Layman

Correction. One of his opinions is considered "extreme" by the author you seem to know nothing about. He is accepted as a leading Greek scholar. And his basic textbook on Greek is very widely used.

Not that any of this has anything to do with his views on translating Luke 2:2.

As to one of Carrier's (or Sherwin-White's) opininions. I find it unpersausive.

The idea that an otherwise reasonable interpretation is unacceptable because the author does not use the exact grammatical forms elsewhere is unpersuasive.

First, as Brook Pearson explains, "This is not a viable argument.... We must examine not only Luke also also the Hellenistic Greek in which he wrote. The comparative sense of the superlative adjective in Hellenistic usage is well attested, and we do not even have to go otside the New Testament itself to find it (cp. John 5:36 and 1 Cor. 1:25). With bodies of writing so small as those of the New Testament books, it is much more difficult than many think to establish the style or 'regular' usage of any particular writer."

Second, it ignores the fact that Luke's birth narrative is very likely a source that Luke appropriated for his Gospel -- much as he did Mark, Q, and L (although most scholars do no think its part of the larger L source). Thus, the "sample size" of comparable Greek usage would be the narrative itself, which is obviously much to small of a sample. Again, as Pearson points out, the fact that the common Greek Luke used attests fairly strongly to the usage rendering the translation "prior to the census of Quirinius."

Third, beyond the two examples of the usage of this term for "earlier" or "before" in the New Testament, there are strong parrallels in other ancient Greek literature: Aristotle Ph. 8.8 (263a lines 11-12) ("therefore, in the earlier words concerning movement") and Athenaeus Deipnosophistae (discussing the origin of movements in dancing).

Of course, I do not think that the "earlier" or "prior" reading is the only reasonable translation. The Greek here is simply awkward, no matter how it is translated. The interpretation preferred by Wright, Turner, and Pearson is a reasonable one. And in my opinion, there are external reasons for believing it is the right one.

But perhaps Craig Blomberg frames the state of the issue correctly:

The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, at 195.

Layman

Bumpkiss. You are wrong again. Paul had already met Peter and stayed in his home for more than two weeks prior to the confrontation in Galatia.

In Galatians 1:18-20, Paul reports that he visited Peter and James in Jerusalem. In fact, Peter spent over two weeks living in Peter's home. As Martin Hengel, noted German scholar states, this visit "is best understood to indicate that [Paul] spent the whole of this time as a guest in Peter's house." Paul Between Damascus and Antioch, at 144. The topic of conversation? "Jesus above all will have stood at the center of the conversations--around six years after the Passover at which he died--the earthly and crucified, risen and exalted Jesus, who was now preached and was to come. For both Peter and Paul, his person and the salvation which he had achieved had become the center of their lives." Id. at 147.

(Note that Paul does not speak of the confrontation with Peter until vs. 2:11 and is clearly discussing a more recent event).

And of course Paul received traditions from the Jerusalem Church. For example:

"For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. " 1 Cor. 15:3-8.

The language and form used by Paul indicate that he is passing along an earlier tradition already established in the Christian church that he received from other Christians, probably Peter and/or James in the Jerusalem Church. The "for I handed to you ... what I in turn had received" was typical rabbinic language for passing along an established tradition. Scholars also say that Phil. 2:6-11 and Col. 1:15-20 are expressed in creedal form, indicating that they had been passed down to Paul from others. Additionally, the grammatically unnecessary "and that" used three times also demonstrates that it was a pre-existing tradition being passed down. See N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the people of God, at 368 ("Paul is able to cite and rely on church tradition about Christ's death and resurrection and his appearances to various persons.").

Where did these creeds come from? Most likely they came from, or were confirmed by, the Jerusalem Church. Only six years after Jesus' death and reported resurrection, Paul visited at least Peter and James in Jerusalem and consulted with them about the Christian message (this is the "over two weeks" living with Peter visit mentioned above).

Hengel also makes something else perfectly clear: the creed found in 1 Cor. 15 was most likely -- assuredly even -- discussed during th at first visit. "Scholars have argued indefatigably over the last forty years whether the often-discussed account in 1 Cor. 15:2-8 ... comes from Jerusalem, Damascus or Antioch: buy why not should its content ... At least in part have been discussed at this memorable visit, on which the only three individual witnesses listed there by name, Cephas, James, and Paul, met for the first time? And where could there be a better basis for Paul's remark, 'Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed,' which banishes the view so popular today that there were many contradictory 'kerygmata' ... at the beginning of earliest Christianity to the realm of modern mythologizing?" Id. at 147.

Even the secular historian Michael Grant accepts these reports as genuine: "Paul was writing only two decades after the event. And the information which he had received and which he recorded here went back even further than that, since he claims to be handing on facts that had been reported to him. Thus the first resurrection stories began to be told very early." Grant, Jesus, A Historian's Review of the Gospels, at 177.

Berenger Sauniere

Yes I do: because that's what the Etruscans wanted to call it.

Toto

It was such an important conversation that Paul never mentions it. Martin Hengel and you have no proof that Paul derived any knowledge of Jesus from Peter.

So? Paul shows no deference to someone who allegedly knew Jesus during his lifetime.

Once again Hengel is engaging in speculation with no basis in fact.

We have discussed these verses before. Robert Price argues that they are an interpolation in <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html" target="_blank">Apocryphal Apparitions</a>

Doherty also notes the contradiction <a href="http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp06.htm" target="_blank">here</a> but accepts the 1 Cor passage as Pauline, and interprets Paul's words as meaning he received his gospel from God, not from man.

1 Cor 3a: "For I delivered (paredoka) to you . . . what also I received (parelabon) . . ."

Galatians 1:11-12: "For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not the product of men. For I did not receive (parelabon, from paralambano) it from any man, nor was I taught it, but (I received it) through a revelation of/about Jesus Christ."

So, if Paul received the gospel from no man in Galatians, what he is passing on in 1 Corinthians can be presumed to be what he received as a spiritual revelation, not from some unnamed person.

In short, if you have to believe that Paul learned about the human Jesus from Peter, there is nothing that contradicts your view. But there is no real support for it either.

leonarde

Posted by Toto: So we have:

1)Paul, an enthusiastic persecutor of the earliest
Christians, on the way to Damascus to continue in
that persecution.

2)according to his own account, he is blinded and
hears the voice of God/Jesus asking why Paul is
persecuting Jesus.

3)Paul obeys the voice's directives and eventually
meets Peter and James in Jerusalem.

Given the above:

1)what else would Paul talk to Peter and James about??? (Surely something besides the weather!!)

2)wouldn't a person like Paul be naturally curious
about the sayings, life, and message of the person
who converted him on the road to Damascus?? (he would want to know the contents of this new
faith).

3)where else could he get such information? What
better place to get such information? Would
not an apostle be "straight from the horse's mouth"? (Remember the NT hadn't been written yet
and Paul probably wrote the first elements of that
some years later).

Cheers!

Toto

Not according to his own account - according to Acts, I believe. Can you cite this from a writing by Paul?

Please site a source for the voice telling Paul to to go Jerusalem and meet Peter and James, or to do anything that led to that.

You have yet to demonstrate the above. I would suggest that if there were a historical Jesus, then Paul would have acted the way you suggest - he would have immediately sought out people who knew Jesus in person, learned from them, talked about Jesus with them. But there is no indication that he did any of this. After his visitation, he goes off into the desert, then he starts preaching. He shows no apparent interest in the details of the history of Jesus. He does not apprentice himself to one of the disciples. He thinks of himself as the equal to the others who presumably knew the historical Jesus.

Bede

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000453&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000453&p=</a>

leonarde

Toto,
You are right: the story of Paul's conversion is
in the Acts of the Apostles. Is there anything in
Paul's own writings which is incompatible with that account?
You post about Paul: But where did the contents of his preaching come from? He talks in his writings about a Christ crucified and about Christ's resurrection (ie events he did not see).
Where did he get such notions from? Not,
unless there is something left out, from the conversion experience itself. If we, the members of II, were transported via time machine
to the Judea of circa 35 AD (ie a few years after
the Crucifixion) whom would we talk to regarding the events which are constantly debated
here? Who did witness the Crucifixion and
the risen Christ (according to the Gospels)? I submit that Paul would have done the logical thing
and the logic is so obvious that he felt no need
to record those conversations.

Cheers!

Vorkosigan

You can't be serious. I was "Just tossing out an idea. I'm sure it has been hashed out before -- what's the answer?"

And this is your example? You're beyond hopeless. Apology please.

Vorkosigan

Bede

You were looking at a far fetched alternative without evidence to avoid the plain meaning of the text. That is Turton's fallacy through and through.

Sorry, Michael. No apology forthcoming.