archibald

They did. But they switched at some point, and we can only presume that the 'revised Christians' got hold of all the evidence of the 'spiritual Christians', or any references to them, by anyone, and burned the lot. And the Jews (other Jews?) weren't there at the time and hadn't noticed the switch.

See? All it takes is the application of some parsimonious speculation.

archibald

It is not even remotely near 'neutered' at all.

That is plain dogma.

As is stating that it IS an interpolation.

As is overuse of the word 'crap'.

Were any of the people he was writing to 'witnesses'? If not, then they would still need faith. And a digression into some convincing examples does not, of itself, contradict the context.

Also, if there was such a glaring contradiction, then it was a particularly dumb place to put the supposed interpolation in. This doesn't rule it out either, of course, by any means. And there are other considerations, as you set them out.

dog-on

So Paul is saying that faith is necessary, but in case the whole faith idea doesn't work for you, here is some actual evidence?

There is dogma involved here, albeit not on Spin's part...

archibald

Yes, because the audience hadn't had the witnessing experience themselves, so it isn't, for them, 'actual' evidence.

I can't see the problem with this as an alternative explanation.

Do we not see the very same thing going on in Christianity today? Has it ever been any different?

Btw, I'm sorry, but when someone says that something which is up for grabs IS true, and that a counter interpretation is neutered, or crap, and another person readily accepts that it is almost impossible to call, I'm not sure which is sounding more dogmatic.

dog-on

The problem is that it contradicts Paul's argument for the necessity of faith.

archibald

Repeating what has already been said is not making the case any stronger.

Their faith is arguably still needed, is it not?

Same as for Christians throughout the ages, who hadn't got 'actual evidence' either, but got told about those who supposedly did.

dog-on

They would only need faith that Paul had presented accurate evidence supporting his testimonial claim.

This is distinctly different from the type of faith that Paul is referring to in his actual argument, both here and everywhere else, for that matter.

spin

Assertion.

Mere polemic without content.

More polemic without content.

Let's say I've got a long way to go to reach your ridiculous limit with "myther". Hypocrisy becomes you.

I understand you're trying to be meaningful here, but you need to try harder. The claim of something that supposedly has witnesses, 500 in one case, is rhetorically a much stronger claim. Paul admits no sign of the claim in his argument in vv.12-19.

If you read about the analysis of interpolations in Paul, say Walker or O'Neill, you'd know that the relationship between the insertion and the context doesn't necessarily need to be strong.

archibald

Possibly a meaningful clue, possibly not. But it's still not a contradiction, nor does it neuter the argument for the earlier verses. Not even sure why you think it ought to have been referenced in 12-19. Are you suggesting that the 'if' at the start implies that the resurrection is literally not being preached, that Paul is not already himself preaching the resurrection to the Corinthians, based on his own witnessing?

Just briefly on this (no need to restate my views on the remainder), but, seriously, what is ridiculous about 'myther'? It only refers to someone who favours the myth hypothesis.

ph2ter

Don't you think that this word [εκτρωμα] (εκ => "from", τρωμα => "a festering", "wound". ) could be a reference to leprosy, the open wounds of exposed flesh or stigmas on Paul's body?