[B-Greek] 1COR. 11:23 APO TOU KURIOU
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Sat Oct 18 14:17:37 EDT 2008
>>
Hello Bryant,
>>
>> 1COR. 11:23 EGW GAR PARELABON APO TOU KURIOU, hO KAI PAREDWKA hUMIN,
>> hOTI hO KURIOS IHSOUS EN THi NUKTI hHi PAREDIDETO ELABEN ARTON
>>
>> Is Paul claiming direct revelation in 1COR. 11:23 APO TOU KURIOU?
>> This
>> question isn't new, see Fee, Thiselton (1Cor NIGTC) and Spicq
>> (III.18 n26) for bibliography.
On Oct 18, 2008, at 12:01 AM, Bryant J. Williams III wrote:
> I can see both sides of the issue here. On the one hand, Paul did
> have direct
> revelation APO TOU KURIOU (cf. Acts 18:9-10; Gal.1:12; I Cor. 7:10;
> II Cor.
> 12:1-10); but, on the other hand it is clear that he did distinguish
> direct from
> indirect revelation (I Cor. 7:12, 25, 40b).
I am not sure I Cor. 7:12, 25, 40b illustrate the kind of indirect
revelation which some claim for APO TOU KURIOU in 1COR. 11:23. Paul
didn't receive his teaching in 1Cor 7 as an item of apostolic
tradition passed down from those who heard it first APO/PARA TOU
KURIOU. That is what a number of scholars claim is happening in 1COR.
11:23 and even those who claim apostolic tradition as the means by
which Paul obtained the teaching of 1Cor 11:17ff, most of them do not
base their argument on a grammatical distinction between APO/PARA TOU
KURIOU (see Fee, Rob.-Plummer, Thiselton). Fee's argument is based on
the historical nature of the content. Rob.-Plummer don't find any
reason to claim a supernatural revelation to Paul, where apostolic
tradition was available.
>
>
> I am more inclined to lean toward direct revelation APO TOU KURIOU
> since the
> context "seems/appears" to indicate just that..
Yes. I think it is difficult to read Paul's "EGW GAR PARELABON APO TOU
KURIOU" as a reference to apostolic tradition. Using the language of
"tradition passed down" does not settle the issue, see J.Dunn:1977
[1]. Note that Codex Bezae apparently made an attempt to clarify this
by replacing APO with PARA -- of course there are other viable
explanations for this variant.
[1]J.Dunn, Unity & Diversity (1977), 67: "Moreover he specifically
designates the source of the Last Supper tradition as 'the Lord'. This
seems to mean not so much that the earthly Jesus was the original
source of the tradition, but rather that Paul understood the present,
exalted Jesus to be the immediate source of the historical formula -
that is to say, that it was authoritative not because it was a
tradition but because it was received and accepted on the direct
authority of the exalted one (cf. and note the present tense in I Cor.
7. l0). Here again evidently we are back with the idea of 'pneumatic
tradition', tradition which is authoritative because of its immediate
inspiration and its direct relevance."
Another question. Is Paul highlighting a distinction between how he
received this "tradition" and how the Corinthians received it? If Paul
had actually received this "tradition" from Peter but considered it
ultimately APO TOU KURIOU, then why wouldn't the Corinthians also be
able to claim that this "tradition" was APO TOU KURIOU. In other
words, if it was passed down from the twelve (Peter?) to Paul and from
Paul to the Corinthians then Paul's position would not be
substantially different from the Corinthians, he would be a recipient
of a tradition passed down. If this were in fact what had happened it
seems to me that Paul would not have formulated it as EGW GAR
PARELABON APO TOU KURIOU, hO KAI PAREDWKA hUMIN. The expression EGW
GAR PARELABON APO TOU KURIOU sounds to me like a claim to a special
kind of authority for the content of his message. Once again, the
clause initial EGW and the ambiguity of APO TOU KURIOU which could
mean direct communication. My reading of this is based less on grammar
or linguistics than it is on Paul's clearly evident preoccupation with
his authority in this letter.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list