Ben C Smith

Quite some time ago I skimmed online a German page by H. Detering concerning 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 in the Marcionite version. It gave detailed textual evidence for the inclusion and exclusion of certain phrases, and it referred to the R. M. Price article on apocryphal apparitions. I think Klaus Schilling did an English summary of it, but am not certain I am remembering that correctly.

Does anybody know where that article is?

Thanks.

Ben.

Casper

Ben,

Spin's post brought me here by chance, and I too what like to see the Detering if there is an english translation, I am referring to 15:4 though.

But reading the Price link you gave, I think only lip service is given to the idea the physical text (or tradition or whatever) could be delivered to one not by man but by divine guiadance (or God). I see he notes an argument or dismissal of conflict from Cullman, and I did not accept Price's rebuttal wholly.

After all, the law was dictated by God and given to Moses, yet to say that either Moses or God delivered the law would both be correct depending on context. So is paul talking about the physical delivery or the divine delivery?

I could go either way, I don't know enough to be taken seriously, I just throw spitballs and disrupt the class mostly

DCHindley

It was probably here:

http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/showthr...93#post3671393

The German document, with English summary, is here:

http://www.hermann-detering.de/1kor15.pdf

DCH

Ben C Smith

Bingo!

Many thanks, David.

Ben.

hjalti

So Tertullian didn't quote "what I also received" (o kai parelabon)? Very interesting. One would expect him to use it to show how dependent Paul was on his predecessors.

Are there any problems with the Marcionite version? It seems to me that most of the objections to authenticity (e.g. Robert M. Price and spin) dont' apply to that version, except "on the third day".

Ben C Smith

The English summary at the end of the PDF file can be misleading. For example:

vs. 11 in Marcion's states that that's the way the apostles teach, and that the believers obtain faith. Paulus canonicus adds a 'whether me or them' The allusion to the reception of the revelation from third hand is missing also in some variant readings of First Cor. in the patristic era. Tertullian e.g. did not seem to know it, thus can't report them to be missing in Marcion's.

This implies that it is whether they or I that is missing in Tertullian, but Tertullian quotes that line at least twice (once Against Marcion 4.4.5 and again in On Modesty); in reality, it is the which I also received line (as hjalti seems to correctly perceive) that Tertullian apparently fails to quote anywhere.

Caveat lector.

I am not certain how important it is, BTW, that Tertullian fails (if indeed he does; I have not checked extensively) to quote the which I also received line; I would have to see the actual spot(s) where he should have. What does seem more important is that Irenaeus in Against Heresies 3.18.3 (refer also to the Latin) quotes the entire verse in which that line is found but omits the line itself.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

IIUC which I also received is missing in b (Old Latin Codex Veronensis) and in Ambrosiaster.

Andrew Criddle

hjalti

Sure it is missing in b , but b only contains the four gospels

My Greek New testament has this in it's apparatus criticus:

The sama as in Detering's article (p. 9).

I think Tertullian omits it in Against Marcion book 3 and chapter 8:

andrewcriddle

Sorry my (bad) mistake. b in Paul is manuscript 89 not manuscript 4 (Veronensis)

See NT versions

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

You are correct. Thank you for looking that up. This is indeed, then, just as important an omission as we find in Irenaeus.

Ben.