Corpus-Paul

["Hyam Maccoby" <h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk>]

When Paul claims that his doctrine is not from humans, he is denying that he
owes it to the teaching of the Jerusalem Church.  He is denying that he has
the status of a convert, since his source is divine.   In Acts 9, on the
contrary, he is represented as a convert who received instruction, after his
Damascus experience from first Ananias and the other disciples of Damascus,
and then from the leaders of the Jerusalem Church.  Paul says nothing about
these human instructors, and claims he was taught by Jesus himself, thus
putting himself on a par with the Jerusalem leaders. He is certainly not
saying that he received his doctrine from the heavenly rather than the
earthly Jesus, characterizing the latter as 'human'.  Such a concept would
reduce all Jesus' earthly teaching to merely human status.

Hyam Maccoby
----------------------------------
Dr.Hyam Maccoby
Research Professor
Centre for Jewish Studies
University of Leeds
Leeds.LS2
Direct lines: tel. +44 (0)113 268 1972
                   fax +44 (0)113 225 9927
e-mail: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
               hyam.maccoby AT btopenworld.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
To: <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 6:14 PM
Subject: [Corpus-Paul] Paul, an apostle, not from humans nor through a
human?


> Dear participants,
> I am working on the topic of Paul's relationship to the Jerusalem
apostles.
> Virtually all contemporary interpreters understand Paul's oblique
references
> in Gal. 1:1 (also 1:10-11) to his apostolic identity being "not from
humans"
> (apparently meaning, "human agents") "nor through a human" (apparently
> meaning, "human agency") to indicate clearly to his audience the (other)
> apostles based in Jerusalem, since they (presumably) received their
> commissions directly from Jesus when among them (when a human), something
> Paul cannot (does not) claim. Paul never explicitly makes this connection
> (human/s = Jerusalem apostles), but there are obviously certain comments
> made in the text or in other NT texts that are understood to make this
> conclusion clear enough that it is not generally questioned.
>
> Although it is clear to me how this connection is made in the commentaries
> and monographs on the topic (have consulted many), I am interested in the
> reasons why list members may find this to be so, or if not, what those
> reasons may be. In response, I intend only to probe, perhaps with relevant
> questions, but nothing more. It is not my intention to discuss my own
view.
>
> If open to the idea, I would like to solicit explanations (preferably
> without reference to the work of others) to what texts or arguments make
> this association of human/s = the Jerusalem apostles compelling, or
> alternatively, not compelling, for you?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
> --
> Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
> 313 NE Landings Dr.
> Lee's Summit, MO 64064
> USA
> nanosmd AT comcast.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Corpus-Paul mailing list
> Corpus-Paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/corpus-paul