archibald

I admit. I couldn't stay away.

Personally, as it was me who started the thread, I'd like to do a quick summary of how I see the 'evidence' for interpolation, and how I now feel about my own prior perception that some non-orthodox interpolations are made on a spurious and speculative basis. I might just stress here that the following is my personal summary and I don't expect everyone, or indeed anyone, would summarize in the same way. I imagine there would be a lot of disagreement. :]

And if anyone does want to pull me up on something........feel free. Obviously. As if you wouldn't. Lol.

1. 'Received' (parelabon) v3: (the topic of another thread) cited as unPauline. Not sure (yet) why, since I see it as plausibly 'received from Jesus', though this, I think, would set up some interesting questions, such as, 'does the text mean that Paul received the witness accounts via Jesus also, or does it mean he received 'Christ died for our sins according to scriptures' only and that (kai hoti)...the twelve....500... and, most oddly of all....Paul (since I can't think why anyone, interplator or otherwize, would say that Paul received that he himself had a vision, it makes no sense that way) are additional, 'unreceived' things? I admit it doesn't read that way. And, it appears he already 'received basic facts' in 1 Cor 11:23-, though I have a feeling in my bones that the interpolation squad would cite this one also. has anyone considered that Gal 1:12 is the interpolation? Just kidding.

2. 'Flawed logic' or conflict with the remaining argument, including not being restated in later verses: there is nothing in this particular point other than total specualtion and personal interpretation, IMO.

3. The '500': definitely odd, but inconclusive. Not sure yet why a later interpolator would use something which so fails to harmonize with later accounts. So, as I see it, it could have been dropped from later versions, rather than added later to 1 Cor.

4. The 'Twelve': Again, seems inconclusive. Wouldn't someone from Luke's era have said 11?

5. The resurrection appearances are described more like later accounts: No, they're not, as far as I can see.

6. Paul being the least of the apostles: does seem odd for Paul to say this.

All in all, not a lot, IMO. If you pressed me, I wouldn't object to agreeing to Price's 'speculative but as plausible as several other explanations'. I would agree with Price that we shouldn't just assume 'innocent until proven guilty' in the absence of manuscript, or other 'hard/strong' evidence, but equally I think we should admit that in the absence of such evidence, we all really are just speculating.

I might therefore move slightly more in the agnostic direction and admit (again) that there is slightly more to this issue than I had thought beforehand. I don't think anyone else can really claim a strong basis for going beyond this either, but especially not me, since there are so many other things I don't know enough about. The most interesting one of these, for me, is the question of the mechanics of interpolations generally. It's broady agreed, it seems, that the latest this one is likely to have been posible was the 2nd C, which, to me, is still pretty bloody early, and I am not yet clear on what manuscripts existed in what numbers and where in order to be able to explain to myself how an interpolated version could be (almost) the only evidence we have now. I might even start a thread on this. I have become quite curious about Marcion into the bargain. I'm certainly not averse to considering that there were interpolations before the extant ms. That just seems very unlikely. Though I already thought this before joining this site.

aa5874

The very evidence that suggests the Pauline writings are LATE and AFTER the Gospels MUST be claimed to be interpolated by those who wish to continue with the FLAWED position that the Pauline writings are earlier than the Gospels.

Unless it can be shown that a Pauline writer could NOT have claimed or written that over 500 people SAW the resurrected Jesus then it is just mere SPECULATION that 1 Cor. 15 is interpolated.

1 Cor. 15 is the FOUNDATION of the Pauline Gospel.

The "WITNESSED" RESURRECTION by "Paul" of Jesus is the FOUNDATION of the Christian Faith and Remission of Sins.

1 Cor. 15. It is NOT possible to show that a Pauline writer could NOT have written all of 1 Cor.15.

TedM

I agree with most although find it very difficult to reconcile #6 with his comments in ch 9. And, #1 I still am unclear as to how far the word goes with regard to passing along a creed..

I do agree with spin that the passage makes pretty good sense without 3-11, other than the I,we issue and that one is moderately difficult, and the way in which he mentions 'reminder' in the first verse, which is moderate. This is why if he is right I think there would have been something else where 3-11 is now.

I do wonder about James, though..very interesting how he was treated later...venerated by Jews, avoided by Catholics..

Thanks for all your input.
Ted

archibald

Perhaps I could now add 'James being on the list' as item 7?

I admit I don't know enough about James' treatment by the Catholics to form a view as to whether his appearance on the list would be an odd interpolation or not.

spin

We are left with the evidence for 1 Cor 15:3-11 as being an interpolation. This 3-11 is based on the current form of 1 Cor 15:3, though if a Marcionite version of the verse reflects the status quo ante the current version, that may change the analysis allowing part of v.3 to be considered original. However as it is today the evidence points to both παρελαβον ("(I) received") and the reference to "according to the scriptures" in the verse not being original. The self-affacement in regard to other apostles is uncharacteristically out of place. The "twelve" is unaccountable in a historical context that derived from the time reputed to be of the appearances before Jesus ascended and before the reforming of the twelve. The 500 is so over the top that it doesn't get referred to for centuries, suggesting that it is itself a late datum. The "on the third day" is a later development on "after three days" in Mk 10:34, transformed in the other synoptics to "on the third day"--Mt 20:19b, Lk 18:33b-- so we would have expected "after three days" rather than "on the third day" reflecting the tradition found in the earliest gospel. Otherwise we have the unlikely change from "on the third day" to "after three days" then back to "on the third day". (It's hard to know from the Marcionite version translated into Latin if it originally said "on the third day" or "after three days".)

The joke of Paul being chosen by god before birth, yet being an abortion is so out of place in tone and impact it removes itself from being taken as serious. In short there are problems throughout the passage that bring it into question.

The removal of vv.3-11 makes the resultant text more fluid and intelligible. (Again if a short v.3 of the Marcionite type found in Tert. was original, it would not change the basic issue.) The disruption of Paul's thought by the litany of appearances and the self-debasement is easily seen.

TedM sees part of vv.s-11 as a creed. It isn't despite the apologetic pronouncements elsewhere: it is not a pre-established set of beliefs that an individual affirms, but a list of post-burial appearances of Jesus. As an institutionalized fragment of information, however, it is more likely to represent an age of institutionalized information, ie when a church has organized the faith. Paul's proselytes are pointed to Paul as the source of their beliefs.

Given the proviso of a possible earlier Marcionite form of v.3, nothing seems to have changed the likelihood of these verses from being an interpolation.

TedM

No we are not. To the contrary. The evidence we have from the earliest quotation by a Church Father, Irenaeus, clearly alludes to a list of people other than Paul himself, to whom Jesus appeared, but is missing the word παρελαβον. Tertullian's quotation also omits the word. Either they both overlooked the word, or it was added later by an interpolator who wanted to use a "Pauline" word in a way that supported subjugating Paul to the other apostles. The self-deprecating language in the later verses would support the idea of a pre-existing passage that included the list of appearances, to which a few short phrases were later added to make it sound more orthodox.

So, the earliest evidence supports partial interpolation. A thorough examination should look at the parts that remain to see how 'Pauline' they are. Like the partial TF theory, if the remaining language is consistent with the original author, there is no reason on a linguistic basis to reject it. That is the case here.

A Reference to a resurrection appearance to the Twelve is supportive of a pre-gospel tradition. I know of no such reference after the gospels were written, nor would it be likely that anyone with knowledge of the gospels to have made a reference to twelve instead of eleven.

Yet, there are significant problems with suggesting that it was added centuries later, since it was quoted before that time, no?

we never discussed this here so it seems ill-fitting to include in a 'summary' post. Seems a minor issue to me and who can really say that Mt and Lk decided to change it?

It is not fluid yet though. It would be more fluid to include the list of appearances, which supports the 'partial interpolation' theory referenced above in this post.

spin

Tertullian is writing in Latin and has no necessity to deal with technical terms in Greek of two centuries prior. And the gospels tell of people who see appearances as well. Nothing startling with Irenaeus. He was after all writing with a lot more material at his disposal than Paul.

You have no way to retrofit the appearances. Even having a written list separate from what Paul supplies suggests more organization than the Pauline era. Besides, as you have no way of dating the list, it could easily be after, especially when Paul is the earliest written source we know we have.

It's just arbitrary bullshit TedM. The word "arbitrary" is your tripping hurdle. You trip over and can't get back up from the fall. You accept there are signs of development, but want to keep as much as possible, so you give up just what you are forced to and plead that the rest is ok without any criteria to do so. I'm sure you can see the problem with that.

You can't have it both ways, TedM. Either the report is for you veracious (hence eleven) or we have a later idealization of the apostles (hence twelve).

Bigger and better is always a sign of long after. If there were such problems, then why does such an important appearance only get mentioned centuries later??

:hysterical:

Provides an obvious chronology.

It's dead, Jim.

:tombstone:

No voodoo here, please.

TedM

I'm not following. Both gave what amounts to direct quotes excluding the phrase. This suggests their text didn't have the phrase. What part of that are you disagreeing with?


So if παρελαβοv was not in the passage originally, as suggested above, you think that there was a successful interpolation of the list of appearances prior to Irenaeus and another successful interpolation after Tertullian sometime, to add in παρελαβοv?



If the evidence is against whole interpolation, which it is if you care to deal with the Tertullian and Ireneaus quotations, then you either have an original passage which was added to, or you have nothing which was added to prior to Ireneaus and then added to again after Tertullian. But you can't claim the entire passage is a one-time interpolation,and it doesn't make any sense to claim that since part of the passage was interpolated all of it was interpolated. This is so basic that I can hardly believe I have to keep repeating it, just as I did for the TF. You keep wanting to trash you car because the radiator is leaking. Maybe it should be, but you don't do it --if you are smart and careful-- without checking the entire car first.


What? Why assume Judas was historical? The obvious other option is that the report is veracious as evidenced by the use of twelve instead of eleven.



Origen refers to the 500 in Against Celsus book 2CHAP. LXIII:

So, you are going to have to revise your claim that it was 'centuries' before it was referred to. The gap is closing..

spin

Tertullian would need to appreciate the technical term to preserve it in Latin. Otherwise he would be free to translate liberally for what sounded ok for him. Mediation through Latin doesn't allow you assume anything about the original Greek vocabulary where the Latin doesn't meet your expectation.

You can't make conclusions about the lack of παρελαβοv in Tertullian.

Your attempt to use the Latin writing Tertullian to give you insight into the earlier Greek form is an utter failure. You don't know Tertullian's expertise in Greek or his approach to translation.

I don't assume anything about Judas, but that you would accept historicity of the eleven. If you don't accept historicity regarding the eleven, what else of the gospel story you are trying to use to preserve material in Paul will you discard? (I hear that word "arbitrary" lurking ready to pounce again.)

Ya godda do bedder than that. Two allows one to use the plural. This is no help to you: a miss is as good as a mile. The gospels know nothing about it, but Origen does! Get the problem? Philology doesn't like flipflopping. The gospel silence is very loud.

archibald

The only thing which is dead here is the idea that there is anything conclusive.