aa5874

What nonsense. I QUOTED the words of Robert Price from the very link that YOU provided.

YOU are confused.

PRICE has ZERO TEXTUAL evidence to support what he claims and FREELY ADMITS it.

. You INTRODUCED Robert Price as support for Spin when he really has ZERO TEXTUAL evidence.

May I remind you that it was you who introduced Robert Price "Apocryphal Apparitions" when he was arguing about INTERPOLATIONS of 1 Cor. 15.

The claim that the Greek word for RECEIVED required a TEACHER-STUDENT by Spin cannot be shown to be true since in the Pauline writings the very same Greek word was USED to claim "Paul" RECEIVED his gospel by REVELATION and was NOT taught by any man.

Galatians 1 1. There is NO textual evidence to support Spin as FREELY ADMITTED by Robert M Price

2. The Pauline writer claimed he did NOT RECEIVE his gospel from man, nor was taught it.

Spin is dead wrong.

TedM

The purpose is stated in the thread title. If the word doesn't require a master-pupil relationship and can apply to any instructional information passed from one to another then this leaves open the possibility that Paul was passing along a tradition he had simply heard from anybody. If the word DOES require such a relationship that possibility is much less likely because it doesn't fit 'common sense': Paul had no rabbinical master who was passing along this Christian tradition.

spin

I really am finding difficulty seeing what point the straws that are being clung to serve. The verb implies an authority relationship, Jesus to disciples, god to Paul, teacher to pupil. Socrates plainly pointed this relationship out. James D.G. Dunn, as I quoted in the interpolation thread, says, "we must think of tradition derived directly from Jesus and transmitted by authorized teachers". God of course is the ultimate authoritative source.

How does one receive tradition if not in the hierarchical relationship? How about "say/hear" or "tell/listen", perhaps with "understand" for reinforcement?

Is παραλαμβανω used in other situations with other significances? Yes, we've seen the receipt of an office, of an inheritance, of certain other things, as well as the taking on of a client or associate.

Any independent support for a non-hierarchical passing on of tradition in the use of the verb? None.

This thread has nothing to do with understanding the verb in use: no other relevant examples have been proffered. The context clearly indicates the passing on of tradition. When παραλαμβανω is used in this context it has the significance that has already been noted, with many examples to support it. There is a simple linguistic issue that I have tried many times to make clear: words mean what they generally do unless the context dictates otherwise.

Has anyone shown that παραλαμβανω can indicate anything other than the noted technical use in the passing on of tradition? No. Has anyone attempted? No. What is going on in this thread?

:tombstone:

aa5874

What nonsense. Gods do NOT exist. "Paul" could NOT have been TAUGHT by God.

And again, "Paul" claimed he was NOT taught his gospel.

"Paul" DENIED a teacher-student relationship in the Pauline writings and claimed he RECEIVED his "good news" by REVELATION.

Galatians 1 It should be OBVIOUS that "Paul" RECEIVED his gospel from himself. He CONFERRED with NO-ONE.

1. The Pauline gospel was NOT RECEIVED from man.

2. The Pauline gospel was NOT TAUGHT to Paul by any man

3. The Pauline gospel could NOT have been RECEIVED from God. Gods do NOT EXIST.

The Pauline gospel is FROM "PAUL" himself.

The use of the Greek word for "RECEIVED" does NOT require a teacher-student relationship.

TedM

And I'm saying the context dictates otherwise! The context was Paul's situation: Paul was a pharisee who was not a Christian. He somehow heard about the Jesus being resurrected. Paul would not reference a hierarchical relationship for the passing along of a tradition for two reasons:

1. He probably heard it on the street
2. He wasn't under the authority of anyone else who would have told him of the tradition.

You are arguing for a different context--the linguistic context but it is insufficient because it tells us nothing about Paul. You then appeal to how it is used elsewhere by Paul and how scholars use it.
I argue that how it is used by Paul elsewhere only gives us a guide as far as it relates to the information received. As far as scholars go you say this:

I argue that the verb may not imply an authority relationship, but probably does in most cases because the source of information for a tradition/creed is often going to be an authority figure.

How about 'on the street'? Traditions are passed along in all kinds of ways. The source may be the 'church' or 'school' or 'country'--all authority institutions, but it also may be your neighbor, your friend, or even your child. Just because the tradition itself invokes an authority doesn't mean the person passing it along is an authority figure.

A relevant question then for thorough analysis is this: Is there ANOTHER WORD that is used when a non-authority figure passes along a tradition--such as a child telling a parent what the pledge of allegiance is? IF there IS, then we might expect Paul to use that word. If there ISN'T then I submit that the word in question--esp with all of the references in support--Thayer, Strong, and the various sites Iskander found--is THE word to use in such a case. IF true then there is a basis for Paul to have used the word: he heard the basic claims of Christianity on the street and it pissed him off so much he started persecuting those sicko Christians.


That's of value but for me is not enough because without offering another word for this meaning, I think the scholars you cited have over-stepped their interpretation of how restrictive the use of the word in question really is. It may indeed be used as a technical term, but it could still be technically restricted only to the passing along of information such as 15:3-8 without requiring a hierarchical relationship. Thayer, Strong, and others would appear to agree.

Ted

archibald

I am fairly certain I know what I have decided. :]

1. "transmission, and not merely tradition, of the exact words of a teacher just as he spoke them"

Evidently false. This was either badly worded (and sent some of us off on a goose chase looking for 'specific words of a teacher just as were spoken to a pupil' - as opposed to 'tradition' - and wondering why this was the issue) or the assertion has changed to something else now.

2. "....or passing along a creed or tradition which is meant to be used for instruction regardless of the relationship between the passer and receiver."

As far as I can see thus far, this is true, and all that is now happening is that Spin is agreeing with you on this.

But, and I think I'm beginning to see daylight, what you seem to be looking for is not actually number 2? You want to know if it could be something 'heard on the street', by which I assume you mean, like reported news?

I think it's reasonable to say that words based on 'parelabon' seems to imply 'authoratative tradition', in the context in question, simply because none of us have turned up anything to the contrary, so, I personally am happy to go with this revised assertion.

Personally, I am happy to move on to what the use of this word implies for other discussions, for example, the interpolation issue.

Incidentally, I am now going to go back and remind myself what some of the 'non-parelabon' words were in the '350-received' examples category of the Biblios link posted, because I have a feeling that there may be an example in there of the sort of alternative word you are looking for.

http://topicalbible.org/r/receive.htm
Checking now.......

archibald

So far Ted, I haven't found any examples of the word you are looking for. It's late. I'm off to bed. May look again tomorrow.

But, interestingly, it seems to me, I found something else instead, which seems to be 'receiving' in the sense we have been discussing, but is not 'parelabon' related. ?

Matthew 11:13-14

13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

I am using KJV here, but the Koine Greek seems to be the same?

The Koine Greek (at the site I previously mentioned) has 'dexasthai' for 'receive' and reads in English: 'For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John* if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come'

* = John the Baptist

And Luke uses 'Dechontai' for 'receive' in Luke 8:13 when writing about 'receiving the word', which seems to be exactly the scenario we have been discusing.

And John 5:34 uses 'Lambano' in a phrase which sounds a lot like Paul in Galatians, 'But I receive not testimony from man'.

And there seem to be other places where paralebon is not used for hearing/getting sayings/information from authority/tradition.



Heck. Does this clarify things. Or muddy them? Lol.

In a way, I'm inclined to think it may be very interesting to see alternatives, but does not actually contradict that paralebon, when that is the chosen word, means what it appears to mean, though it tends to suggest it was not exclusive by any means. John 5:34 is especially interesting, it seems. Why doesn't the writer use paralebon?

spin

Oh rubbish, TedM. You're not even considering the speaker, let alone the usual meaning already outlined. You now know how the word is used in the context of transmission of tradition. It's not just listening to what someone says and remembering it. You're not doing linguistics--you're just bullshitting.

That should help you understand that he wouldn't have used the verb in that context.

You are implicitly saying that Paul doesn't understand the vocabulary he uses. I'd trust him in the matter more than I'd trust you.

Umm, not how scholars use it, TedM. They just record how it was used in the ancient world. You on the other hand don't know how the word is used in the ancient world, but you know how it must have been used here.

You start with the way the word is typically used, not how you want it to be used.

Hopefully, you should have got that the term "tradition" in this discourse is also being used technically. It's not just the passing on of cultural artifacts.

That's what you don't get.

Strong is not a reliable source. Thayer uses the questioned word to define the idea you want, which I have explained is no help to you in trying to leverage the term away from its technical use. You've shown no value in "the various sites Iskander found". In short you have no reason for maintaining your position.

Once again, you supply your untinctured desire. You need evidence not palaver, TedM.

Your use of Thayer has been shown to be of no value, as it only uses the verse in question. Reliance on Strongs shows you have nothing. You cannot produce any tangible scholarly support for your position. Your approach only shows that you are not working from the language or linguistic methodology. You are working from your conclusion and making up for lack of argument with obfuscation. You are not dealing with the evidence or the scholarship, so I can't see that you have anything more than what you've already said, which doesn't amount to anything to justify your desired reading.

TedM

simple question spin,

What word would be used for a parent who says he received the following from his 7 year-old:

Could our word apply here? It is an authoritative tradition, passed down usually from teacher to student and from generation to generation although in this case it is passed upward from child to parent.

If our word works here, then it works for 1 cor 15 also.


I think a distinguishing issue might be whether these are sayings/creeds/traditions meant to be memorized and repeated verbatum I'm not sure your examples qualify on that basis, whereas 1 Cor 15:3-8 very well may qualify. A 'creed'--specific words memorized and passed along--like the pledge of allegiance--might not qualify for those other words. Would it qualify for our word here? Do you REALLY have to have a master-pupil relationship or is that just the most likely usage in history, and the 'technical language' applies more to the concept of verbatum succession from person to person?

spin

We don't usually use the notion of receiving this way in English. How can you imagine a 7 year-old as a hander-down of tradition anyway? What we are dealing with is a process of known passer of a tradition giving it to a receiver. It is not sufficient that the tradition is authoritative--that's assumed. The passer-on has the authority to pass it on.