and one never really knows until one puts in the work.

Stephen

NOGO

The gospel referred to in Gal 1:11 is the idea of bringing the faith to the Gentiles which Paul did not receive from any man since he tells us that it was derived from scriptures, thus through revelation.

S.C.Carlson

Somebody sent me a PDF of the relevant page from Schweitzer's The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (not The Mysticism of St. Paul). Here is the key paragraph:

Unfortunately, Schweitzer too did not supply any primary sources for the meaning of παραλαμβανω in the mysteries. This leaves us in the situation where Doherty accepts Schweitzer's authority for the meaning of the term in the mysteries, but not Schweitzer's judgment that Paul's use of it is very different from those of the mysteries. Without going to the primary source evidence, I just don't see how Doherty is entitled to assume that Schweitzer is nonetheless correct about the meaning of the terms just after he went about impeaching Schweitzer's competence on the latter point.

Perhaps we can presume that Schweitzer was familiar with the standard scholarship of his day, such as that reflected in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. TDNT's entry on παραλαμβανω addresses the primary source evidence as follows:

So, Schweitzer's compressed explanation is not clear about why scholars reject the mystery terminology of παραλαμβάνειν. Contrary to what Doherty argued, scholars reject it not because of any begging the question about Paul's background, but because of linguistic reasons: Paul's usage lacks the collocations with other mystery terminology, such as μυστήριον (mystery), precisely where such Hellenistic Mysteries influence should appear (if that influence existed to the extent that Doherty's case requires). In fact, the absence of such collocations means that it is begging the question to suppose that Paul must nonetheless have been influenced by mystery terminology for this term simply by being a Diaspora Jew.

I think this is a good example why it is not a good idea to refute a tertiary source of scholarship (here, Schweitzer's popularization) instead of addressing the primary source evidence and the relevant argumentation in the secondary, scholarly literature.

Stephen

P.S. Doherty should fix his web page to get the title of the book and the actual quotation precisely correct. Schweitzer used different forms of the Greek verbs as well as different capitalization than what Doherty quoted. Such inaccuracies (though beside the point here in terms of substance) do little to engender one's full confidence in Doherty's research.