Johnny Skeptic

How about a 90 A.D. interpolation?

Aside from 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, what other evidence do you have that Jesus made some post-resurrection appearances?

aa5874

There is no paleographic dating of P46 that gives a specific year. The probable dating of P46 is within ONE HUNDRED years c150-250 CE.

It must be noted that the paleographic range is just probable NOT actual.

And "Paleographic dating" may not be able to detect some type of forgeries.

Doug Shaver

Yes, but not with good reason. There is no justification for such a precise estimate.

http://www.biblical-data.org/P-46%20Oct%201997.pdf

Solo

I think it is an early one - from before the gospel storyboard became current. "The Twelve" in the passage do not resemble the twelve disciples Jesus chose. The group (otherwise unknown in the Pauline corpus) does not seem to have been connected to the apostles. Cephas stands outside of the Twelve. James, curiously ranks below the simultaneous appearance to the 500 - which is unknown to the gospels (could it be an early version of the Pentecost ?). The apostolic cortege is mentioned with the appearances to James and Paul which might be something of a historical marker. The passage would come from the time of the ascendancy of Cephas (Peter) over James, as a key referent authority in the Jerusalem congregation. That the sequence of appearances was meant as authority ranking is apparent from the wording in 8-9 : "and last of all he was seen by me...for I am the least of the apostles..."

It might be something of a surprise that Cephas would not be grouped with the apostles but 1 Cor 9:5 also separates Cephas from that group. (In contrast, Gal 1:19 assigns the apostolic status to Cephas by implication).

FWIW, one of the additional reasons (to those enumerated by Robert Price) why I consider the 1 Cr 15:3-8 passage an interpolation is the variance of Paul's estimate of his apostleship and "seeing Jesus" in 1 Cr 9:1-2 where he says : Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

It seems a stretch to claim a) that Paul would have clamoured to be accepted as an apostle, however unworthy, if he himself says he is not accepted by others as one, and is ok with that because he has his own constituency, and b) that it is not Paul's church he is writing to in 1 Cor 9, but a church with multiple focal points of traditions of authority.

Jiri

andrewcriddle

The interesting article you linked to dates P46 175-225 CE which is in effect c 200 CE.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Formally possible. But it is difficult to see how one would present positive evidence for it. The arguments on internal grounds that the passage is an interpolation seem (if valid) to support a date more than one generation after Paul. In general, claims that a passage is later than the lifetime of its supposed author but is perfectly plausible a few decades later on should be treated with some initial skepticism.
Paul clearly witnesses to his belief in the resurrection throughout his epistles. The Gospels are evidence for post-resurrection appearances, although not in their present form first hand evidence.

What evidence would convince you that Jesus made some post-resurrection appearances ?

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Not at all. A period from 175-225 CE cannot be said to be 200 CE. That is precisely why a range was given to make the reader understand that it could probably be earlier or later than 200 CE.

Adding 175 to 225 and then dividing by 2 is a most bogus methodology for finding a precise date for P 46.

The probable dates for P46 varies from person to person and do not reflect actual dates of writing.

It must be NOTED that paleographic dating alone of P46 makes the dating uncertain.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

DCHindley

That is why the date is preceeded by a "c" (for circa, "around," also abbreviated "ca."). Most paleographic dates are approximate as commonly used styles of letters ("fonts") change gradually over time. Scribes tend to use the styles they were taught (different ones for different purposes - book hand, business document, trade hand, etc). There were also variations by region. As time goes on, the younger scribes come up with variants while the oldsters continue plugging away with the old style. For Egyptian scribal hands, there are a LOT of examples found, many dated, to allow paleographers to come up with a range of dates. The "circa" date is smack in the middle, with a range of 25 years either way. If they are less certain, they use centuries to indicate approximate range of dates: Century I, II, etc. If they want to be more precise but don't want to use the 50 yr range (+/- 25) they may say "late II, early III" (i.e., 250-350). I've also seen "latter half of X century" (950-1000) & such.

DCH

Doug Shaver

Yes, it does, in one place. In another, the conclusion, it says this:

Technically, yes. But nobody thinks of "about 200" as meaning "give or take 50," except maybe professional scholars working within the relevant field.

Johnny Skeptic

One need not propose that the passage "is" an interpolation, only that it is "plausible" that the passage is an interpolation.

Why isn't an interpolation in 90 A.D. plausible?

But where did he get his information from?

But the unresolved issues of dating, authorship, and sources bring the claims into question. John was written much too late to be of much use to Christians. In another thread, you yourself basically said that Mark is not very useful regarding Jesus' post-resurrection appeanaces. You know that Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark, and that Mark's sources are questionable. You have said that Mark used, or may have used Peter as a source, but what evidence do you have that Peter was speaking for himself?

Do you mean what could the God of the Bible do to convince me that he exists? If so, a mere resurrection would not convince me that he exists. For all we know, many alien cultures in various parts of the universe are able to raise people from the dead.

If intelligence and education play a significant role in evaluating whether or not the God of the Bible probably exists, if there was sufficient textual evidence that the God of the Bible probably exists, I assume that Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman would be aware of that.