If Evolution is True, why do Humans need a Savior but the Great Apes do Not?

[hansgeorg]

No it isn't. No it isn't.

Looked up three versions, seems you were right about the chapters I thought relevant at least.

On the other hand Josephus does state Hebrews are named after Heber:

Sala was the son of Arphaxad; and his son was Heber, from whom they originally called the Jews Hebrews. (18)

That you are a deluded incompetent and that anything you say (such as "Heber didn't take part in the building is there in Josephus' comment" or "Markan priority is an Academic invention of 1870's Prussia"*) should be assumed to be drivel until demonstrated otherwise.

I may make blunders, so does anyone who doesn't lean back more or less passively on his contemporary and their consensus. Deluded is too much, and incompetent is a question of definition. I making blunders makes one incompetent, as I made about Josephus, I am, perhaps so.

It is also possibly I might find it in later chapters, where he comes to discuss the Hebrew language in another context, I don't know yet.

In Christian tradition, it is at least fairly solid since St Augustine.

De Civitate Dei, Book 16
http://newadvent.com/fathers/120116.htm

I thought he had this, like some other things, presumably, from Josephus.

My source for history of Markan priority:

BISMARCK AND THE FOUR GOSPELS
1870 - 1914
by William R. Farmer (University of Dallas)
Editor of A NEW CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY

This at least shows how Markan priority gained ascension in Academia then.

*It wasn't an invention, and it was proposed in the 1700s.

Namely?

I'll gladly learn about the "enlightened" prehistory of Markan priority ...

And whenever I hear about 1700's, I put "enlightened" in quotation marks, except for musicology.

[hansgeorg]

"It isn't in the Bible, but it is in Josephus and in Christian tradition after his time." (Namely Heber's house preserving original language).

No it isn't.

Wrong part of pre-Christian Jewish tradition,

(resuming):

Book of Jubilees : Hebrew was forgotten between Babel and revelation to Abram - not accepted by St Augustine and ensuing Christians;
Testament of Naphthali - virtually identic to St Augustine's version.

Page 310, with footnote 21 to her source about Testament of Naphthali. Journal of Jewish Studies, 49 (1998), 306-333, as mentioned.

[Roy]

I may make blunders, so does anyone who doesn't lean back more or less passively on his contemporary and their consensus.

The problem is not that you make blunders, the problem is that you don't make anything but blunders. Though I will admit you at least have the merit of acknowledging them.

I'll gladly learn about the "enlightened" prehistory of Markan priority ...

Try here.

[psstein]

The gospels stem from oral tradition, and the earliest was not written until c.70 CE, thus allowing ample opportunity for embellishment and redaction.

If you hold to an outdated, form critical approach to oral tradition, then sure. The issue is that studies in oral tradition show that Bultmann's thesis about embellishment and redaction wasn't correct.

I'll grant that Paul never met Jesus, though scholars have disputed that. Paul didn't get everything from revelation; this is the same mistake that mythicists make. Paul is defending his apostolic credentials. If you read the Greek, it's apparent that Paul uses language that denotes oral traditions or, in some cases, incorporates earlier traditions into the gospels. '

No, there's oral tradition and the letters of Paul, which incorporate significant amounts of this tradition.

[psstein]

My source for history of Markan priority:

BISMARCK AND THE FOUR GOSPELS
1870 - 1914
by William R. Farmer (University of Dallas)
Editor of A NEW CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY

This at least shows how Markan priority gained ascension in Academia then.

Farmer's point is wrong here. I've done a fair amount of work on this topic. There's no evidence of what Farmer is claiming. The liberal Protestants whom advocated Markan priority did not do so to attack Catholicism.

It has been my experience that, whenever you resort to a conspiracy to explain how something came about, you don't have much of a case.

[psstein]

What are you calling the earliest sources? I am considering only Mark as possibly a known early source. I believe the miraculous nature of the ministry of Jesus was amplified in the gospels that came after Mark.

Now we're getting somewhere. I'm willing to admit that the miracles were amplified in some way or that some of them represent post-Easter developments.

I would submit that Mark is the earliest source and that Q may not exist.

[hansgeorg]

The problem is not that you make blunders, the problem is that you don't make anything but blunders. Though I will admit you at least have the merit of acknowledging them.Try here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlob_Christian_Storr

A first note, he was a Protestant.

Farmer's point is wrong here. I've done a fair amount of work on this topic. There's no evidence of what Farmer is claiming. The liberal Protestants whom advocated Markan priority did not do so to attack Catholicism.

It has been my experience that, whenever you resort to a conspiracy to explain how something came about, you don't have much of a case.

Grammar : whom advocated MP? It is MP which is accusative, so it should be who advocated MP.

Whether they wanted to attack Catholicism is less material. Dr. Wollmann,, an excommunicated Catholic, did want to attack Papacy - therein coinciding with interest of Bismarck during Kulturkampf. Oh, Bismarck of course was not attacking Catholics, he was attacking Ultramontanismus ...

Here is anyway what Farmer says, and it does not sound like a conspiracy theory to me:

It may be argued that no German scholar would have allowed himself to be influenced by non-scientific considerations, like the fear of being regarded as one who wishes to limit "free enquiry". But is such an argument sociologically tenable? And in any case would these German scholars also be free from all national sentiment?

For example, would Catholic professors during the Second Reich be immune from societal pressure emanating from a majority prejudice that a Catholic "cannot love his Fatherland"? It is within this historical and sociological context that we are most likely to find the answer to the question: "How did Mark displace Matthew as the foundational gospel for Christian faith and find itself as the chief theological model for liberal Protestant, and eventually liberal Catholic theology?" We conjecture that once the Marcan hypothesis had become a popular alternative to the more radical Tubingen hypothesis this transformation happened imperceptibly and unconsciously in response to the ideological need of the German state for a theological defense against a perceived "Catholic" threat.

[hansgeorg]

Now we're getting somewhere. I'm willing to admit that the miracles were amplified in some way or that some of them represent post-Easter developments.

I would submit that Mark is the earliest source and that Q may not exist.

X-QZ me, are you Catholic? You know what the Biblical Commission of Pope St Pius X would have said ...?

[shunyadragon]

X-QZ me, are you Catholic? You know what the Biblical Commission of Pope St Pius X would have said ...?

This belief is ancient history, I am no longer a believer in the Roman Church, but I believe the Roman Church has moved on from this archaic view.

[Tassman]

No, there's oral tradition and the letters of Paul, which incorporate significant amounts of this tradition.

[Doug Shaver]

Paul didn't get everything from revelation

Right, he probably didn't. But he says he did.

[Doug Shaver]

Paul is defending his apostolic credentials.

On what did he base his defense? In the Christian community of his time, exactly what was required for someone to validly claim to be an apostle? And how do we know that? What document do we have, produced during the middle of the first century, in which someone says, "In order to be an apostle, a person must ______"?

[hansgeorg]

This belief is ancient history, I am no longer a believer in the Roman Church, but I believe the Roman Church has moved on from this archaic view.

Then the thing you call Roman Church, in the second part certainly also is no longer a believer in the Roman Church, and so is an apostate like you are yourself.

[hansgeorg]

Oh, the "extraordinary claims" canard.

psstein may acknowledge it, I don't really.

Especially I don't acknowledge amplification by adding miracles which didn't happen.

When Genesis says water rose 15 cubits over highest mountains and an Altaic Flood legend says it rose sth like 80 feet, the 80 feet are amplification, but the miraculous part, the Flood, is the same in both.

Right, he probably didn't. But he says he did.

...[get everything from revelation]

On what did he base his defense?

He based the defense on having seen Christ risen. That was in a revelation.

In the Christian community of his time, exactly what was required for someone to validly claim to be an apostle?

To have seen Christ risen. Usually meaning also to have been one of the original 12 (but one Judas was excluded, both for the treason and for the suicide, and also for not having seen Christ risen).

Alternative view, then next tier of faithful officials, also chosen by Our Lord Jesus Christ, the 72 were also considered as Apostles.

Either way, there was some leeway, see next point ...

And how do we know that? What document do we have, produced during the middle of the first century, in which someone says, "In order to be an apostle, a person must ______"?

Acts chapter 1 tells us how Matthias replaced Judas. Acts was written by St Luke, around middle of First Century.

As for a complete list of required credentials, for one, I think as long as there were any of the twelve, they judged, and this means there could be flexibility, and for another thing, to publish such a list (complete criteria) would have been foolhardy.

Also, how careful the Church was to avoid being bamboozled by false claimants can be seen by the kind of prudential care which is taken now and was from start to exclude frauds.

[Adrift]

Right, he probably didn't. But he says he did.

No he doesn't. All he says is,

Galatians 1:11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Source: Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul's Letter to the Galatians by Ben Witherington, pg. 92

Verse 12 entail two specific denials. Paul neither received his Gospel from human beings, nor was he taught it. Rather it came through an apocalypse or revelation of Jesus Christ. The question is what is Paul denying here? How should we read the final clause? Is it an example of the use of an objective genitive or a subjective genitive? Is Christ seen as the mediator of this revelation or the content of it? The first denial involves the semi-technical term 'recieved' often used for the transmission of sacred tradition in early Jewish and Jewish Christian circles (cf. 1 Cor. 15.3). What follows this verse in Gal. 1-2, makes quite clear that Paul is not denying that he had received some information about Jesus from other human beings. Things could perhaps be clarified somewhat if we could decide whether the final clause involves an objective or subjective genitive. On the one hand, Gal. 1.1 might be thought to favor the suggestion that the phrase refers to a revelation that came from or through Christ, but there the issue is Paul's apostleship, not his Gospel. On the other hand, 1.16 speaks of a revelation of which Christ is the content. On the whole it seems likely that Paul in vs. 12 is referring to a revelation about Christ. If this is correct then Paul must have something specific in mind about Christ or his ministry, an insight or idea he had not received from other Christians. In view of the subject matter of what precedes and follows 1.12, the most reasonable suggestion is that Paul is referring to his Law-free Gospel for the Gentiles which focusses on and is based on faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross which provides one with right standing before God. This distinctive Gospel message about Christ Paul admits is not the sort of thing human beings could come up with on their own. It had to be revealed by God for it to be known at all.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Galatians: A Commentary by Martinus C. de Boer, pp. 83-84

What Paul claims about his reception of the gospel he preached to the Galatians seems...to contradict what he will write in 1 Cor 15:1-5, where the wording is strikingly similar to that found in Gal 1:11-12:

Gal 1:11-12 I make known to you [gnorizo de hymin], brethren [adelphoi], concerning the gospel that was preached [to euangelion to euangelisthen] by me [which you received, parelabete; 1:9], that it is not of human origin. For I neither received [oude parelabon] it from a human being nor was I taught [it], but [I received it] through an apocalyptic revelation of Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 15:1-5 [AT] I make known to you [gnorizo de hymin], brethren [adelphoi], the gospel that I preached [to euangelion ho euengelisamen] to you, which you also received [parelabete] . . . for I passed on to you . . . what I also received [parelabon]: that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" . . .

In 1 Cor 15:1-5, what Paul "received" (was given by human beings) and "passed on" (transmitted to other human beings) as "the gospel" consisted of an already-fixed verbal tradition, whereas in Gal 1:12 what he received "through an apocalyptic revelation of Jesus Christ" (and by implication passed on to the Galatians, who "received" it) was no such thing. The fact that Paul in 1:4a has seemingly cited and adapted a key element of the gospel tradition found in 1 Cor 15:3-5, that "Christ died for our sins", suggests, however, that there is less of a contradiction than appears at first sight.

The issues at stake in the two texts are different. In 1 Cor 15:1-11, the issue is the resurrection of Christ, and Paul seeks to let the Corinthians know that his preaching of Christ's resurrection was common apostolic preaching from the beginning: "Whether then it was I or they, so we [all] preach and so you believed" (1 Cor 15:11 RSV). The content of "the gospel" transmitted in the existing tradition concerns primarily the death and resurrection of Christ "according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3-5). In Galatians, the issue is whether Gentile believers in Christ need to be compelled to do the law, beginning with circumcision. As the account of his second visit to Jerusalem makes plain (2:1-10), Paul's preaching of a circumcision-free and law-free gospel for the Gentiles is not based on common apostolic tradition, going back to the beginning (cf. Acts 10:34-11:18, esp. 10:45; 11:1-2, 18). Paul locates the origin of the gospel he has preached to the Galatians and still proclaims among the Gentiles (Gal 2:2) in the event of God's apocalyptic revelation of his Son in his life at a particular moment in his life (cf. Eph 3:3, 6; Acts 9:15; 22:21; 26:17). Its content is evidently God's unconditional grace for Gentile believers, indeed (as Paul will insist) for all who believe, whether Gentile or Jew: Justification takes place as a result of "the faith of Christ" and not as a result of "works of law" (Gal 2:16; see comment there). "The (one) gospel" can thus be authentically expressed in different verbal formulations, some of them rooted in tradition received and passed on (as in 1 Cor 15:1-5), others not (as in Galatians).

© Copyright Original Source

[bolded emphasis mine]