Toto

Mack is not god, or The Source of All Truth, so it's not clear why we would need to know his position. Earl has relied on him for his expertise, but his point has always been that NT scholars refuse to draw the obvious conclusions from their work because they are stuck in the historical Jesus paradigm.


Does calling something "suspicious" not imply that the person who wrote it was not totally honest?

If you read around that section, Mack implies that Paul is psycho - an unstable, authoritarian personality, who perhaps was brilliant, but troubled.

It is difficult to psychoanalyze someone from the distance of two thousand years, especially when the surviving writings have been worked over by your opponents.

It's not? But isn't that in fact the real issue here? If it's not the real issue, why did you post above "If we take seriously that Paul claim that he had been a persecutor of the Church, then it's hard to deny that he knew something of what Christians were proclaiming before he had his call experience. "

EarlDoherty

Haven't you got this backward, Stephan? Where has Jeffrey admitted he was wrong in regard to your above quote from him?

Earl Doherty

Iskander

If the purpose of this thread was to discuss 1:12, the title of the thread and the tone of the thread ought to have been different.


A rhetorical analysis of the letter to the Galatians
Galatians 1:12 is said here to admit two interpretations and so forth. All this is very well known.


http://etd.uovs.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/...d/TOLMIEDF.pdf

It is rather late in London, Goodnight .

Bingo the Clown-O

Sorry that I arrived at this party late – but that’s really funny, and I just gotta say so.

:biggrin:

Jeffrey Gibson

Sorry. Missed the criticism of Kelber. It's not in JNGM so far as I can see (according to your index, you only cite/mention him in note 15). So where did you make it?

They did?? All three? Can you tell me exactly where they do this? Where do they actually say that this was an equal possibility for 1 Cor. 11:23, let alone Gal. 1:12? Where exactly does Mack discuss 1 Cor. 7:10-11 and/or 1 Cor. 9:14 or 1 Thess. 4:16-17? (there's no reference these texts in the index to Myth of Innocence). Where exactly does Kelber say that there is any possibility, let alone an equal one, that 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 1 Cor. 9:14, let alone 1 Cor. 11:23 were revelations that Paul received from the "heavenly Jesus" as there is for them being pre-Pauline and dominical? Where exactly does he discuss 1 Thess. 4:16-16 in any way at all Certainly not in OaWG -- at least as far as the scripture index of the book is evidence of this? Where exactly does Bultmann specifically say anything like what you say he says about these texts? There's no discussion of 1 Cor. 7:10-11 or 1 Cor. 9:14 in HST or TNT. Nor of 1 Thess. 4:16-16 either -- or even of Gal. 1:12 (Is it somewhere else? If so, where?) And we've already seen that he denies the very possibility you say he says is an equal one for 1 Cor 11:23.

So forgive me, Earl, if I take not only what you claim these scholars say, but also your claim that they can be used to support your view on what Paul says is the source of what he says in 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 1 Cor. 9:14, 1 Thess. 4:16-17, 1 Cor. 11:23 (not to mention what he is saying/claiming in Gal. 1:12), with a very very large pinch of salt.

Erhman's case grows stronger.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

The purpose of this thread was and is -- as it's title indicates and as the OP made clear -- to discuss the claims that Earl made on p. 31 of JNGNM about Gal. 1:12.

Sorry that you seemed to have missed that.

Jeffrey

spin

He admits no information from anyone, so, while he claims that he got his gospel through revelation, we have no evidence of anything else.

Was it communicated by anyone else?

You need to be careful in what you impute to the word εκκλησια when the term had no apparent uniquely christian significance at the time of Paul. It was just an assembly of a religious nature. Calling it a "church" is anachronistic (as is your use of "christians"). What can you tell me about the assembly he harassed? Was it anything more specific than a messianic group?

The bolded bit is a conjectural (derived) understanding, only worth considering if there were other linguistic pointers to such an idea in the context. As there aren't any, we should stick with a more literal reading.

stephan huller

Battle of the Network Stars!

Adam

Why would you think I was asking you to respond to my Significance of John in this thread? I made it clear that I dared not post there again, and once again asked you to be specific with my faults, even giving you a free pass to

state something

without me jumping in against it. You relentlessly demand compliance with your wishes from us, but refuse to reciprocate. At least you're not as bad as aa and Shesh about that. But if you're going to shut me up, it's going to take reasons and not your appeal to authority (your own, that is).

And I did post here relevant to this thread, commending Toto for questioning what you are driving at and you for launching specifics against Earl and Shesh.

EarlDoherty

(Just tying up some loose ends…)

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Revised Standard Version (RSV)
12 for I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jeffrey says: “note the rethinking of the RSV text by the translators of the NRSV” (while failing to provide us with a translation of the RSV so that we can actually “note the rethinking”).

Well, I don’t see much of a rethinking there, much less one which casts an entirely new interpretation on the question.

…which NIV translation Jeffrey also did not supply us with in that post, nor think to elaborate for us on the difference:

12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Nor has he provided us with any quote from Burton or Betz or his “major portion” of commentators to illustrate how those worthies have argued, let alone demonstrated, that the NIV is wrong.

Burton ICC
12 for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ.

Betz, H. D. (1979). Galatians : A commentary on Paul's letter to the churches in Galatia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
12 For I did not receive it1 from [a?] man, nor was I taught [it], but [I received it] through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

If all Jeffrey is referring to is the difference between “of Jesus Christ” and “from Jesus Christ” (which the NRSV has NOT ‘rethought’ over the RSV, since they both show “of Jesus Christ”), Burton and Betz (both quite old scholars) better have some pretty good arguments to prove that “from Jesus Christ” misrepresents Paul. After all, the difference between the two interpretations of the genitive has continued to this day, with no resolution. (Is Jeffrey himself coming down on the side of "of Jesus Christ,"--no ifs, ands, or buts? Or when pressed to declare for his insinuation against me, will he pull a Gibsonism and throw Burton and Betz under the bus?)

Now, Jeffrey has also quoted me from JNGNM p.31 as quoting the NIV’s “from Jesus Christ” and accuses me of not giving any hint that the Greek could be rendered any differently. Well, if he can ferret out my NIV quote on p. 31, why was he incapable of, or remained silent on, referencing my attention given to the passage on page 44, where I quoted the NASB’s “revelation of Jesus Christ,” or on page 45: “but rather (Paul) received through a revelation from (or of) Jesus Christ.” And while I can’t put my finger on it at the moment, I have more than once pointed out the grammatical ambiguity of the genitive phrase which can legitimately be translated as either “of” or “from”, content vs. source.

(Of course, as I’ve said before, the point is largely moot, because both translations point to the same thing: Paul believes he knows certain things about Jesus through revelation, and not through oral tradition.)

But why couldn’t Jeffrey have laid out all these aspects of the case he is seemingly trying to make? Why do we have to ask for clarification, for unsupplied quotes, for explanations on his unargued and unsupported insinuations? Why did spin have to express his confusion over what Jeffrey’s “purpose” was?

Ah well, indeed.

Earl Doherty