Layman

In Chapter 4 of his book, Doherty argues that the idea of an 'apostolic tradition' did not develop until the second century. As described by Doherty, the apostolic tradition was deemed to be "a reliable conduit to those original witnesses" that provided a "supposedly unbroken chain of teaching and authority extending from the earliest apostles of the church." Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle, at 43. Also according to Doherty, early Christians had no such concept.

Id.

Doherty goes on to discuss three examples of early Christian writings to show that there was no apostolic tradition. Several early Christian writings, however, do show the--at the very least--"barest concept of a teaching passed between generations." In fact, they show more than that. Indeed, even the examples Doherty cites shows that early Christians were concerned with established doctrine received from their forerunners in the faith.

Doherty's Examples

First, Doherty cites to Chapter 11 of the Didache and argues it "contains instructions to the community on how to judge the legitimacy of wandering apostles, both in their teaching and their charismatic activity. Yet no part of this judgment is based upon the principle of apostolic tradition; there is no question of tracing authority or correctness back to Jesus or even to earlier apostles." Here is the relevant passage.

There is nothing in Chapter 11 about using direct revelation to test each apostle or prophecy. Rather, apostles are to be tested by something that sounds more like the apostolic tradition. An apostle's teaching must be tested by comparing it to "the things that have been said before" and "the decree of the Gospel." Far from testing each apostle's message by "direct revelation," the Didache instructs Christians to test them by comparing it to established tradition.

Second, Doherty cites Hebrews 13:7 ("Remember your leaders, those who first spoke God's message to you."). He argues that "not only are those leaders not located in a line going back to the earliest apostles, the message is not from Jesus, but from God."

As usual, Doherty assumes too much. These leaders might very well go back to the earliest apostles. He simply have too little information to know. However, elsewhere, the author of Hebrews gives a strong attestation to the existence of a form of the "apostolic tradition."

Hebrews 2:2-4.

Here, the author refers to those who first heard the Lord during, apparently, a ministry that was confirmed by signs and wonders--fitting aptly the Gospel traditions about Jesus.

Furthermore, Doherty's attempt to distinguish a message "from Jesus" and a message "from God" fails. Jesus is God. Or, at the very least, God's agent. Probably both. See Tertullian, 3.261 (197 CE) ("The church has handed this down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God...."). This is perhaps even more explicit in Hebrews than elsewhere. Heb. 1:8-9 ("But of the Son He says, "Your Throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions.).'' See also Hebrews 1:2, 4, 10.

Third, Doherty cites 1 John 4:1 and argues that "What is the test which determines whether a Christian apostle is speaking truth? This epistle was probably written in the last decade of the first century.... Instead, as in Paul, true doctrine comes directly through revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, though some 'spirits' are false and come from the devil." His citation is self-servingly selective.

John 4:1-3

Nothing is said about testing the spirit by another revelation from God. Here, we see that prophets are to be tested not by another revelation by a church member, but by whether they ascribe to a specific teaching already established in the community--"that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God."

NonPauline Early Christian Tradition

Furthermore, Doherty ignores several obvious examples that directly contradict his point.

First, there is Papias, writing in 110 or 130 CE.

Papias, 1.153.

From Papias' writing we learn that by the early second century, Christians were already relying on "books" that passed along traditions about Jesus. Even so, Papias also found it valuable to learn about Jesus by seeking out those familiar with the apostolic tradition as a first hand account.

Second, there is the Preamble to the Gospel of Luke.

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word."
Luke 1:1-2.

Luke places the very foundation of his own Gospel on what had been "handed down" by "eyewitnesses." Clearly a reference to a form of the apostolic tradition.

Third, as mentioned above, the Didache Chapter 11, dated from the end of the first century or beginning of the second.

The measure of a teacher's teaching was not divine revelation, but established tradition. The measure of true teaching is"the things that have been said before" and "the decree of the Gospel."

Fourth, Hebrews 2:2-4, which Doherty and I date to before 70 CE.

The author's audience received their tradition from those who had heard it from the Lord. Moreover, this is placed in a specific time frame, not an ongoing series of revelations from God.

The Pauline Evidence

In addition to the above references is the evidence of the Pauline corpus. Doherty discusses the Pauline evidence in the section following the one on "Apostolic Tradition." In this section, I rebut Doherty's argument that Paul's references to having "received" and "passed on" tradition to his churches are speaking solely of a heavenly revelation to Paul. In reality, Paul passed on what he had learned from earlier Christians--most likely from the Jerusalem Church.

Doherty begins by discussing what all agree is Paul's reception of a revelation from God.

Gal. 1:8-12

Doherty ignores the first part of the passage, which discusses how the Galatians were not to rely on revelations at all ("angel from heaven") but instead should test teaching by the tradition already established in the church. This is the opposite of what Doherty seems to think was the practice among the early Christians. Moreover, Doherty mistakenly assumes that every time Paul uses the term "received" he can only be referring to a divine revelation directly from God. That is not the case, as we can see in Doherty's next example.

1 Cor. 15:1-5.

According to Doherty, Paul did not receive this as an oral transmission from any Christian predecessor, but it was a divine revelation from God. There are two main problems with this.

First, even though Paul claims that he had a direct revelation from God, he also concedes that he laid his preaching before Peter, James, and John--and they approved of it. The Gospel Paul was preaching was the same as they were preaching. And, it was the same that was being preached prior to Paul's conversion. That the Gospel Paul is referring to is the same one that was taught by the apostles is made clear in the same chapter (though Doherty ignores this passage):

1Co 15:10-11

Paul could not be more clear that the Gospel to which he "received" and "passed on" to his churches--that Jesus Christ was dead, buried, and rose again bodily from the grave--was the same one that was preached by the other apostles. In other words, it is no innovation of Paul, but established apostolic tradition.

So while Paul claimed a revelation from God, he also admitted that he was passing along the pre-existing church traditions. Dr. Thompson explains Paul's use of tradition as follows:

M.B. Thompson, Tradition, in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, at 944. As Paul himself wrote to his recent converts:

Gal 1:22-23

Paul also wrote about how he submitted the gospel he was preaching to the apostles in Jerusalem. He is quite clear, it was the same gospel they had been preaching. The result of his submission was the approval by the apostles.

Gal 2:2

Here Paul concedes that he "submitted" his preaching to the apostles in Jerusalem for their approval (that it might not be "in vain"). The result was positive, as the next passage shows.

Gal 2:5-9.

Here Paul records how his preaching was accepted by the apostles in Jerusalem ("gave to me ... the right hand of fellowship"). But, even more importantly perhaps, Paul acknowledges that his gospel was "just as" Peter's. The only difference was to whom the message was being given. For Paul, to the Gentiles. For Peter, to the Jews. The message was the same. As recorded in 1 Corinthians, Jesus Christ risen from the dead.

Second, in 1 Cor. 11:23-25 and 15:1-5 Paul speaks of "receiving" and "delivering." This two step formula has a well established meaning in Judaism for the passing on of oral tradition. According to a leading Jewish scholar, "[h]e also discloses that the doctrines of Christianity were received and passed on--likely to be Greek translations of the two technical terms for the transmission of oral tradition within Pharisaism: kibel and masar." Alan Segal, Paul the Convert, at 27. See also Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, at 229 ("'Receive' and 'pass on' ... reflect standard terminology for the transmission of oral tradition").

Although several leading scholars have recognized the significance of the two terms used here, it's usage in 1 Cor. 11 has raised some questions:

1 Cor. 11:23-25

Although Paul uses the "received" and "delivered" language, he also says it was "received from the Lord." So, it is diving revelation or a preexisting tradition? C.K. Barrett clearly frames the issue:

C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, at 265.

On of the leading Pauline scholars concludes that Paul is still referring to established tradition, though one traced back directly to the Lord.

"By attributing the tradition directly to the Lord ('I received from the Lord'), Paul himself raises the question of whether he thought of it as a personal revelation from the Lord. But the fact that he feels no need to defend it as such (contrast Gal. 1.12) and uses the traditional terminology for receiving and passing on of tradition (as in 1 Cor. 15:1, 3) points firmly to the conclusion that 11.23-26 was part of the traditions also mentioned in 11.2." James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, at 606 n. 37. According to F.F. Bruce, "Since it related what 'the Lord Jesus' did and said, it was a tradition ultimately 'received from the Lord' and accordingly delivered by Paul to his converts." Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, at 100.

Further supporting a reading that Paul was passing an existing tradition is that the Lord' Supper account is represented by two different traditions. The existence of two traditions shows that an origin with Paul is very unlikely. "[T]here were clearly two slightly (but significantly) different versions of the form of and wording used at the last supper among the churches. One we may call the Mark/Matthew version; the other was common to Paul and Luke. It should be fairly evident ... that neither can be completely derived from the other. The most obvious explanation of their otherwise striking closeness is that they come from a common source or tradition.... There need be little doubt, then, that Paul did indeed derive his founding tradition of the last supper from common tradition, and nothing that Paul says in 11.23-26 counts against the view that the tradition itself stemmed ultimately from the event now known as the last supper itself." James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, at 607-08. For a breakdown of the similarities and differences between the two accounts is demonstrated here:
http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/easter/6Cena4.html

Finally, Paul elsewhere relies on established Church creeds, liturgies, and psalms. Such creeds can be detected by established indicators, such as the four-time repeat of "that' in 1 Cor. 15:3-5, or "received and passed on" as in 1 Cor. 11 and 15, and the atypical vocabulary of well-attested passages, the use of theological approaches otherwise uncommon--such as the suffering servant motif, and the use of rhetorical forms and structures. R.P. Martin, "Creed," in Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, at 191. According to Thompson, "Paul inherited a number of specifically Christian traditions, such as liturgical acclamation and confessions (1 Cor. 12:3; Phil 2:11; Rom. 10:8-9), creedal formulations (1 Cor. 15:3-5; Rom. 1:3-4; 3:24-26; 4:24-25?; 1 Thess. 1:9-10?; 2 Tim. 2:8; cf. Rom. 6:17) and hymns (Phil. 2:6-11; Eph. 5:14; Col. 1:15-20?). Paul's moral teaching or paraenesis (as found in, e.g., Rom. 12:1-15:13; Gal. 5:1-6:10; 1 Thess. 4:1-5:22; Col. 3:1-4:6) contains traditions from several sources, including Cynic and Stoic moralists, Jewish halakah, and dominicial teachings, but most likely also reflects early Christian catechetical material. The authority of the Spirit within himself and other Christians (1 Cor. 2:13-13; 14:31, 37) offered yet another source of traditions. Prophecies were tested, apparently by their coherence with fundamental traditions received from Jesus, the OT and the prior witness of the Spirit in the Christian community (1 Thess. 5:20-21; 1 Cor. 14:29)." Thompson, at 944.

In sum, the idea that Paul did not make the transmission of oral tradition a part of his ministry is contradicted in many ways. "Paul's letters show us that the apostle valued and used traditions, including those he inherited from the OT, from the sayings of Jesus, and from the creeds, hymns and catechisms of early Christian communities. For Paul, the Spirit did not supplant traditions, but supplemented their application, guided their production, and spoke through their use." M.B. Thompson, Tradition, in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, at 943. Paul concedes that the gospel he preached--specifically Jesus' being killed, buried, and resurrected as a path to salvation--was the same one that the Church persecuted while he was not a Christian, and the same one that Peter preached to the Gentiles, that he layed it before the apostles and obtained their approval of it. Paul even uses typical pharisiac phraseology to refer to the oral transmission of the narrative of Jesus' death, resurrection, and appearances, as well as the Last Supper. And, throughout Paul's letters he uses preexisting church traditions and creeds not of his own invention.

Vorkosigan

Excellent topic and article. Much obliged to the effort you put into this.

But the Didache clearly defines what a prophet is in 11:7-8. Prophets are those who "speak in spirit." They clearly do not handle a set of texts and pass on those texts and a message distilled from them, nor do they pass on an oral tradition. You italicized the Gospel, but that is not an argument against Doherty, because for Doherty the Gospel is the good news of a Jesus constructed in the OT.

Further, in Didache 11:11 there is a clear indication of where the continuity lies. It does not lie with a modern prophetic/apostolic tradition:

• And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets

...the ancient prophets. The natural thing to do, if this is really from a Jesus tradition, is to point to what Jesus and the other apostles did. But nothing about that is mentioned.....

This comment is simply too vague: all these things that have been said before to support any case either way. Considering that later you argue "These leaders might very well go back to the earliest apostles. He simply have too little information to know." about Doherty, it seems that you should be adopting as a principle that where passages are vague, they provide no support to anyone.

Consider this line

• working unto the mystery of the Church in the world

which Milavec, cited in Crossan tBoC, translated as

• the cosmic mystery of the Church

That would be a broad clue as to where this information comes from.

But there is another translation of this line in a coptic text from the third century, Egypt, which seems to support your case better, Layman. It has replaced "cosmic mystery" with

• But every true prophet, having been approved, having taught and testified to an orderly tradition in the Church, those among you should not judge him

Crossan rejects this, because it does not make sense with the following words. But Stephen Patterson believes this version is earlier. I tend to agree with Crossan here.

In any case, it is not settled whether the Didache is independent of the Synoptics or not. Tuckett argued it is post-Synoptic because it contains redactional material. According to Crossan, Audet argued in '58 that the passages under discussion here are post-Matthean --11:3-13.2. It seems that there is widespread disagreement on the Didache, it is apparently very old in some places, and post-Canonical in others, but people see it differently. I cannot see how a redacted document like Didache (no one thinks it completely independent) can support your case. To the extent that Doherty can locate any support in it, it is evidence for his case. Koester (ACG) notes that the Didache is a compilation of several documents, redacted, and that many locate it in the later second century. Fundamentally, the problem of dating and sourcing the damn thing overwhelms other issues. <sigh> I think first you would have to show that Chap 11 is from an early source and has not been significantly reworked.

• Heb 2:2-4For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.

This cite is also ambiguous yet seen in context, it supports Doherty's case. The phrase "through the Lord" suggest the Lord as spirit medium rather than living person. Note that the message was confirmed by those who heard -- in other words, by those who also got it direct from the Spirit Jesus. Alternatively, they also got it direct from the living Jesus. Problem with that, though, is that there is no appeal to a particular place or time -- those who heard the Lord on the Mountain, or at the Last Supper -- or a similar tradition, or to other people (Peter, James, Nathaniel). They simply heard the word. It is this pattern of non-appeal to concrete tradition that pervades these documents. Instead people hear the message of salvation and pass it on.

John 4:1-3

LOL. It is pointless to deny that this text teaches Jesus came in the flesh -- but as we shall see, that is not relevant to Doherty's case. But note the emphasis on spirit communication. This document, generally dated, as you say, to the last decade of the first century, is not early enough to threaten Doherty. Note further that this cite does not support your case, however. This is because although it maintains Jesus came in the flesh, it says nothing about a tradition of teachings going back to the Apostles. Instead, it supports Doherty by saying that teachers get their instructions from spirits and simply offers a way to know which instruction is real and which is not. In other words, the teachers know that Jesus came in the flesh because the spirits tell them.Finally, it demonstrates that there is an extant tradition that contradicts the view that Jesus came in the flesh, magnificently confirming Doherty's case. This passage is devastating to your argument, Layman.

This does not contradict Doherty, who views the apostolic tradition as second century invention. Here we see the invention at work -- in the second century.

Writing in the second century, Luke invents a tradition handed down to provide authenticity for Acts and the GosLuke. Nothing inconsistent with Doherty here.

Gal. 1:8-12

But Layman, that cite in Galatians does not support your case either. Doherty sees the Gospel as the good news of Jesus derived from the OT.

• As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Nowhere in there is any clear definition of a tradition, for Paul does not say in those two lines where he received this gospel. But at the end of the passage, clearly linking to those two lines above, he states:

• 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.

In other words the gospel is from direct revelation from Jesus. The Spirit Jesus told him. It's clear in the text....

To 1 Corinthians....

First, I believe this whole passage is an interpolation. It contains a fairy-tale device (the reference to those not yet sleeping who saw), many un-Paulisms, an anachronism (how did Jesus appear to the 12 when Judas had suicided and there were only 11), errors (nowhere in scripture is there a third day reference), large number confirmation (500 of the brethren) and name dropping (Cephas, James) are all sure signs of a later fabrication.

But that aside, I think Paul is simply lying when he claims that James and Peter approved. You quote: "Paul insisted that he received his gospel and other revelations from God (Gal. 1:11-12, 15-17; 2:2; 2 Cor. 12:1-7), but the content of his faith did not differ essentially from the faith of those who were Christians before him" but we know that this was not the case, for Paul and the Jerusalem center had serious conflicts. They had different ideas about Jesus and the Gentiles.

It seems impossible that Paul could have had a conflict with anyone who had actually met Jesus. I mean, all Peter and James had to say was "Yes, but this is what Jesus said, Paul, so whatever your visions are, they don't mean a thing to us." But Paul does not refer to them deriving authority from having Been There At The Beginning. Indeed, Jesus is conspicuous by his absence here.

You claim Paul says that his Gospel is "just as" Peter's, but that is not what the passage says.

• But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised

Clearly, Paul indicates that his being entrusted is the same as Peter's being entrusted. Paul is referring to their respective spheres of action, not to their gospel message.

You then move on to 1 Cor 11, but this will not support your case at all. Paul says clearly that he did not get this from any person. For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you. There's no question where that tradition comes from, no matter what rhetorical handstands Barrett might engage in to turn it into a later tradition. Paul is blunt: he got it from the Lord.

You conclude with your strongest argument, the existence of a body of extant tradition cited by Paul.

• According to Thompson, "Paul inherited a number of specifically Christian traditions, such as liturgical acclamation and confessions (1 Cor. 12:3; Phil 2:11; Rom. 10:8-9), creedal formulations (1 Cor. 15:3-5; Rom. 1:3-4; 3:24-26; 4:24-25?; 1 Thess. 1:9-10?; 2 Tim. 2:8; cf. Rom. 6:17) and hymns (Phil. 2:6-11; Eph. 5:14; Col. 1:15-20?). Paul's moral teaching or paraenesis (as found in, e.g., Rom. 12:1-15:13; Gal. 5:1-6:10; 1 Thess. 4:1-5:22; Col. 3:1-4:6) contains traditions from several sources, including Cynic and Stoic moralists, Jewish halakah, and dominicial teachings, but most likely also reflects early Christian catechetical material.

The author's rhetorical stance is quite interesting. The author affirms that the "tradition" turns out to be a body of generally known wisdom --Cynic, Jewish, and Stoic in nature. He claims that it "most likely" reflects early Christian catechetical material, but provides no support (at least here). It is curious that he cites 1 Cor 12:3, for example, "wherefore, I give you to understand that no one, in the Spirit of God speaking, saith Jesus [is] anathema, and no one is able to say Jesus [is] Lord, except in the Holy Spirit" which affirms, once again the abiding role of the Spirit as the authenticator of information. More importantly, the argument that this creedal and not merely Pauline is an unsupported and probably circular claim. It is simply a strong affirmation from Paul of the primacy of Jesus and the role of the Spirit. Simply another in a long line of NT scholar claims without argument or evidence....

Similarly Phil 2:11 is a short sentence, much too short to be confidently ascribed to a creed.

Rom 10:8-9
But what doth it say? `Nigh thee is the saying -- in thy mouth, and in thy heart:' that is, the saying of the faith, that we preach;
9 that if thou mayest confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and mayest believe in thy heart that God did raise him out of the dead, thou shalt be saved,

This is described as something "we preach" but it does not attest to any tradition going back to the HJ or to the apostles, it is simply a formulation of salvific principle currently present in Paul's church. Nowhere is it said that this goes back to any tradition. It looks like these "creedal formulas" are simply lots of wishful thinking and empty claims. It might be interesting to see how these creeds are detected, though.

Once again, thanks for your patience and scholarship.

Vorkosigan

Layman

The dispute has nothing to do with the existence of Prophets. They are, of course, undisputed. Even today Charismatic and Pentacostal churches have their prophets. But there is no evidence that these Prophets contributed to the traditions that became the Gospel narratives. Indeed, Paul puts them in a much more limited role: 1 Cor. 14:3: "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Doherty's argument is not that there existed Prophets, but that the teachers and prophets were to be judged by divine revelation rather than by established tradition. Here, the Didache could not be more clear. The standard of true teaching is not a testing by another revelation, but by "the things that have been said before." This is tradition, not revelation.

I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. The Didache is saying that hypocritical prophets should be rejected just as they were rejected in the Old Testament. This has nothing to do with the content of their teaching. Nor does it indicate that Old Testament exegis was the key to evaluating prophets.

Both statements are more compatible with my theory than with Doherty's. They speak of tradition, not of testing by divine revelation. The picture is one of communities carrying on traditions they have received from forerunners. Traditions that are superior even to the words of Prophets of God or even the OT exegis of Teachers in the churches.

I was taking Doherty's dating on its face. However, if it is a later document, redacted from the gospels, it does hurt his case very much. Fatal even. It shows how easily those Christians who were aware of the gospel narratives could speak of Jesus in ways Doherty insists is inconsistent with a belief in a Jesus from the gospels. In other words, Doherty's exegis is worthless.

Actually, nothing about the the terms actually used support Doherty's theory. I've already shown how faulty is Doherty's approach to Hebrews. Hebrews speaks of a historical Jesus who will come a second time, not of a spiritual medium.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=47767

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=45180

So, clearly, the context does not compel a mythic reference here. Just the opposite.

Also important is it's connection to Hebrews 1:1-2:

"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world."

Jesus' role as God's spokesperson is compared to the flesh and blood prophets of the Jewish forefathers "long ago." Hebrews uses the same terms to describe the actions of the prophets "long ago" and Jesus "in these last days." There is a definite parallel being drawn between God speaking through his earthly prophets and God speaking through his earthly Son. "Each of the main phrases in the first verse (of old, to our fathers, by the prophets) is matched by a corresponding, and to some extent contrasting phrase in the second (in these last days, to us, by a Son)." R. McL. Wilson, The New Century Bible Commentary, Hebrews, at 30. This is far from platonic. "Whatever uses will be made of the 'Platonic' category of ideas later in the letter, we must see with complete clarity that here in the opening statement the relationship between the two forms of revelation--the imperfect and perfect--is given not as between an imperfect human or earthly form and a spiritual and heavenly form, but as earlier and later forms. The disclosure of the Word of God takes its shape as a history, a history which has a past and a present (and, indeed, a future)." Graham Hughes, Hebrews and Hermeneutics, at 36.

The term for "hear" is "akouo". The most common definition of "akou" is "to perceive by the ear what is announced in one's presence" or to "get by hearing, learn (from the mouth of the teacher or narrator)." Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, at 23. This is how it is used elsewhere in Hebrews (Heb 2:1--"For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it."). In fact, it is remarkably similar to the early Kerygma preserved in Acts:

Acts 2:22-23: "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death."

The term for "through" is from a common Greek term. While it is fairly general in its meaning, Luke uses it in the above passage to describe God working "through" a physical Jesus.

Far from being devastating, 1 John 4:1-3 shows that supposed revelation must bow to established tradition. It shows that the church was not Prophecy run amok, but "tested" each supposed prophecy by comparison with an established tradition.
James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, at 190-91.

Papias can hardly be dismissed so easily. There is no indication of "invention at work." Far from it. Papias is quite clear that by the time he wrote there were "books" which attested to the teachings of Jesus. Moreover, it is highly doubtful that these books were hot off the presses. By the time Papias wrote they appear to have become the established why by which Christians knew of the historical Jesus. Papias himself was not completely satisfied with those books. ("I concluded that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."). So he sought out those who were disciples of Jesus' disciples. ("If, then, anyone who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings. I asked what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, or any other of the Lord's disciples--things which Aristion and presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say."). Nor does Papias indicate that this was only a recent practice of his. It appears to be a longstanding one. Accordingly, there already exists in Papias' time books purporting to represent an apostolic tradition and Christians claiming to have known Jesus' disciples and repeating an apostolic tradition.

Luke was not written in the second century. Such a dating is impossible because it Luke is ignorant of Paul's letters, ignorant even of the fact that Paul was known as a letter writer, and ignorant even of the Gospel of Matthew. All of which were widely established early in the first century. Moreover, as Kirby recently explained, Luke/Acts was written by an associate of Paul. No such person could have lived into the second century. Furthermore, despite writing at length about Roman jurisprudence and history, Luke is uncommonly devoid of the anachronisms we would expect from a second century author. See A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Law and Society in the New Testament, at 182-85 (for example--after explaining the well-attested second century legal doctrine of "communis patria Roma," noting that "[t]here is no trace of this in the Acts, very much the reverse. Rightly. It should not be there.").


I'm quite aware of what Doherty thinks. And he is quite explicit above that he believes that the "gospel" was derived by direct revelations from God. Paul, on the other hand, is quite clear that the Gospel is not at the whim of new revelations. Rather, it is to be measured by the traditions that were already handed down by the apostles. Tradition is superior to revelation.

Of course there is a tradition. One that is not to be altered by any direct revelations (even by angels). And Paul is quite clear that the tradition is not just his own, but that of all the apostles. You cannot ignore the entire text to claim something is "clear in the text." What is 'clear in the text' is that the Jesus Paul was preaching was already taught in the church prior to his conversion. As Paul states:

Gal 1:22-23

Clearly, whatever Paul meant by this revelation, he did not mean to suggest that his gospel message was any different than the other apostles. He argues that it was the same message, but granted with divine authority. Indeed, Paul himself and his revelation was not immune to this suspicion in the early church.

What do you mean by "whole passage"? All of 1 Cor. 15? Verses 3-5? Verses 3-11? Which part? Even Robert Price concedes that 1 Cor. 15:1-2, 12-54 are authentic Pauline. Are you more radical than he? And if so why?

Actually, this is consistent with a person trying to make his case at the time he is making it. Your exegis is arbitrary.

Since this is either an interpolation or a preexisting tradition, this argument is useless. Indeed, it may lean towards being a preexisting tradition. An interpolator may try and mimic the style of the original (though usually unsuccesfully), but a preexisting tradition is very likely to have language distinct from the original.

Even Robert Price knew better than to try this one: "though stylistic and linguistic difference, often a sign of interpolation, appear in the text, they are not pivotal for my argument, since they could just as easily denote pre-Pauline tradition over by the apostle."

Actually, as Kirby recently noted, this points very strongly towards the text being original. What we have here is not an anachronism, but the avoidance of one. An interpolator writing in the second century would have taken note of the gospel narratives as you have and likely attempted to mimic them--referring to the Eleven or making a note on the absence of Judah.

Another red herring. Hosea 6:2: "After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight."

It seems the early church would have just as much motive to tell of many witnesses as the later church. In any event, this reference is easily severable.

This argument is circular. Of course an early tradition about Jesus' appearances would list the names of some of those recipients. That the prominent among them would be the prominent among the early Church is hardly surprising.

Accordingly, you have presented no good reason to suspect this is an interpolation. Indeed, you have inadvertantly given strong evidence that it is not. Additional reasons to reject this distinctly minority viewpoint are: 1) a later gentile Greek Christian would be unlikely to use Pharsiac technical language to denote the oral transmission of a tradition, 2) the textual evidence is unanimous, and 3) the patristic evidence gives no hint of any controversy over this passge. Even Marcion had vs. 3-11, and would have every reason to have leave it out--had he any possible reason to do so. That he did not shows how strongly the attestation and tradition was regarding this passage.

You have no evidence or rationale for such a conclusion. Paul is a first hand witness. No other sources tell us otherwise. Nor is there any evidence that Paul is hiding this. Remember, Peter's trip to Antioch appears to have been well known. As was their disagreement. Moreover, Paul is actually stressing his independence from the other apostles here. The last thing he would want to do is invent such an episode. In any event, even if Paul was lying, the fact that he felt compelled to do so shows that it was standard practice in the church for even direct revelations to have that message submitted for approval.

This is all very generic Vork. You fail to provide any evidence to back up one of your crucial points. What are those different ideas about Jesus? Once again, Task Force 34. The world wonders. In reality, there seems that there may have been, at one point, one source of disagreement between Paul and the other Apostles: how to include the Gentiles in the Christian community. This has nothing to do with the nature of Christ. And by all our evidence, it appears to have been resolved mostly in Paul's favor.

It might be impossible if the dispute was about something that Jesus said or did during his ministry. But there is no evidence that such was the source of their disagreement. Far from it. The disagreement--when and to the extent it existed--seemed to be about incorporating Gentiles into the Way--how were Jews and Gentiles to get along and what rules would govern them. This, according even to the Gospels, was not something Jesus had made clear.

In any event, the nature of the only recorded "disagreement" actually confirms Paul's account of having reached an agreement with the other Apostles. His clash with Peter in Galatians was so painful because of Peter's hypocrisy. Paul is clear that Peter originally agreed with him and had actually entered into table fellowship with the Gentiles at first. Only later did Peter withdraw from that fellowship.

On the contrary, Paul could not be more clear that both are teaching "the gospel." What are the entrusted with? "The gospel." The "just as" is a reference to being entrusted with the Gospel, not the spheres. The spheres are different (and, therefore, cannot be "just as"). The gospel is the same.

Besides, as mentioned above, you ignored another very clear attestation by Paul himself indicating that he is preaching the same thing as the other apostles:

Gal 1:22-23

Paul preached the same Gospel as Peter and the rest of the Church prior to his Damascus Road experience. He tell us so again and again. Whatever form or content his revelation possessed, it did not give him a different gospel, merely a different source of authority.

There are no rhetorical handstands in Barrett or Dunn's analysis. It is by far the majority opinion of New Testament scholars. But you are right in a sense. There is no dispute where the tradition came from. It came from the Lord. Jesus himself established it as a sacrament. But after being established by the Lord it was transmitted by oral tradition. This is why Paul uses the traditional formula for handing on an oral tradition ("received" and "delivered"). This accounts for the existence of two distinct traditions of the Lord's Supper (Luke/Paul vs. Mark/Matthew). The conclusion that Paul is referring to a tradition passed on to him directly from Jesus is a reasonable one. Indeed, it is the best understanding of the evidence.

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Layman! I'll get back to you tomorrow, Wednesday. I am swamped here momentarily with a stuffed nose and a some translation work.

Steven Carr

I was looking at what Papias is reported by Eusebius to have written

in http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

Papias is expliclity described as being very interested in hearing what the apostles said, but not so explicitly in hearing explicitly what Jesus said. The implication , of course, is that he is interested in hearing what the apostles said that Jesus said, but that wish seems to be expressed strangely in the fragments.

PAPIAS
If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.


CARR
It would seem more natural to me to ask minutely after the Lord's sayings.




Eusebius relates ' We must now point out how Papias, who lived at the same time, relates that he had received a wonderful narrative from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day.'

Fair enough, but if that is worthy of being recorded, why does Eusebius not record how Papias recounted the wonderful narratives of how Jesus raised people to life. Surely they were even more striking.

Why was this miracle noteworthy enough to be related by Papias, while , for some reason. the miracles of Jesus were not?

When Eusebius refers to 'oracles' of the Lord, is it not an idea to take this as ,say, the Oracles of Delphi ie revelations received by the spirit of the Lord. After all, many Christians today get stuff by the same medium.

It would be great if we had Papias' words direct and not through the medium of Eusebius.

DUNN ON Galatians

'It could indeed be said that Paul's own claims to be an apostle, with a distinctive new or different emphasis in his gospel, had to be put to the same test and had to pass it if his apostleship and missionary work were not to be judged unacceptable variations of the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the clear implication of Galatians 1-2, where Paul, having insisted on teh independence of his apostolic authority from the Jerusalem apostles, nevertheless found it necessary to go up to Jerusalem to lay his gospel before the leading apostles, 'lest somehow I was running or had run in vain' (2.2.) Despite his confidence that he was called by Christ, Paul recognized the necessity that his claim to exceptional revelation (1.12) had tro be tested and accepted by those who represented the temporal continuity with Jesus. Which also implies that Paul's repeated insistence that he was indeed an apostle was in effect a claim to belong to that body which he had responsibility to authenticate as well as to preach the gospel (1 Cor. 15:8-11). In the light of all this, it must be judged unlikely that Paul for one would have accepted any prophetic utterance as a word of Jesus simply because it was an inspired (prophetic) utterance.'

I don't understand the last bit. Would Paul not have accepted Revelation, an inspired word of Jesus that was not given during Jesus's time in Jerusalem?

Why were prophetic utterances of Jesus (such as we find in Revelation) unlikely to be accepted?

And Galatians 1 hardly backs up Dunn's claim that Paul found it urgent to check that what he was preaching was what the disicples were preaching?


Gal 1:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Seeing two apostles for 15 days after a 3 year gap, was hardly checking, as I know it. I sense a lack of urgency on Paul's part to have his claim validated

What was Paul preaching in those 3 years BEFORE he tested that his claim was '....accepted by those who represented the temporal continuity with Jesus.'?

Dunn quotes Galatians 2:1-2 as proof that Paul had to check that his Gospel was OK with the folks in Jerusalem, 'lest I had run in vain.'

Galatians 2:1
Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with [me] also.

Gal 2:2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

He had lived with that worry for fourteen years. Whatever he had preached in those 14 years, he had clearly not been overwhelmed by a need to go to Jerusalem to check it was OK. He felt that such confirmation could wait a little while.

I haven't read Dunn's book. What does he write about these time gaps in his exposition of Paul's explanation in Galatians 1:2 that he had to authenticate his Gospel with Head Office in Jerusalem?


Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Gal 2:12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

Gal 2:13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

Gal 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

So Paul tells Peter to his face that he was wrong, that the people in the Jerusalem church were not living according to the truth of the Gospel.

Is this really Paul putting himself to the test so that his Gospel could be validated and found acceptable by the people in Jerusalem?

Other way around surely. Paul could go years and years without going to Jerusalem to have his gospel judged acceptable, yet he find the Jerusalem people not living according to what Paul said the Gospel was.

Steven Carr

'likely to be Greek translations'?

DO you have any Jews who used those words as translations of 'kibel' and 'masar'?

Or Jews who used those words in technical senses before 100 AD?

From 'kibel' comes the word 'kabbalah' - mystical revelations.

'Kibel' also means accepting dowry money

'Masar' means when a father gives over his daughter to her husband.

'Masoretic' Text also comes from masor.

'pass on' is used by Paul in quite other contexts, and by Mark to describe how Judas 'betrayed' Jesus.

'paralambano' (receive, take) is also used in Matthew 2:13, Hebrews 12:28 'Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:'


These seem to be perfectly normal words.

I doubt that Paul coined special Greek translations of 'kibel' and 'masor' so the Corinthians would know that they were getting special Pharasaic schooling.

Steven Carr

What exactly is Dohery querying here?

There were clearly traditions , or creeds, in the earliest church. Paul repeats some, and we know he is not inventing these creeds for the first time, for he seems to be altering some of them.

Which means that there had to be something to alter.

In 1 Cor. 15, Paul has clearly added the appearance to Paul to what he received.



In Romans 1, Paul seems to have added in 'in power' as it spoils the scansion

'1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God-- 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, 4and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.'

Is Doherty querying whether or not this can be shown to go back to the apostles, or whether this tradition does not show a tradition of passing on the deeds of the human Jesus.

The other famous creed is in Philippians 2.

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

Is Doherty querying whether this came from the apostles?

(Out of interest, is it just me or does this passage say Jesus became a man like we are?)


In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul is using a tradition which seems to be similar, yet different from the Markan/Matthean tradition, (and very different from the Last Supper in John)

I wonder how these traditions managed to differ if apostolic tradition meant that traditions were recieved and transmitted on strict Pharasaic principles....

If I could go back to Papias, Layman writes that Papias knew of books , but preferred to hear from humans what the apostles had said.

Laymans writes 'From Papias' writing we learn that by the early second century, Christians were already relying on "books" that passed along traditions about Jesus.'

Do we know that? Perhaps Papias was talking about Romans or 1 Corinthians or 1 Thessalonians or the Epistles of James or 1 Peter. These were not directly books passing along traditions about Jesus, in the sense of narratives or explicit sayings (although there are some 'words of the Lord' in books that Papias might well have known, like 1 Thess)

These were books recording what followers of Jesus had said, but Papias preferred to hear directly from people who had known the followers. Even I, if given the choice between reading 1 Thess, or speaking to somebody who knew Paul personally , would also go for the human touch.

Steven Carr

Galatians 1:11-12 'I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.'

This seems very clear.

A few verses later Paul says ,'I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy."

Clearly Paul is teaching something that the Jerusalem church agreed with, but this verse hardly implies he was teaching exactly the same thing - just that he had become a Christian.

If a Shia Muslim says somebody has converted to his faith, the person could have become a Sunni Muslim, there might still be differences.

In Galatians 2, Paul explains why he went to Jerusalem '2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.'

If Paul can get revelations from God and act on them why were revelations from Jesus not allowed in the early church.

Clearly they would have to be tested against what people already believed, but Galatians makes clear that people were drifting away from what was preached.

Clearly not everybody tested things against these apostolic traditions.


Incidentally, The Bishop of Durham , in his Galatians book, in his serious 'Paul for Everyone', underlines that Paul was accepted by the Jerusalem church because of the SPIRIT (his emphasis) (see Gal. 2:9), not because they saw that Paul was preaching exactly the same thing.

There were some traditions, but new revelations could be accepted. Look at the Book of Revelation for example.


-----------------------------------
Technical language in 1 Corinthians 11.

I'm a little puzzled as to why people say Paul is using technical language for 'receiving' and 'transmitting' (paradidomi and paralambano) from 1 Cor. 15.

In 1 Corinthians 11 , Paul does indeed use the technical word 'paradidomi' but he uses it to mean that Jesus was handed over. Just a few words after this 'technical' use of the term, Paul uses it to mean something entirely different. Do people use specialised langauge in this way? It must have been confusing for the Corinthians.


It is hard to believe Paul originated the Last Supper.


--------------------------------------------
Apostolic Tradition
This was important for Christians. Valentinus, if I remember rightly, validated his teachings by saying he got them from Theudas, a companion of Paul.

I find it hard to beleive other Christians did not also claim traditions from the apostles.

Doesn't prove that those traditions really did come from the apostles of course!

Layman

Vork,

Take all the time you need. I certainly did. Though in my defense I got busy on a former thread I started.