archibald

Do you mean the order in which people are supposed to have witnessed?

Could you briefly elaborate?

If that's not an oxymoron. :]

archibald

Unless I'm picking something up incorrectly, 'contradiction' is cited as a clue for interpolation. If that's the case, lack of a contradiction would be a lack of support.

My bad. Verse 3.

dog-on

The passage seems to subordinate the self claimed authority of Paul, as may have been the actual intention. Such arguments, however, really came into prominence during the second century, as the nacent orthodoxy attempted to consolidate it's own authority. The surviving works from this period, (the heresiologists, in particular), tend to evidence this fact. As such, considering how Paul describes his own authority in other places in his writings, I must consider the distinct possiblity that this passage not, in fact, Pauline.

archibald

I must admit, I have not seen Paul as denying that there were pillars of the church before him?

dog-on

Denying, no. Respecting the authority of? Doubtful.

hjalti

Yes. Contradiction between the suspected interpolation and something else in the author's writings.

But in what you wrote, you seem to be talking about the text as it would be without the suspected interpolation:Sure if we omit what Price thinks is an interpolation, we don't have any contradictions. So what?

archibald

Sure. But which part of 1 Cor 15 contradicts this? Does he say anything other than that they were 'before him'?

hjalti

Ok. But regarding your point. When I read this: "I deliver to you what I also recieved.", then it seems to me to clearly mean that he recieved it in the same/similar manner. What we're dealing with is the idea of Paul being subordinate to the other apostles, and denying him any special revelation. It's like reading Acts.

dog-on

The least of the apostles, though those deemed to be important added nothing to his message.

avi

Paul was not an apostle.

Jesus appointed/designated his apostles. Neither Paul, nor Constantine were included in that group. They may well have, both of them, CLAIMED to have been an apostle, but that is simply a manifestation of the general problem of grandiosity. Paul, moreover, according to our oldest extant Greek manuscripts, claimed to have never met Jesus of Nazareth/Capernaum/Bethlehem. Paul claimed to have experienced Jesus via hallucination.

Question: Who were the "twelve" apostles, since the quantity ought to have diminished with the demise of Judas (as evidenced by the English translation, in the Catholic bible, citing "Cephas and the Eleven", instead of "Cephas and the twelve", as found in all of the other English translations, and all of the extant Greek manuscripts)?

Was there a twelfth "apostle" who had been appointed, following Judas' death, if so, who appointed him? More importantly, from whence derived this authority, to appoint an apostle, following the death of Jesus? Was this authority extended to Paul and Constantine?

avi