James Madison

Well, even if this is the context, I agree with you it is, it does not tell us where Paul obtained this information much less where the others, the "we" in "what we believe," acquired the information Paul was recalling to their attention. I think it is likely Paul was exposed to some oral stories which were in existence at the time he wrote Corinthians and those oral stories had the elements he writes to the Corinthians about. After all, Paul says he persecuted the "Church of God" and what possibly could the "Church of God" been relying upon other than oral stories at this point? Certainly it was not the Gospels.

I am not really arguing whether or not an actual historical Jesus existed, merely that there is circumstantial evidence pointing to the existence of oral stories preceding the Gospels, and these oral stories, at least some of them, claimed a historical Jesus and were not relying upon platonic philosophy.

James Madison

Undoubtedly you are correct and I am not here to defend the author's qualification or characterization of his argument as he does so using the word "clearly." I do not think any of us are really in a position to appropriately scrutinize the veracity of his claim. So, I am not going to attempt the futile task of defending his characterization/qualification of his argument.

What I do think, however, is oral stories can be reasonably inferred from circumstantial evidence, just like "intent" is at times in a criminal trial inferred from circumstantial evidence. Can we ever really know with 100% certainty? No, science cannot even make such claims but we can operate within a range of "reasonableness" and draw reasonable inferences from circustantial evidence. Is there circumstantial evidence allowing the inference oral stories preceded the Gospel and were the inspiration if not source for the Gospels? Well, I tentatively think so. I have not found a lot of evidence to contradict such a proposition.

gurugeorge

I think you're making an unwarranted leap from the "received" to "oral stories somewhat like those about Jesus".

Sure, he got a teaching of some sort from the Jerusalem people, and that teaching obviously included the teaching that Joshua Messiah died, buried and resurrected (though it did not include the last supper, which came from the Lord himself), but to say that that teaching must have been part of some sort of oral tradition of stories about the life of a human being Jesus that must have been somewhat gospel-like seems to me to go beyond what the texts actually say or even imply.

IOW the texts are circumstantial evidence for an oral tradition about a historical Jesus only if you otherwise have good reasons to believe in a historical Jesus; but there's no really convincing evidence in Paul that what Paul received was oral traditions about a historical Jesus (i.e. somewhat gospel-like stories), that you could then go on to use to plausibilify the idea there was a historical Jesus (in the way that White wants to do).

gurugeorge

Why must they be "oral stories" - why aren't they simply a teaching about the Messiah, the very teaching Paul mentions (died, buried, resurrected)? No doubt there was more to it than that (which you can see perhaps in Hebrews), but there's nothing in any of those texts that really give any solid impression that the Joshua Messiah they're talking about looks anything like the Joshua Messiah of the gospels (e.g. carpenter's son, local lad made good, etc.). Everything actually said about him at that earliest point, seems to describe an entity that's basically spiritual (met and communicated with in visionary experience), with some "historical", "fleshly" aspects - your average generic mythical entity.

Ben C Smith

It is here that a knowledge of Greek literary conventions might come in handy. The word for from in this case is not the usual word one would use if one got the information directly from the source. Instead, what is used is a word that frequently signals transmission through intermediaries (ultimately from the Lord, but through others before it got to Paul).

Now, this word choice has been waved about as proof that Paul got this story from (human) intermediaries, and I resist such a firm conclusion on the grounds that exceptions can be mustered. However, the word choice is certainly compatible with intermediaries (human tradents).

On one page on my website I summarize a few lines of argumentation both for oral and for literary transmission of the gospel traditions. But please observe a couple of caveats:

1. I originally penned this page quite a while ago, and I now think that a couple of my examples are weaker than I once would have maintained.
2. The page is written from the perspective of trying to determine the relationship(s) between the synoptic gospels, not from the perspective of proving either oral or literary transmission for its own sake. I conclude that oral materials were probably available to the evangelists, but that they still used each other more often than not.

Ben.

gurugeorge

But in view of Paul's being a visionary (e.g. 2 Corinthians 12:2-4) and seeming to have had visionary experiences of his Messiah (e.g. 1 Corinthians 9:1, 15:8, 2 Corinthians 12:9), surely this would weight the usage more to the "exceptional" use? If not, why not?

Ben C Smith

Because the language of receiving and delivering is practically technical terminology for the handing down of tradition. (This also applies to 1 Corinthians 15.8, which you have placed on your list of visionary experiences; yes, it is a list of visions, but if Paul has used his terms fittingly the list was transmitted by human beings.)

Ben.

ETA: And because the fact that Paul was a visionary or mystic says precisely zip about whether or not he also received human traditions.

Toto

Robert Price Price suggests that this passage is an interpolation.

JoeWallack

JW:
Here we go again with "there must have been oral stories" or "there were probably oral stories". Why can't "Mark" have been primarily an original Fictional composition with Minimum supposed history? Since "Mark" makes a point of having everything his Jesus does Impossible until he sacrifices it all for a Possible but Unlikely Passion we can be certain that "Mark" is primarily Fiction. Why didn't "Mark" have a Jesus origin? Why didn't "Mark's" Jesus have a Father? Why didn't "Mark's" story have a post resurrection future? How come subsequent Gospellers often use Greek translations of the Jewish Bible as their source for Jesus History instead of oral stories when they change "Mark"?

What is the Methodology used to determine what in "Mark" is based on oral stories and what is not? Let me know when you find out.



Joseph

Amaleq13

If you remain general in your assertion, yes. You will have much more difficulty, however, if you attempt to make that argument for any particular story.

What sort of evidence could qualify for such a logically problematic task?