Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 09-21-2004, 05:14 PM

Because it appears I will be hanging out a little more here than I anticipated, I figured I'd post a link to my latest blog on the subject indicated by the title. Bear in mind its just a blog. But I do intend on writing a lengthier article on the subject along these lines.

http://www.christiancadre.blogspot.com/

JohnHud · 09-21-2004, 05:21 PM

it is clearly not authentic
firstly the language it is using about appearance 'ophthe' is derived from the Caesar cult, and secondly it has a formal chiastic structure showing it is a late literary composition

JH

Toto · 09-21-2004, 07:01 PM

Just a little housekeeping:

Layman's essay is here.

Robert Price's essay is 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 As a Post-Pauline Interpolation (1995). It is also on the Journal of Higher Criticism site here with nicer formatting. (You would think that Layman could at least reproduce the link.)

Some comments:

Layman says

Quote:

Thus, the earliest tradition about the resurrection and appearances of Jesus pre-date those in the canonical gospels by decades and the tradition was espoused by someone who had the opportunity to discuss it with others who had experienced Jesus' resurrection. Pretty good historical evidence.

As historical evidence goes, this is vaporwear. There is no documentary evidence that can be authenticated to the first century. There is some possiblity that the language can be intepreted to say that Paul learned something from previous persons - but no indication if they made it up or that Paul understood correctly. There is the possibility that Paul discussed the question with Cephas and James, but no evidence.

Quote:

the fringe figure of Robert Price.

Robert Price has 2 PhD's - in New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology - from a Drew University. What makes him "fringe"? The Veritas Forum thinks highly enough of him to invite him to debate.

This sort of cheap insult only demeans you.

Quote:

Finally, it has been argued that Paul's reliance on an established tradition in 1 Cor. 15:3-11 is incompatible with his statement in Galatians 1:12 that he did not receive his gospel from any man. This is Robert Price's argument, and he sees (or will suffer) no other explanation. But Price gives no regard to the different arguments being made.

Reading Price's essay will show that he deals with all arguments, but the words remain:

Quote:

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.

Some might attempt to reconcile the two traditions by the suggestion that, thought Paul was already engaged in preaching his gospel for three years, it was on the visit to Cepha in Jerusalem that he received the particular piece of tradition reproduced in verses 3ff. But this will not do. These verses are presented as the very terms in which he preaches the gospel. The writer of 1 Cor. 15:1-2ff never had a thought of a period of Pauline gospel preaching prior to instruction by his predecessors. Gordon Fee claims there is no real difficulty here, as all Paul intends in his Galatian "declaration of independence" is that he received his commission to preach freedom from the Torah among the Gentiles directly from Christ, not from men, [26] but is this all "the gospel which was preached by me" (Gal. 1:11) denotes? The question remains: if Paul had to wait some three years to receive the bare essentials of the death and resurrection of Jesus from the Jerusalem leaders, what had he been preaching in the meantime?

Here it is well to recall the cogent question aimed by John Howard Schütz at Gerhardsson's attempt at harmonization. Gerhardsson had proposed that Paul might have received the bare bones of the kerygma directly from the Risen Lord, as in Gal. 1:11, and had later received supplementary didache, such as that in 1 Cor 15:3, from his elder colleagues. But given the Spartan yet fundamental character of the items in the 1 Cor 15 list, "one cannot help but wonder what would be the content of any kerygma which Paul might receive more directly from the risen Lord." [27]

And Layman argues that "the variance between the Gospels and this passage point to authenticity." I would think that the variance points to problems for the Christian apologist one way or another. If you accept that this degree of variance between Paul and the gospels is normal, where that that leave the gospels?

Vorkosigan · 09-21-2004, 07:07 PM

Price does leave out one point -- the passage contains an anachronism, as "the Twelve" were only eleven at this time, Judas having suicided.

Layman · 09-21-2004, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Price does leave out one point -- the passage contains an anachronism, as "the Twelve" were only eleven at this time, Judas having suicided.

How is this an anachronism? Why would this point to interpolation? It certainly seems to rule out any Christians familiar with the most popular Gospel in early Christianity--the Gospel of Matthew. Or any familiar with Luke or Acts.

Layman · 09-21-2004, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Some comments:

Layman says

As historical evidence goes, this is vaporwear. There is no documentary evidence that can be authenticated to the first century. There is some possiblity that the language can be intepreted to say that Paul learned something from previous persons - but no indication if they made it up or that Paul understood correctly. There is the possibility that Paul discussed the question with Cephas and James, but no evidence.

You have a funny definition of historical evidence. Paul presented his gospel to the apostles and they agreed to it.

Quote:

Robert Price has 2 PhD's - in New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology - from a Drew University. What makes him "fringe"? The Veritas Forum thinks highly enough of him to invite him to debate.

This sort of cheap insult only demeans you.

Price is on the fringe because of the positions he takes not because of his credentials. It is possible to be on the fringe with our without credentials. Doherty is an example of someone on the fringe because of his position and who lacks impressive credentials. It's the position, not the diplomas.

Quote:

Reading Price's essay will show that he deals with all arguments, but the words remain:

We both deal with each other's arguments.

But I do not argue that Paul had to wait three years to learn anything from the apostles. My argument is just that Price interprets "gospel" regardless of context. Paul was not using Price's lexicon.

Quote:

And Layman argues that "the variance between the Gospels and this passage point to authenticity." I would think that the variance points to problems for the Christian apologist one way or another. If you accept that this degree of variance between Paul and the gospels is normal, where that that leave the gospels?

It leaves us with the fact that Paul probably did not refere to the women because of their lack of credence as evidence. The gospels did because they were such a fixed part of the narrative. Is that a historical problem? Not really. Paul refers to the appearances to James, wheras the Gospels do not. But given Acts' placing James in a prominent place, it seems unlikely that Luke at least was ignorant of the appearances to James. But for whatever reasons the gospel authors left him out.

These are interesting variances. And they are best explained by the passage being authentic, not by it being written by christian scribes for some reason intent on creating problems for themselves.

Vorkosigan · 09-21-2004, 07:55 PM

I'll leave this thread to Toto.

Toto · 09-21-2004, 08:06 PM

We had this discussion before, not that long ago 500 Brothers, and probably before that.

I don't see that anyone has anything new to say.

Amaleq13 · 09-21-2004, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

It leaves us with the fact that Paul probably did not refere to the women because of their lack of credence as evidence.

What does credibility as evidence have to do with this passage? Isn't it a summary of the faith shared by those reading the letter?

Also, if those readers were already familiar with the story that would eventually be told in the Gospels, why should they have any doubts about the credibility of the women?

Quote:

But for whatever reasons the gospel authors left him out.

If Mark is to be trusted, James started out considering Jesus "out of his mind". If Luke is to be trusted, James ended up a devout believer and leader of his brother's disciples to the point of martyrdom.

Can you think of any good reason(s) these authors might leave out such a remarkable and, assuming it was the reason for his change of mind, enormously emotionally powerful event as the appearance of Jesus to James?

Toto · 09-22-2004, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

You have a funny definition of historical evidence. Paul presented his gospel to the apostles and they agreed to it.

Not exactly. We have a report from Paul that Paul presented his gospel to the Jerusalem Church and they agreed. Do we know that? Is it not equally possible that James roughed him up a bit and told him that he was an idiot who didn't understand anything, but Paul walked out and told his followers that James approved of Paul's message? Is there any evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

Price is on the fringe because of the positions he takes not because of his credentials. ...

In other words, "fringe" is just an insult with no real meaning, other that you do not like him. Ben Witherington believes that the Shroud of Turin is authentic. Is he a fringe scholar? Why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

We both deal with each other's arguments.

Please deal with this, then:

The question remains: if Paul had to wait some three years to receive the bare essentials of the death and resurrection of Jesus from the Jerusalem leaders, what had he been preaching in the meantime?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

But I do not argue that Paul had to wait three years to learn anything from the apostles. My argument is just that Price interprets "gospel" regardless of context. Paul was not using Price's lexicon.

I am not actually sure what you are saying here.

Quote:

It leaves us with the fact that Paul probably did not refer to the women because of their lack of credence as evidence.

Paul writes letters to women, works with women, says that in Christ there is no male or female, preaches to congregations of women and slaves. Why would he omit an appearance to a woman?

Quote:

The gospels did because they were such a fixed part of the narrative.

Does this mean that Paul suppressed the appearances to women? Or that Mark added them?

Quote:

Is that a historical problem? Not really. Paul refers to the appearances to James, whereas the Gospels do not. But given Acts' placing James in a prominent place, it seems unlikely that Luke at least was ignorant of the appearances to James. But for whatever reasons the gospel authors left him out.

This is a problem, and you have not shed any light on it.

Quote:

These are interesting variances. And they are best explained by the passage being authentic, not by it being written by christian scribes for some reason intent on creating problems for themselves.

The variances are best explained as different factions of the early church writing their own verions of events into Paul's letters.

09-21-2004, 05:14 PM	#1
Layman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,635	Is 1 Cor. 15:3-11 an interpolation? Because it appears I will be hanging out a little more here than I anticipated, I figured I'd post a link to my latest blog on the subject indicated by the title. Bear in mind its just a blog. But I do intend on writing a lengthier article on the subject along these lines. http://www.christiancadre.blogspot.com/

09-21-2004, 05:21 PM	#2
JohnHud Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: New York Posts: 25	Romans 15; 1-10 Not authentic it is clearly not authentic firstly the language it is using about appearance 'ophthe' is derived from the Caesar cult, and secondly it has a formal chiastic structure showing it is a late literary composition JH

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

09-21-2004, 07:07 PM	#4
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Price does leave out one point -- the passage contains an anachronism, as "the Twelve" were only eleven at this time, Judas having suicided.

09-21-2004, 07:55 PM	#7
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I'll leave this thread to Toto.

09-21-2004, 08:06 PM	#8
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	We had this discussion before, not that long ago 500 Brothers, and probably before that. I don't see that anyone has anything new to say.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.