Jeffrey Gibson

I note with interest that on p. 31 of JNGNM, you make the claim that Gal. 1:12 (οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτό, οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην, ἀλλὰ διʼ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) --which you cite according to a modified and truncated version of the NIV translation of that text -- (cp. NIV's "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" with your "I received [my Gospel] by revelation from Jesus Christ. [NIV]) is indisputable evidence that Paul “thinks to hear the voice of Jesus directly” (my italics).

Have I got this right? Is this your claim?

Jeffrey

stephan huller

I've always been puzzled by the fact that this verse is never included in any witnesses of Marcionitism. Is it because the Catholics avoided the verse because it was too powerful a witness for Marcionitism or does it mirror the fact that most references to the Marcionite canon skip over chapter 1 of Galatians after Galatians 1:1? Don't know the answer.

Jeffrey Gibson

Stephan,

Please don't ride your hobby horse here.

The issue is not where the verse is included. It's whether Earl is claiming that it is indisputable evidence that Paul “thinks to hear the voice of Jesus directly” .

Jeffrey

stephan huller

Right but as I can foresee he's not going to answer your question and I didn't want to leave your original question unanswered I thought I'd fill in some dead air. I could have said that Methodius interprets 2 Corinthians chapter 12 to say that Paul had two seperate visions, but I didn't think it was apropos. No harm, no foul.

stephan huller

And is it really "riding a hobby horse" to bring up Marcion when discussing this passage in particular? It's not like saying " Moreover, I advise that Carthage must be destroyed "

Jeffrey Gibson

Please don't do me any favours. They are unwelcome when they fill the air with irrelevancies, however much they allow you to take the pleasure you seem to take in hearing the sound of your own voice.

And you would have then posted yet another irrelevancy.

Unless you hare something to say about the meaning of Gal. 1:12 that's based upon the syntax and grammar of the Greek text, please butt out.

Jeffrey

EarlDoherty

I spent several hours this evening composing a response to your posting regarding the issue of Paul receiving communications directly from the heavenly Christ, only to find that the thread had been locked because of yours and others' style of 'debate'. One of the words used by the mod was "goading." Others were equally unflattering, though I had to agree with them, especially where you are concerned. Hopefully, that thread will eventually be unlocked (I think that was the implication) and my reply will get posted.

While I answered that posting quite thoroughly (though not the way you were demanding) I also made it clear that I was not prepared to play your games, Jeffrey, and the same is true here. If you want to actually state what YOUR interpretation of the Galatians passage is and back it up with all the references and scholarly support you regularly demand from me, rather than indulge in this perpetual non-committance of your own views to public examination in favor of transparent insinuation and endless requests for more from the opposing side, I might consider responding. If you want to measure your reading against what you take mine to be, or what you think I have claimed, I will be happy to at least tell you whether you are correct or not. (Your above reading has certainly been contorted in a derogatory direction, and impossible to answer with a yes or no.) But when you never commit yourself to anything, it is very difficult to tell what your position or interpretation is. Of course, that's your tactic. It is a prominent and tiresome "Gibsonism."

But I will not play the endless games you've been playing for the last ten years (at least). Believe it or not, Jeffrey, you are not worth it, nor is it of any importance to me what you think of me or my work. One does not concern oneself with the opinions of the incorrigible.

As I said to Shesh<edit>, it is not myself who derailed the other thread. I was always ready to discuss the issues on a scholarly and non-inflammatory basis.

P.S. And Shesh has the gall to cry foul at me for putting a dig into his name, after all the "horse-shit" and other scatological language he has thrown at me? The "bizarre" is actually quite pertinent and is a comment on his theories of the Pauline epistles. (Besides that, it's a lot cleverer and far more sophisticated than his schoolyard potty-tongue.) I guess they can dish it out, but they can't take it. And is that really his name, given or surname? He's going to get all offended at my tweaking of a pseudonym??? Edit: And this guy, as I've just learned, actually made a complaint about me for doing that--three times?! Well, that says it all! Unbelievable!

Earl Doherty

spin

Earl, ad hominem is against the rules of this forum. Rather than a personal attack through manipulating a member's name either attack their ideas or ignore them. It's facile to toy with people's names, be they real world names or how they identify themselves on internet. So crapping on trying to defend your breaking of the rules is unimpressive.
[hr=1]100[/hr]

To attempt to look at the particular verse, rather than listen to squabbling between you two, I'm interested in the ambiguity of the use of the genitive qualifier to αποκαλυψεως. The genitive in this case may indicate the agent (who reveals) or the substance of the revelation (what is revealed). When Rom 16:15 talks of the "revelation of the mystery" we have no problem understanding that "mystery" is that which is revealed. In 1 Cor 12:1 we find it easy enough to think that the lord is the agent of the revelation (doing the revealing), but when it comes to 1 Cor 1:7 many translators swap to the verb to show that "the revelation of Jesus Christ" is in fact the revealing of Jesus (or him being revealed). 2 Thes 1:7 talks of the revelation of Jesus Christ, indicating his appearance, ie he is revealed, the object of the revelation. And 1 Pet 1:7, 13, "at the revelation of Jesus Christ" is when Jesus is revealed. The context is clear in all these cases it seems to me.

Gal 1:12 poses the ambiguity, though it might suggest a resolution. Again it is the revelation of Jesus Christ and Paul didn't get his knowledge through man or being taught, which suggests the possibility that "of Jesus Christ" being agency, ie that Jesus did the revealing. However, Gal 1:15f seems to put that option out of the question: it pleased god .. to reveal his son (in Paul¹), ie god did the revealing and his son was revealed. Back to Gal 1:12 it would appear that Paul's knowledge didn't come from man or being taught, but by revelation. The revelation was clearly the means of Paul's knowledge (as the preposition δι, usually "by" or "through", underlines) but it seems that Jesus is the content of the revelation, as the agent is later specified as god.

Perhaps the translators might better convey the meaning in Gal 1:12 as "by the revealing of Jesus Christ".


[hr=1]100[/hr]
¹ We would probably need to clear up what exactly "revealed his son in me (εν εμοι)" actually means, but I take it as where the revealing took place, ie it wasn't an experience from external stimulus.

stephan huller

The Acts of Archelaus takes it to mean that Paul was Christ. In that text the idea is an extension of the understanding that Paraclete = Messiah which is what the rabbinic tradition basically did with the term menachem (it made it into a name of the messiah). The nonsense that the Paraclete is just a force - or worse yet spirit - of 'comfort' ignores the range of meaning to that term. The verb nun ḥet mem in the nif'al usually means either to change your mind or to regret having done something, and in the pi'el to comfort someone, it can mean to take vengeance in the hitpa'el or nif'al. I don't understand how people can have discussions about what language might mean without grounding that discussion in actual examples of what traditions took those words meant. If I can't bring Marcion into the discussion, that at least Patristic evidence should be allowed. There is more variety in Patristic sources than is generally acknowledged.

spin

You don't seem to be responding to what you quote of my post. I'm trying to understand what the text of the o.p. says. That means we are ostensibly dealing with Greek. There is nothing about the paraclete in Gal 1:12 and the use of "christ" is apparently nominal in adjunct with "Jesus". In order to understand what texts mean, you first need to look at what they say, literally, then you can ground the words in in their cultural context to see how that affects the significance of the text. So first it is close reading of the text, then in its context and loop back to consider the wider semantic interest of the text. You go into details about other texts in other languages and we still haven't clarified the source text. Naughty, very naughty.