Robert said

Porphyry said

Robert said

The language of Galatians is very different and Paul’s ‘gospel’ in that context has nothing to do with relating stories about the earthly Jesus. Nor is he speaking about his authority, apostleship, or his gospel in 1 Cor 11. A much better comparison would be the similar language Paul uses here in 1 Cor 11 with the same language he uses in 1 Cor 15.

I don’t dispute the similarity between I Cor. 11 and 15, but I’d note that 1 Cor 15 is very explicitly dealing with the absolute heart of Paul’s gospel. If he is wrong about that then he is wrong about, literally, everything and his preaching is in vain, and indeed, Paul is not just mistaken about some human testimony but misrepresenting *God*. 

I don’t disagree, but I also don’t see how this point could be taken in favor of a “from the Lord directly” interpretation of 1 Cor 11. Rather it seems to weaken any attempt to interpret 1 Cor 11 as necessarily comparable to Gal 1-2.  

  

Because, if you agree that 1 Cor 11 is comparable to 1 Cor 15, and if you concur in my assessment that 1 Cor 15 is the absolute heart of Paul’s gospel (which is what he himself says, in loco), then what do you do with 1 Gal 11-12, where he is explicit and emphatic that his gospel came from Jesus not from any man?

So I guess the steps are something like this:

In 1 cor. 15, he present the heart of his gospel. 
In Gal 1, he insists that his gospel did not come from other men but directly from the risen lord. 
So, if he is consistent, then we can infer he means to present 1 cor 15 as presenting things he learned from the lord directly. 

But 1 cor 15 is linguistically parallel to 1 cor 11, ergo it is likely (on both thematic and linguistic grounds) that 1 cor 11 is also meant to present material learned directly from the risen lord, and not from men, and the burden of proof falls on those who want to say otherwise.  

Now, I’m assuming that Paul is consistent.

Robert said

Porphyry said

Because, if you agree that 1 Cor 11 is comparable to 1 Cor 15, and if you concur in my assessment that 1 Cor 15 is the absolute heart of Paul’s gospel (which is what he himself says, in loco), then what do you do with 1 Gal 11-12, where he is explicit and emphatic that his gospel came from Jesus not from any man?

So I guess the steps are something like this:

In 1 cor. 15, he present the heart of his gospel. 

In Gal 1, he insists that his gospel did not come from other men but directly from the risen lord. 

So, if he is consistent, then we can infer he means to present 1 cor 15 as presenting things he learned from the lord directly. 

But 1 cor 15 is linguistically parallel to 1 cor 11, ergo it is likely (on both thematic and linguistic grounds) that 1 cor 11 is also meant to present material learned directly from the risen lord, and not from men, and the burden of proof falls on those who want to say otherwise.  

Now I’m assuming that Paul is consistent.

No. In 1 Cor 15 Paul is obviously presenting material that he definitely received as tradition (for I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received) and here he also acknowledges that he is least of the apostles because, as one untimely born, he persecuted the church. It is good to presume that Paul is generally consistent, so we should realize that he is referring to something somewhat different in Gal 1-2, namely the equality of uncircumcised gentile believers with Jewish believers, not traditional material about the the life, death, and resurrection appearances to others before him.

  

If parelabon in I Cor 15:3 specifically means received as oral tradition from men (and not from the risen Lord), then I think we have a big inconsistency in Paul. 

In Gal, yes, his immediate concern is circumcision, but in ch. 1 he is reiterating his apostolic credentials in general (even if an angel preach another gospel, don’t have it), and in so doing he is really emphatic that his Gospel, what he has preached, he learned directly from Christ and he is emphatic that he did not learn it from men (most specifically not from the apostles in Jerusalem). I take this to mean his whole “gospel”, not merely his teaching on circumcision. 

So going back then, if the resurrection–which he insists is the lynchpin of his whole kerygma–is something he received from the Jerusalem church, then what he said in Gal 1 isn’t true: he did not get his gospel directly from the risen Christ but from men. In fact, what he himself says is of first importance, what he calls the “gospel” he proclaimed (I cor 15:1) is actually something he would have gotten from human testimony. I think it is critical to note that what he says he received (in v3)  isn’t just a list of persons to whom the risen Jesus appeared (indeed the list of post-resurrection appearances only appears in v. 6, which is edited as a new sentence, so it isn’t even obvious to me that that should be taken as part of what he starts v. 3 saying he received); What he does explicitly say he received includes the very claim that Jesus was crucified for our sins according to the Scriptures and buried and rose on the third day according to the Scriptures. That seems to me absolutely to contradict what he says in Gal. 1. 

In Gal 1 his “gospel” is something he got directly from Christ, not from men, and that is the basis of his apostleship and absolute authority (Which he then uses to settle the circumcision question). In I Cor 15, if parelabon means what you say it does (and I’m not in a position to argue the lexicography), then he is saying exactly the opposite: all the key elements of the gospel he preached are things the received from men. 

To make him not be outright contradicting himself. we’d have to postulate that Paul is claiming to have two different gospels. One, which he preached to the Galatians, was the good news that gentiles don’t need to be circumcised, and that gospel he got from the Lord directly. The second, which he preach as of first importance to the Corinthians, included Jesus dying for our sins and rising from the dead in accordance with the scriptures, and that good news he receive as oral tradition from men. 

Jarek said

Robert said

Jarek said

Robert said

Jarek said

Robert said

Jarek said

… If we consider priority 1 Cor, this means that the gospels were written after 100 CE, after the publication of the Pauline Corpus.

If we consider that Mark was first, this means that 1 Cor was created after 70 CE.

If we recognize the primacy of Luke, or Mateusz or *Ev, we will undermine the primacy of Mark. …

None of these conclusions are logically sound. You are assuming that knowledge of this tradition could only be spread by these particular texts or collection of texts. But Paul clearly indicates that he himself handed it down as traditional material.

1.If we consider priority 1 Cor, this means that the gospels were written after 100 CE, after the publication of the Pauline Corpus.

No, it does not. You cannot assume that Mark could not have known of the eucharistic practice from being familiar with a Pauline or other early Christian community.

My assumption is taken directly from the outcome of the conference that changed the dating of Acts. It was deemed necessary for the Author of Acts to know Paul’s letters. Therefore, the dating starts from the year 100 CE. The first original version of cup-bread in Luke was replaced by cup-bread-cup influenced by the “about the 2 nd cup” text of 1 Cor.

According to the paradigm of the conference, Luke met 1 Cor after 100 CE. Luke didn’t care about the Mark/Matthew material or didn’t know it. So did the author of the Didache.

How do you prove that Luke did not know of or care about the gospel of Mark?

The bread-cup order with Mark and Matthew is found in 1 Cor and the revised Luke cup-bread-cup. It is a return to the two-element version of Paul which, for ritual reasons, is better than cup-bread-cup.

Paul’s direction (bread-cup) and Paul text is important for evangelists. 

Robyn Faith Walsh even suggested that Mark had 2 or 3 Pauline letters before the Pauline Corpus was released. Interesting. What are people not doing to save the dating of the gospel to 70 CE.

It’s not entirely clear what you’re arguing here, but your reference to Walsh’s view should be enough to call into question your earlier statement that the gospels could not have been aware of the Pauline tradition of the eucharist prior to a collection of multiple Pauline (and deutero-Pauline) letters becoming known as a collection.

2. If we consider that Mark was first, this means that 1 Cor was created after 70 CE. This is not good. Replace Mark with Luke and change to 

Why do you assume that Paul and his community in Corinth could not have been aware of this practice before it was included in the text of Mark?

Lord’s Supper is an interpolation in 1 Cor based on Luke version cup-bread-cup created after supplementation.

Huh? How do you know this?

3. If we recognize the primacy of Luke, or Mateusz or *Ev, we will undermine the primacy of Mark.

And if we do not recognize the primacy of Luke???

Initially Luke did not know the version of either Mark or Matthew and at the same tiame is heavily dependent on the text of both gospels. Parallel creation. 

Pure assumption on your part. Why do you always express your assumptions as statements of fact? Not a good way to build credibility.

Pure assumption on your part too.

You bring to life independent early Christian oral traditions transcribed by independent authors representing independent early Christian communities. Based on what? Based on assumptions only. You do the same with dating the text based on the content as if it were the reports of a clerical office. And these are not reports, but the first religious literature written by ghost writers who never admitted to it because it was in their interest. Who, in addition, copied each other on a large scale, which was also in their interest – less work and the whole thing looks coherent, and the Hero gains if the ideas of the competition are not undermined. And they are supposed to have these sincere intentions to convey the truth and their own emotions.

I argue that the copied written word required money and resources. And the justification for reaching for them had to be – because it pays off. Writing has been profitable since the 2nd century, and invented tradition makes it more profitable  

My only presumption here is that the specific practice of the Lord’s Supper, which Paul mentions as something that he had previously told the community about, could indeed be something known through being told about it or even through knowledge of this specific letter and that knowledge of this practice did not first require a collection of Paul’s letters to be circulated around 100 CE. I presume upon this possibility. Can you show this is impossible? If you cannot, you also should not state your hypotheses as facts upon which logical syllogisms can be built.

  

Let me try again.

The specific practice of the Lord’s Supper may be an early shared tradition of different communities. But why do these communities talk about it in the same words? Luke’s words about the “second cup” are the same as Paul’s words. So we have an alternative – someone supplemented 1 Cor with the text from Luke, or someone supplemented the testimony in Luke with the text from 1 Cor. 1 Cor. has been available since 100 CE.

First Luke had no text about the “second cup”. It is a later supplementation (BDE, Klinghardt) 140 CE.

So we have a dating of this particular sentence to AD 100 or AD 140.

Mark and Matthew have a bread-cup order. Paul’s letter 1 Cor too.

The original order in Luke is cup-bread supplemented later by “second cup”. A fix to join the others. What for ? Maybe, Due to the new concept of “new covenant in a blood”. The concept that exists in Mark, Matthew, and 1 Cor. But it doesn’t exist in the original first Luke. It is not strange. More strangely, Paul, Mark and Matthew share this theological concept. 

The first Luke was made before all of them, after which the canonical Luke uses all of them. Nothing unusual in the practice of ghost writers and editors.

  

It seems to me what you sketch here is plausible (not to say definitive), but it also seems rather a more modest proposal than what you were sketching earlier. 

Jarek said
Chaotic improvisation versus big knowledge and patience of Robert. New Covenant in a blood is rather sophisticated concept developed by one. The question is by who? By Mark or by Paul? 

  

I think a textual dependence between mark and Paul is plausible. 

But, for completeness, it isn’t necessarily the only possibility. The verbal formula may very well have been ossified in the liturgy of some community that they were both exposed to. 

But setting that aside, mark might well have had access to Paul long before 100. I mean, Paul was writing in the 50s and, we generally think, dead by 70, his letters were sent to people before he died, and those people read them, preserved them, and likely circulated them. We don’t know precisely how widely they circulated in the first decades after he wrote them (nor do we know whether mark would have been in one of the communities that read them), but we know they were being read by someone. It’s not like Paul wrote his letters, put them in a lock box, and then no one saw them until 100 when the box was opened and they were all published as a collection for the first time. 

Jarek said

Porphyry said

Jarek said

Chaotic improvisation versus big knowledge and patience of Robert. New Covenant in a blood is rather sophisticated concept developed by one. The question is by who? By Mark or by Paul? 

  

I think a textual dependence between mark and Paul is plausible. 

But, for completeness, it isn’t necessarily the only possibility. The verbal formula may very well have been ossified in the liturgy of some community that they were both exposed to. 

But setting that aside, mark might well have had access to Paul long before 100. I mean, Paul was writing in the 50s and, we generally think, dead by 70, his letters were sent to people before he died, and those people read them, preserved them, and likely circulated them. We don’t know precisely how widely they circulated in the first decades after he wrote them (nor do we know whether mark would have been in one of the communities that read them), but we know they were being read by someone. It’s not like Paul wrote his letters, put them in a lock box, and then no one saw them until 100 when the box was opened and they were all published as a collection for the first time. 

  

That’s possible.. what is also possible that everything was created by ghost writers and published about 100 c e. Probability of first and second solution is the same because there is no trace of primary circulation of the letters

  

Are you suggesting that the entire Pauline corpus was forged?