Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

You must have misunderstood the question. Several unanimously attested passages spring to mind as texts whose unanimous support evidently means very little to some on this board.

The eucharistic passage in 1 Corinthians, the resurrection witness passage in the same, the James passages in Galatians.... And there are more.

Ben.

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I've never seen it. Don't know about anyone else.

Originally Posted by Toto

William Walker explains why it is reasonable to think that there might be interpolations in the Pauline epistles in spite of a lack of textual evidence.

Refer to here.

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

What is more doubtful is whether, without textual evidence, we can in any specific case say that a given passage is probably an interpolation.

Originally Posted by Solo

Or perhaps, you misunderstood the answer.

Originally Posted by Toto

William Walker explains why it is reasonable to think that there might be interpolations in the Pauline epistles in spite of a lack of textual evidence.

Refer to here.

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Unanimous textual evidence in favor of a reading refers to a reading which is present in all relevant manuscripts (that is, a reading against which there is no contrary evidence in the manuscripts).

On point of logic, with respect to "patristic evidence", it is opinion of militants in the service of a religious belief.

Originally Posted by Solo

No, what you have at best is invariant text in preserved manuscripts copied for several generations after the originals, on which fact you make the pious assumption that if passages in them were not altered subsequently, they are (likely) the originals.

Originally Posted by Ben

Jiri, one main obstacle to viewing this passage as an interpolation is that it appears to have belonged, at least in some form, to the text as known by Marcion and by the Valentinians.

....

That is very early evidence.

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Please point out to me where I might have made such an assumption. I am aware of offering arguments for (and occasionally against) the genuineness of certain passages at various places, but I am unaware of ever having stated anything to the effect that, because the testimony is unanimous, the passage must be genuine.

Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by Solo Obviously, I have a problem with that kind of inference. You and I already went through this when discussing 1 Cr 15:3-11. No, we did not. In our brief discussion of 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 the unanimity of the textual witness never came up. My comment was: Jiri, one main obstacle to viewing this passage as an interpolation is that it appears to have belonged, at least in some form, to the text as known by Marcion and by the Valentinians. .... That is very early evidence.

Originally Posted by Ben C.Smith

True. That is partly because I am pressed for time from other projects, and partly because I believe in authenticating the text first.

Originally Posted by Solo

I think the internal evidence is quite strong that Paul did not write the passage, as it contradicts a number of crucial elements in Paul’s posture and beliefs.

1. Paul’s view of himself vis-ê-vis other apostolic authorities is
internally consistent, and uncompromising everywhere else in
his letters. This passage is at loggerheads with that expressed
view.
2. Paul’s belief in his commission from God, and its directness, which is
absolutely central to his faith, is compromised by the passage.
3. the original pericope of 1:15 by Paul ignores the insert, and
4. the passage uses a resurrectional concepts which are likely
anachronistic to Paul

Ad 1) From my point of view, Paul built a very strong and invariant set of beliefs around his mission, his relationship with the church and other apostolic figures. His relation to other leaders of the movement can be summarized as “humble to Christ, haughty to men”. It comes the strongest in Galatians, where the agonistic apostle declares his gospel to be a monopoly from God and threatens everyone who contradicts him with hell (Gal 5:10). But even when he is calm, cool and collected, and writes a clever diatribe, as in 1 Cr 9, he makes his no bones about his own moral superiority. That the Paul who says (in 1 Cr 9:15) “I would rather die than have any one deprive me of my ground of boasting” would a few paragraphs down in the letter, place himself at the bottom of the apostolic heap, and agree that he is the least worthy, is something beyond my humble wits. And humble as my wits may be, they still observe that Paul does not consider his former self persecuting the church to have been a cause for penance and seeing himself as inferior to other men in anything touching on Christ. Quite the contrary, Gal 1:13-14, and Phl 3:6 strongly hint that Paul believed Saul’s zeal in persecuting the church attested to his moral fibre, and the change of heart in the matter was entirely God’s will.
Verse 11 introduces another idea alien to Paul’s habitual thought ways. Paul was very “territorial” when it came to his mission to the Gentiles, and so the point of indifference as to who preaches to the flock he addresses is frankly unbelievable to me. Compare for example with the statement made in the chapter immediately preceeding, 1 Cr 14:37, or 2 Cr 11:4-5, or Gal 3:1, 5:10, or Rom 11:13-14, 15:17-21, or 2 Th 2:15.

Ad 2) Paul’s letters continually advertise his spiritual independence, and his direct relationship with God. As I indicated elsewhere on BCH, I consider it axiomatic that his visionary experiences and revelations about Jesus Christ relate to a late onset of acute bipolarity (relatively late, Swedenborg’s came in mid fifties). Psychologically then, they would provide a hugely prominent internal psychosomatic data against which his beliefs operated. As Paul was a man of low social standing but high dominance, the belief that he was commissioned by God directly had also a big compensatory function. It was something that distinguished Paul from other men and fed his self-esteem. Paul’s viewed himself as someone set apart by God before he was born, one who received (in due time) important revelations about God’s plan for humanity. There is no indication in Gal 1:15 that anything was wrong with God’s timing of Paul’s commission. So it is that verse which clashes head on with 1 Cr 15:8 which sees Paul as being born ‘ektromati’, i.e. in a deficient (or abortive) manner time-wise relative to the visions of other dignitaries.
For the same reason, the double reference to “scriptures” in (3 & 4) appears to be a clumsy attempt at being Paul. As Price observed (through reference in op.cit. above) it contradicts directly Paul’s assertion in Gal 1:16 that God revealed his Son in him (en emoi – i.e. directly as a bodily experience – about which more some other time) in order that he might preach him among the Gentiles. By contrast, the wording in 1 Cr 15 replaces the interpreted content of his personal ecstasies and revelations with a vague reference to holy writs, with what looks like intent on the part of the writer to show that Paul knows the gospel expansions extant at a later point and underwrites them. Unfortunately for the inserter, the gloss occurs exactly in a place where Paul appeals to his flock to take his version of Christ’s resurrection - on faith alone !

Ad 3&4) The logical sequencing of the original 1 Cr 15 Paul’s pericope seems to ignore the insert. The verse 12 logically follows verse 2, in concretizing the proposition that faith is in vain without Paul’s gospel, if its central tenet, the resurrection of Christ from the dead is not believed. Paul goes on to raise the ante by suggesting that if he preaches Christ as risen from the dead and he wasn’t, not only the faith of his flock is in vain but that Paul himself is an impostor who misrepresents God, stressing again that without Christ rising, the believers are still in their sins. Then Paul changes his rhetoric and begins asserting that Jesus Christ is “in fact”(nuni) raised, offering as proof the presumed union with him of those in the congregation who have died before parousia. In doing so, Paul strangely duplicates the effort of the insert which claims a scriptural proof of Christ’s rising supplemented by the witness of a multitude.

The Chapter continues to expound Paul’s own eschatological blueprint until the emotionally gripping crescendo of 1 Cr 15:56-58. Not once in the excursus after verse 11, Paul re-references the section of 3-11, alludes to other eschatological scenarios, apostles, or appearances. He gives no hint of it even in the crucial section of 42-50 which builds a resurrectional model in familiar images of Pauline sensing of eternity, and which would call for an explanation of what the “third day” really means in verse 4, or how the “image of the man of heaven” that “we shall bear” in 49 squares with Jesus re-materializing post-mortem for family and friends in 5-7. Why does Paul have to spend thirty eight verses (starting with 20) to elaborate on a scenario which appears to be arguing with the very people among whom he feels to be the last and unworthy ?