Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 01-27-2003, 12:42 AM

I was reading about Wescott and Hort's ideas about the western text and "non-interpolations," areas where the western text differs from the Alexandrian by being shorter, and may thus be the more correct reading, at least in their view. One of these differences is apparently in 1 Cor 15:3 as listed here.

What exactly is the difference? Since Greek is, well, greek to me, I was wondering if one of you learned types could explain it.

Vorkosigan

not a theist · 01-27-2003, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
I was reading about Wescott and Hort's ideas about the western text and "non-interpolations," areas where the western text differs from the Alexandrian by being shorter, and may thus be the more correct reading, at least in their view. One of these differences is apparently in 1 Cor 15:3 as listed here.

What exactly is the difference? Since Greek is, well, greek to me, I was wondering if one of you learned types could explain it.

Vorkosigan

Looks like it would be the verse without "what I also received".

So here's the verse with the Western non-interpolation bold-italicized:

Quote:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures...(RSV)

I've had only one semester of Greek (and that was some years ago) but I checked Strong's against IGNT and WH and this looks right.

That does look rather significant, doesn't it. If Paul didn't receive it, did he make it up? Nice catch.

Vorkosigan · 01-27-2003, 05:13 AM

I reread Price on 1 Cor 15 and the possibility of interpolations the other day. I also re-read Eysinga's piece at the Journal of Higher Criticism on Galatians the other day. The Dutch Radicals had a very convincing take and there are some seriously disturbing insights there (if Jesus had been "born of woman" in Paul's time, why on earth would he insist on saying so? Doesn't that presuppose a time when that belief had already become a catechism formula -- in other words, the second century?).

So naturally I was interested when I saw that there were some differences in Western Paul. However, the sentence makes a lot less sense without the 'what I recieved' there, so.....but any interpolation in that passage is suggestive.

Vorkosigan

not a theist · 01-27-2003, 12:35 PM

I wouldn't minimize it's importance. Look at the passage without the interpolation:

Quote:

For I delivered to you as of first importance, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (RSV)

Apologists just love to use this passage as evidence that Paul is passing on a tradition of appearances. If one removes the interpolation, he's no longer explicitly claiming to have inherited this tradition. This at least opens up the counter-argument of "He made it up" against those who would claim this verse as evidence of early tradition of the appearances.

Toto · 01-27-2003, 02:46 PM

The delivered . . . received pairing is part of ritual language used in handing on rabbinical tradition.

Robert Price sees the whole verse as possibly interpolated because of contradictions with Gal:

Quote:

The pair of words in verse 3a, "received / delivered" ( / ) is, as has often been pointed out, technical language for the handing on of rabbinical tradition. [24] That Paul should have delivered the following tradition poses little problem; but that he had first been the recipient of it from earlier tradents creates, I judge, a problem insurmountable for Pauline authorship. Let us not seek to avoid facing the force of the contradiction between the notion of Paul's receiving the gospel he preached from earlier tradens and the protestation in Gal. 1:1, 11-12 that "I did not receive it from man." [25] If the historical Paul is speaking in either passage, he is not speaking in both.

But perhaps removing the "received" would solve that contradiction.

Artemus · 01-27-2003, 06:50 PM

I had always assumed that the "I received" in that passage meant "received from JC" in the vision/appearance, based on the Galations passage. Is it possible that that was the intent, or is my reading just an artifact of the translation to English?

Vorkosigan · 01-27-2003, 07:46 PM

That's certainly one way to resolve that contradiction. But it disappears if that phrase disappears. Perhaps that's why it was missing from that text, specifically to get rid of the contradiction with Galatians.

In any case, I don't have a problem with the boastful, coy, "all things to all men," Paul saying one thing in one letter and another thing in another letter.....I was more interested in finding some textual support for Price's contention.

Vorkosigan

not a theist · 01-27-2003, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Artemus
I had always assumed that the "I received" in that passage meant "received from JC" in the vision/appearance, based on the Galations passage. Is it possible that that was the intent, or is my reading just an artifact of the translation to English?

The word translated as "received" here (parelabon) seems to be ambiguous as to how the receiving could have happened. Here's Strong's take on it (it's #3880):

Quote:

1) to take to, to take with one�s self, to join to one�s self
1a) an associate, a companion
1b) metaph.
1b1) to accept or acknowledge one to be such as he professes to be
1b2) not to reject, not to withhold obedience
2) to receive something transmitted
2a) an office to be discharged
2b) to receive with the mind
2b1) by oral transmission: of the authors from whom the tradition proceeds
2b2) by the narrating to others, by instruction of teachers (used of disciples)

Geoff Hudson · 01-30-2003, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
I was reading about Wescott and Hort's ideas about the western text and "non-interpolations," areas where the western text differs from the Alexandrian by being shorter, and may thus be the more correct reading, at least in their view. One of these differences is apparently in 1 Cor 15:3 as listed here.

What exactly is the difference? Since Greek is, well, greek to me, I was wondering if one of you learned types could explain it.

Vorkosigan

I cannot answer your query, but here is my interpolation of 1Cor.15.3 and its surrounding verses. The original text was written continuously in columns without verses and punctuation, so it is never a good idea to consider a verse in isolation because there might be all sorts of chicanery going on, as there undoubtedly was here.

[ ] Read out
{} Read in

Quote:

1 Cor. 15:1-8

(1)Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the [gospel] {Spirit} I preached to you, which you received and on which you [have taken your stand] {believe}.

(2)By [this gospel] {the Spirit} you are [saved] {purified} if you [hold firmly to] {obey} [the word I preached to you] {him}. Otherwise you have believed in vain.

(3)For [what] {the Spirit} I received, [I passed on to you as of] FIRST

[importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (4)that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, (5)and that he]

APPEARED to [Peter] {John}, and then to

[the Twelve. (6)After that he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. (7)Then he appeared to]

James, then to all the apostles, (8)and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one [abnormally] {lately} born.

COMMENTS

One "receives" the Spirit. The Spirit "appears". The Spirit first appeared to John the prophet, then to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all to me also.

It is clear that "first" should be followed by "appeared" NOT "importance". "That Christ died" etc. is inserted text.

References to: "gospel", "taking your stand" (involving human effort), "saved", "holding firmly" (again involving human effort), the "word", "passing on", "Christ dying and being raised on the third day according to the scriptures", "Peter", "appearing to more than five hundred at the same time", and may be "abnormally", all belong to a later redaction.

Geoff

01-27-2003, 12:42 AM	#1
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Western Text of Paul I was reading about Wescott and Hort's ideas about the western text and "non-interpolations," areas where the western text differs from the Alexandrian by being shorter, and may thus be the more correct reading, at least in their view. One of these differences is apparently in 1 Cor 15:3 as listed here. What exactly is the difference? Since Greek is, well, greek to me, I was wondering if one of you learned types could explain it. Vorkosigan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-27-2003, 05:13 AM	#3
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I reread Price on 1 Cor 15 and the possibility of interpolations the other day. I also re-read Eysinga's piece at the Journal of Higher Criticism on Galatians the other day. The Dutch Radicals had a very convincing take and there are some seriously disturbing insights there (if Jesus had been "born of woman" in Paul's time, why on earth would he insist on saying so? Doesn't that presuppose a time when that belief had already become a catechism formula -- in other words, the second century?). So naturally I was interested when I saw that there were some differences in Western Paul. However, the sentence makes a lot less sense without the 'what I recieved' there, so.....but any interpolation in that passage is suggestive. Vorkosigan

01-27-2003, 06:50 PM	#6
Artemus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USA Posts: 2,467	I had always assumed that the "I received" in that passage meant "received from JC" in the vision/appearance, based on the Galations passage. Is it possible that that was the intent, or is my reading just an artifact of the translation to English?

01-27-2003, 07:46 PM	#7
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	That's certainly one way to resolve that contradiction. But it disappears if that phrase disappears. Perhaps that's why it was missing from that text, specifically to get rid of the contradiction with Galatians. In any case, I don't have a problem with the boastful, coy, "all things to all men," Paul saying one thing in one letter and another thing in another letter.....I was more interested in finding some textual support for Price's contention. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.