NOGO

Layman,

How does the author know this?
Did the information above come from tradition or from the Bible?

Amaleq13

...I concede that it is possible that Paul obtained the list of resurrection appearances from human sources.

There has been no "backtracking" on my part. I have never stated anything more than this. You are the one who changed it into an admission that Paul obtained oral tradition from the Jerusalem Church. I have never in any of my posts made such a concession. At the very first, I suggested that, if this were to be accepted as "apostolic tradition", you were applying a different meaning that didn't include any connection to a living Jesus. In subsequent posts, I made it very clear that I was only willing to concede to you the possibility of human sources for the resurrection list. Despite these repeated attempts to clarify, you continue to falsely paraphrase my statements. This is disturbing behavior, even for you.

Excellent idea! I can think of no better way to demonstrate that your reading of Paul makes no sense.

"Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." (1Cor 15:1-5)

According to you, Paul is telling the Corinthians that he obtained his gospel from the Jerusalem Church. They taught him all of this in exactly the same way rabbis passed on oral traditions. They also showed him that Scripture predicted all the things they taught him. I think we can agree that the gospel Paul describes here is the fundamental message of what came to be called Christianity.

"For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:11-12)

Paul seems to be telling the Galatians a completely different story. Here, he explicitly denies that his gospel came from any man and just as explicitly asserts that it came by revelation from Jesus Christ. If we continue to accept your interpretation of the prior passage, this can only be a different gospel. Unfortunately, we have already seen that the gospel Paul described to the Corinthians is essentially a summary of the entire Christian message. That doesn't seem to leave anything else for Paul to have taught. Maybe Paul clears things up later in the letter.

"But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. " (Gal 1:15-19)

This doesn't help much except to confirm that Paul's revealed gospel cannot be anything he learned from the men in Jerusalem. He was preaching it for three years before he even talked to Cephas. He says he saw James but doesn't indicate any interaction.

"Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)--well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me." (Gal 2:1-6)

Fourteen years later Paul has a revelation that he has to take his gospel to the Jerusalem group to have them confirm it was fit for Gentile consumption. Once again, it makes no sense to suggest this is the same gospel he told the Corinthians the Jerusalem group taught him so we are really sure that this gospel isn't the same one. It doesn't teach that Christ died, was buried, and rose again after three days. It doesn't teach that Christ appeared to Cephas, then the twelve, etc. because that stuff did come from humans. But the Jerusalem group says the revealed gospel, whatever it was, is fine for Gentiles and send him on his way. Paul also tells us that they added nothing so this can't be where he learned the gospel he taught the Corinthians. In fact, Paul disregards their reputation as relevant so telling them he learned important information would seem contradictory.

Gosh, Layman, you're right. Your interpretation makes everything crystal clear and consistent. Paul taught entirely different gospels to the Galatians and the Corinthians. Only the Corinthians learned the real gospel because they got what Paul learned from the Jerusalem Church. The Galatians only learned the gospel Paul obtained as a revelation from Christ. It sure would be interesting to know what that one contained!

This is utter nonsense and the obvious flaw is the introduction of your interpretation of the source of Paul's teachings to the Corinthians. By introducing a source for the gospel that directly contradicts the source described in Galatians, you force the existence of two gospels. But two gospels make no sense given the rather comprehensive nature of the one described in the letter to the Corinthians.

Paul initially uses the word "received" similarly to how it is used in rabbinic language to refer to information passed on to others. That makes sense since he is describing his own teaching of his gospel to them. He then continues to use the word but gives no identification of the source. Rather than use what he explicitly states in Galatians with regard to the source of his gospel, you insist that Paul can only be using it in exactly the same way and only in reference to the Jerusalem Church. If that were true, there is no good reason for Paul to fail to identify the men of "high reputation" as that source. After all, he doesn't disparage their reputations in the letter to the Corinthians so it isn't like he would be contradicting himself in the same letter. But Paul doesn't identify who he "received" this gospel from and there is absolutely no good reason not to assume consistency in his depictions of the gospel and conclude that the unidentified source is the same just as the gospels are the same.

In summary, your interpretation requires two gospels with two source and one of them not containing any of the most fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Ironically, the one not containing that information is supposed to have come directly from Christ. "My" interpretation, OTOH, gives one source[/b] and one gospel.

What, exactly, is so "fanciful" about understanding the phrase to mean "learned from Scripture"? How is that a bizarre understanding of the meaning of the phrase "according to"?

Amaleq13

Jacob,


I had a "revelation" last night as I considered this thread. I would be interested in your views on the following understanding of Paul.


The gospel Paul describes in the letter to the Corinthians, as was shown in the previous post, obviously cannot be an "oral tradition" learned from the men at Jerusalem. Paul disparages their reputation and essentially denies they taught him anything. However, it cannot be denied that most scholars consider this to be information that Paul is repeating rather than creating. This is not because of his use of the "received" but because of the structure of the information. That structure appears to indicate it to be a kerygmatic formulation, a memorized catechism of proclaimed beliefs. The origin of this information can only have been the members of the Church of God that he claims to have been persecuting. Obviously, he had to know what they believed in order to find it worthy of condemnation. He knew, from what he had heard them proclaim, that they believed Scripture contained never before recognized prophecies that the Messiah would die, be buried, and be raised. He knew, from what he had heard them proclaim, that the Risen Christ appeared to several people. He knew what they believed but he did not believe it, himself.

Enter divine revelation. What was revealed to Paul was that the kerygma he had heard and found condemnable was actually true! Since Paul doesn't describe the his revelation, we can't say for certain whether this occurred while he was reading the passages of Scripture the Church of God members claimed held prophecies of the sacrificed/raised Messiah but, given Paul's background, that seems like a very reasonable scenario. I would imagine that their claims about Scripture bothered him far more than their claims that the Messiah had been killed, raised, and appeared to others. Those were his holy books they were sullying with heretical claims, after all.

I think Paul is differentiating between hearing what others believed (and condemned) and coming to believe it, himself. The claims were originally heard from members of the Church of God but the belief in those claims came directly from Christ. This revelation of the truth was so strong that he didn't think it necessary to contact the men in Jerusalem who first began preaching these beliefs until after he had been preaching for years. According to his letter to the Galatians, he didn't consider their reputation to be relevant at all. All they had "done" to acquire that reputation, after all, was proclaim the truth before him.

I look forward to your views on the above.

GakuseiDon

Amaleq, one thing I've noticed is that you seem to imply that the gospel is something similar to what we have today, for example, something like the Gospel of Mark.

In fact, the word "gospel" meant "good news" or "glad tidings". Jesus preached "the gospel of the kingdom" (Matt 4:23) - I don't think He was carrying around a book at the time!

Paul's "gospel" probably wasn't written down. It could have been nothing more that the fact of Jesus's crucifixion, burial and resurrection, plus anything else that impacted on its implications for salvation. It may have come to a handful of sentences. That was the "good news" he was carrying around.

Gal 2 is about the "gospel of circumcision". Paul submitted his "gospel" to the Jerusalem group because the issue of circumcision somehow impacted on how he was teaching to Gentiles. The group doesn't say that Paul's gospel is wrong, or incomplete, but suitable to be preached to the uncircumsized.

The "false gospel" and "any other gospel" comment that Paul uses in Gal 1:8 could be nothing more than "Gentile Christians must follow Jewish ways like circumcision", rather than that Jesus was a gnostic illusion, or something similar.

Amaleq13

I'm not sure how you obtained that implication from my posts but it is incorrect. That is not my understanding of what Paul means when he uses "gospel". When I refer to the stories attributed to Mark, etc., I differentiate by capitalizing the word. The Gospel stories are quite different from the gospel preached by Paul though there are obvious similarities.

This appears to be entirely consistent with my posts. I don't think it is likely at all that Paul was working with a gospel that was written down. The only modification to your second statement is that I might add "a belief in" prior to "the fact". Paul consistently states these as beliefs. They are "facts" because they are believed to be true. Where do you see me stating otherwise in this thread?

Paul says he submitted his gospel for the consideration of the Jerusalem group because he obtained a revelation telling him to do so. He goes on to claim that they approved of his teachings to the Gentiles and that this included the wonderful confirmation that they didn't have to be circumcized.

I agree and I don't understand where you got the impression from my posts above that I would disagree.

You seem to be arguing points made in a different thread. The "other" gospels and "false apostles" have not been part of this debate. You may very well be correct in your conclusion but I don't see how it is relevant to the topic under discussion here.

Toto

Just an interjection. Robert Price believes that 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is a later interpolation. The whole passage appears to be added between two verses that flow together, and adds a theme that is in contradiction to the rest of the letter.

Amaleq13

The idea of interpolation occurred to me as a way of resolving the apparent contradiction but I was only considering the resurrection list. This was primarily due to your book review combined with Koester (Ancient Christian Gospels, p6) who considers only 3-5 to be part of the "tradition" Paul is repeating. I don't see where he explains why 6 is considered the start of Paul's additions so I'm not sure why 5 shouldn't be included as well. I wasn't sure it could be explained adequately without appealing to interpolation but I wanted to give it a shot.

Price makes a good argument, I think. Thanks for the information.

GakuseiDon

Sorry, you are right, I meant "belief in it as true" rather than "something objectively true".

No, they approve of "Paul's gospel", they don't appear to say anything about his overall teachings.

Layman is arguing that there an "apostolic tradition" existed in the 1st C CE. Earlier, you said to Layman "... it appears to directly contradict your claim that he obtained any “apostolic tradition” from them while there. Paul has already made it very clear that his gospel did not come from any man but directly from the Risen Christ."

To me, you seem to be equating "Paul's gospel" with "Paul's teachings". Paul's gospel, that is, his central message of salvation, certainly came from Christ, and that is what the Jerusalem group "added nothing to". But this doesn't say anything about Paul's teachings. But you are right, it is a side issue, though one I think needed pointing out.

GakuseiDon

(duplicate post)

Amaleq13

Where does Paul suggest he is teaching anything besides "his central message of salvation"? Why would the teachings of a living Jesus not be considered part of this message?