No Robots

Hey, I'm agreeing with you on this. As for the nature of the voices heard by Moses and the Apostles, I would suggest that it might be something along the lines of what Julian Jaynes describes.

Let's look a little further into the letter:

Neither went I to Jerusalem, to the apostles who were before me: but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus.
Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. Ga 1:17-18

It is evident that Paul knows of an authoritative collegium of apostles. While he asserts the independence of his revelation, he also acknowledges that he spent 15 days with Peter. They weren't discussing the shekel-dinarius exchange rate. I would argue that after a period of reflection upon his own revelation, Paul went to Jerusalem for instruction in the logia of the Lord.

Er, Gerhardsson (p.40) specifically states that Mark evidently knew Paul.

Charles Wilson

"What's true about the Gospels?"

1. They parallel the ascension of Titus as described in Josephus _War..._ (Found in Joe Atwill's book _Caesar's Messaiah__)

2. There is a hidden story of the Temple Slaughter by Archelaus in 4 BCE.

Charles

No Robots

Let's turn now to the reliability of the Gospels themselves. First, let's acknowledge at the outset that there is indeed much in the may of accretion, fabulation, elaboration and outright error in the Gospels as we have them. What then can we affirm about their reliability? This is a marvelous and intricate subject that scholars are only starting to explore. Here are some basic points to get us started:

1. Christ's role as teacher is frequently attested in the Gospels. As such, he imparts information.

2. Christ's teaching is frequently in the form of meshalim (def.), short, pithy formulations devoid of context. These point to their status as logia intended specifically for memorization.

3. There are clear chains of continuity in transmission attested to throughout the NT writings.

4. Narrative texts were added to provide context to the mashalim.

5. The most interesting and important changes were introduced to serve an explicatory function.

6. There are clear examples of Midrash (eg. the Temptation).

7. Comparison with the Talmud shows that careful transmission does not exclude editorial alterations.

8. Translation from Aramaic to Greek is a factor in accounting for alterations.

From the above list, it is evident that much fruitful work lies ahead in the field of antecedents to the NT Gospels.

yalla

You are not arguing with me.
You are arguing with Paul.

"for I did not receive it from man nor was I taught it"

Are you saying he is wrong?
Seems to me you are.

In Galatians 2 Paul says he went to Jerusalem, to check his gospel out with those "of repute"..."lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain".
But they [your authoritive collegium of apostles] "added nothing to me"
Note that.
They did not change Paul's gospel that he obtained from "revelation of the lord".
That source was equal [according to Paul] to whatever their source was.
Possibly the same source, ie revelation and scripture?

Paul does not indicate that they had any superior information to him.
In fact he rather snidely hints to the contrary:
''what they were makes no difference to me, god shows no partiality"
and
''who were reputed to be pillars"
"But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned."
Now this is, I presume, the same Cephas he saw on his first trip.
[By the way where did you get the name 'Peter" from in Gal.1.18? My RSV says 'Cephas"].
Paul does not acknowledge Cephas to be more authoritive than he.
He is able to say Cephas is wrong and gets the gospel wrong:
"But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel..."

To sum up.
Paul claims that his gospel is equal to and even more truthful than that of others.
He got this gospel from revelation.
He did not get it from man.

There is no place for a received oral tradition a la gospels version here.
cheers
yalla

GakuseiDon

To build a more complete list:

1. The Gospels parallel Titus's story in Josephus:
2. GMark parallels the literary structure found in Homer.
3. The Gospels parallel pagan stories and myths
4. The Gospels parallel passages from the OT

Truly proof of the Gospels' inspirational origin! The Gospels' author (Eusebius) was a genius.

No Robots

Take a look at this:

For our gospel hath not been unto you in word only, but in power also, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much fulness, as you know what manner of men we have been among you for your sakes. 1Thess 1:5

We see here that, for Paul, the Gospel is made known in a variety of ways, only one of which is by words. I would again contend that Paul considers himself to have received the Gospel by revelation; and that, to him, the logia that he received from the other apostles are complements to that revelation. How else would Paul have ever learned of the logia except via the other Apostles? Surely you don't think that he received all the logia by vision? And how to account for the fact that he claims that there is no discrepancy between his Gospel and that of the other Apostles? Surely this is not accounted for by revelation? No, it is clear that Paul means by Gospel the essential truth about Christ, to which the traditions contribute but which they do not wholly encompass.


Furthermore, consider this:

When I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. 1Co 9:18.

We see further evidence here that, for Paul, the Gospel is plastic and susceptible to editorial alteration. This lends further support to my claim that when he says that he received the Gospel from the Lord, he does not mean that it is not susceptible to change according to other factors and considerations.

So to conclude, it is clear that in the text regarding the Last Supper, Paul is both quoting the tradition and adding editorial alterations; and it is for the latter reason that he insists that he has received it from the Lord.

GakuseiDon

Wasn't Paul's gospel that Christ's crucifixion had significance to the Gentiles as well as the Jews? This was something that really did come through a revelation of Jesus Christ, and something he wasn't in any hurry to confirm with the apostles before him, it seems.

If so, then the question of what Paul learned through tradition is separate. Paul obviously had to have known something about early Christians if he were persecuting them. I think we can rule out that that early knowledge came via a revelation of Jesus Christ.

yalla

No Robots quote:
"the logia that he received from the other apostles are complements to that revelation."

You did not get this from the text.
Paul says he received nothing from anyone , including these apostles of low [according to him] repute.
Is he lying?
Please answer.

NR again:
"Surely you don't think that he received all the logia by vision?'

That is what Paul claims.
Is he mistaken?
Note that he claims to have had several detailed intimate conversations with Jesus.
2Cor.12.8
'Three times I besought the lord about this...but he said to me......

And who knows what was told to him when he:
"was caught up to third heaven....and he [ie Paul himself] heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter". 2Cor 12.2ff

And please note that he clearly states in 1Cor11.23 that the lord told him all about the eucharist.
'For I received from the lord.....'
Note: no mention of where, when, with whom.
No Jerusalem, no beloved disciple, no Passover meal, no Pete and the boys, no betrayal by a fella called Judas.
None of the alleged oral tradition details that surface in the writings of an anonymous author decades later.
As Hyam Macoby puts it:
"We must accept then that Paul is saying here that he knows about JC's words at the last supper by direct revelation not by any information received from the Jerusalem apostles...."
Mythmaker p113
Macoby goes on to suggest that Paul invented the eucharist himself.

And while we are at it, why does the RSV have "...what I also delivered [paradidomi] to you.....on the night he was betrayed [paradidomi]..."? 12.23
Why is the same word given different meanings?
Is it "orthodox corruption of scripture'' to conform to the alleged tradition, from decades later, that Judas betrayed JC?
I see that the Robert Young literal translation does not use 'betrayed' there but repeats 'delivered up'.
Without that word translated as betrayed, there would be no hint of any of the alleged oral tradition stuff that rears its head decades after Paul.

Is that related to your use of the word "Peter" in Gal.1.18, when my text has Cephas?

Look NR, you and Don seem to want there to be an independent line of oral tradition informing Paul about JC.
You have claimed it is there.
But it isn't.
You keep using gospels concepts in works that predate them by decades.
Don talks about christians but such are not mentioned anywhere in Paul.
Oh sure there is some bodies Paul claims he persecuted in areas other than Judea, but who they were and what they believed we don't really know.
So we can't really call them christians can we?

cheers yalla

lpetrich

I'm getting confused. Where are we now?

But that aside, I recall Asimov's Guide to the Bible, where Isaac Asimov seemed to think that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) portrayed the historical Jesus Christ, though with various miraculous and otherwise-implausible additions. He did not consider the Gospel of John to be good history, but more like one of Plato's Dialogues, a fictional composition for explaining various theological points.

IA may have been relaying a common belief, however.

So let us split up the problem a bit.

If there was a historical Jesus Christ, how much do the various Gospels tell about him? What's the historicity of:

Mark
Q (reconstructed from Matthew and Luke)
Additional material in Matthew and Luke
John
?

GakuseiDon

I called them "early Christians". I can't see why you object to the term. Paul refers to "churches of Judea which were in Christ":

Gal 1:
13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it...

21 Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. 23 But they were hearing only, "He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy."


True, we don't know what they believed. Maybe they believed in a Christ crucified in a mythical realm. But I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that Paul had some knowledge of Christ and the beliefs of his followers at the time he converted to Christianity.