spin

I'm not really interested that you're not really interested in engaging in a critique of said Gerhardsson. I'm interested in what evidence one can muster. If you want to drop pearls of opinion from said Gerhardsson, you're wasting your time. There is always someone ready to spew someone else's book out on the forum, whether good book or bad, then grandstand about those opinions, complaining that people don't even read the book. I don't give a proverbial tinker's cuss about your book, but perhaps the ideas in the book are worth presenting. However, in this forum it's the evidence you can muster, not the names you drop that is important.

I already have more books than you can imagine on my plate that I should read, books about history, but I often put them off to talk with people on this forum. I don't talk about the books I read, though I might use some of the evidence which they bring to my attention. It is always about evidence, not about writers.

If you think that the material that Gerhardsson presents has persuasive evidence and you care to present that evidence, why don't you do just that. Evidence must be dealt with. Names or book titles require no response.


spin

Amaleq13

That is my take on him as well. Once you accept these assumptions, the rest falls into place.

No Robots

Funny how you all seem to want to stick with metacriticism of Gerhardsson rather than actually consider his work. Where I did use him to make a substantial argument, nobody says boo. Huh.

spin

What you said in the linked post was:

As Gerhardsson points out (p.14), Paul quotes the Jesus tradition in only two places specifically to remind them of what he had previously taught them.

Your job is to cite the evidence. You are not doing your job.


spin

No Robots

I did provide citations for the relevant passages from Paul here. Here they are:

Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received--1Cor 15:1

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.--1Cor 11:23

In these passages Paul explicitly states that he has already delivered this material. Presumably he is repeating it here as a reminder. If the Corinthians did not need reminding in these matters, we would know even less about what Paul delivered to the congregation before writing to them.

Btw, the correct page number for this in Gerhardsson is 24, not 14 as I stated erroneously above. My eyes and PDF files do not a happy combination make.

spin

Thanks. That keeps proceedings transparent. The post you referred back to didn't make the current issue ("Paul quotes the Jesus tradition in only two places specifically to remind them of what he had previously taught them.") clear, but presenting the citations here gives the evidence for the claim.

Now what is it exactly that you claim that Paul received and passed on? You referred to the "Jesus tradition". Paul refers to "the gospel" and "that which I delivered to you", but which gospel and what that was preached? The latter was received from the lord, which apparently means that Paul was not dealing with a tradition on that occasion.


spin

No Robots

Well we only know for certain that Paul passed on the four items mentioned above.

Gerhardsson's basic position is that the actual sayings of Christ were carefully transmitted, and that in spite of subsequent editorializing the Gospels provide a reliable account of what he in fact said.

Not necessarily. "The idea is then that the Lord spoke these words to the disciples who were present on the occasion of the Last Supper, and that these men subsequently passed the tradition on." (Gerhardsson, p. 21)

spin

Forgive me if I'm not interested in Gerhardsson per se, but where would such an idea come from, if one could make the notion tangible with sources?

Paul clearly states that that he received the gospel "from the lord" (apo tou kuriou). That gives no room as I see it for an intervening tradition.


spin

Steven Carr

This is really very clear from Paul. It comes direct from the Lord.

Contrast that with just a few lines later in the letter where Paul makes clear what was handed on to him, in chapter 15.

No Robots

Gerhardsson's basic method is to situate the Gospels within the textual transmission practices of their time and place.

Here is what Gerhardsson says immediately before the quotation I provided earlier:

The wording is not Paul's but is traditional. The version quoted is the one which (in a later form) was also written down by Luke (22:19-20; cf. the parallels). If we scrutinize the apostle's line of thought, we note that he is here concerned to build upon the actual words of Jesus in the text, that the bread is "my body" and the cup is "the new covenant in my blood." This is undoubtedly why Paul says that he has received this from the Lord (apo tou Kyriou).