TedM

Yes, and it is a very weak argument since the Corinthians didn't need convincing that Jesus had been resurrected as I made very clear. Paul had no reason to prove Jesus' resurrection by repeating the list of witnesses or by appealing to any other evidences he had provided if the witness list was interpolated. And even if you were right about his need to prove Jesus' resurrection to the Corinthians (you aren't), it doesn't help you that Paul gave ZERO evidences and instead simply stated it as an accepted fact, because we all know Paul had a number of scriptures he could have used to help prove the point had it been necessary.

Not convinced you aren't using a narrow definition since blueletterbible also has a simple definition that means

'to receive something transmitted

a) an office to be discharged

b) to receive with the mind

1) by oral transmission: of the authors from whom the tradition proceeds' http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G3880&t=KJV

There is no reason to assume the word implies a master-pupil relationship as far as I can tell.

There is no conflict necessarily here.

Toto says it has nothing to do with the timing of birth and simply means something like 'wretched me':

The blueletterbible, in addition to 'abortion' defines the word to mean 'untimely' http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G1626&t=KJV, in opposition to other claims here, and also has a comment that what he means is he is no more fit to be called an apostle than an aborted baby is to be given a name.

If either of these viewpoints are correct then I see no reason to conclude that there is an unresolvable conflict between being predestined before birth to receive the gospel and the verse in question.


Not true.

I have said that I could see how interpolation could be in the passage as it pertains to a negative portrayal of Paul. I am still looking at the arguments from R. Price and can also see a case being made for the original list having not included James or the 500. Those are not reasons to disregard the entire block, however.

I have addressed the above issues previously as well as some 4-5 other points, and may try one more time to address your latest response to the latter when I feel like it.

Toto

It has everything to do with the timing of the birth - it is a birth that is too early, before the fetus is fully formed. But simply translating the word ektrwma as "untimely" misses the point.

If Paul was called from birth, why did he persecute the true Christians? This conflict is just unresolvable.

TedM

I'm listening...

What does this have to do with my claim that belief in a resurrected Jesus existed among Christians prior to Paul?


You think he was converted to believing something that did not include the resurrection of Jesus? Why?


Isn't that what I quoted?

Interpolation allegation aside (your link didn't take me directly to it btw), do you think that Paul would be silent about something as significant as a difference in belief about Jesus' resurrection--the very foundation of his gospel? Remember, Paul is the one writing this! He had every opportunity to make clear something as basic as that. But, he didn't. Your speculation is very great on this, mine is almost zero. The verse is fatal to your position. You MUST consider it an interpolation to be correct. You cannot credibly claim otherwise.

Of course it is different--11:35 is a referencing one of a whole bunch of great things that happened in the OT by way of faith. It is most likely referencing a couple of famous OT cases found http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...f&version=NASB of the raising of the dead--one by the prophet Elijah and the other by the prophet Elisha, which from what you have written about it seems entirely irrelevant to me.

The fact remains: You have provided no evidence that neither Paul and the Christians that said Paul shared their faith believed in Jesus' resurrection.



First you say that Galatians does not support the Pre-Paul resurrection claim. Now you agree that it does--in conformity with orthodoxy. Correct me if I'm wrong but what you are doing is speculating about Paul's beliefs and the pre-Paul Christian beliefs based on some different definitions found in various places in the NT about who the dead are and how they are raised. I cannot find a coherent argument as to what those verses say about Paul and pre-Paul Christians and their beliefs about Jesus, however, in what you have presented. Sorry.




Now I'm really lost. It sounds to me like you are the one switching arguments--you are talking about the resurrection of people other than Jesus. I'm talking about beliefs in the resurrection of Jesus, not some kind of generic position regarding 'resurrection from the dead'.


There is no reason to conclude that Paul and Cephas did not preach the same thing regarding the resurrection of Jesus. No reason whatsoever. As in the case of the pre-Paul Christians of Galations, Paul simply would not allow those who did not believe in resurrection to have any credibility. Paul includes Cephas and gives not even a hint that they shared different views regarding Jesus' resurrection. He mentions Apollos and Cephas in 1:10, and follows that with a number of 'our', 'we' references --including of Jesus' resurrection. The most reasonable interpretation is that they were also preaching the resurrection of Jesus, and not that Paul was merely being 'rhetorical'. And again in Ch 9 Paul strongly implies that other apostles had made claims to having seen Jesus--providing yet more evidence that Cephas and all the other apostles believed--as he did--in Jesus' resurrection.


I see plenty of evidence to support my original claim and none from you to weaken it.

Ted

TedM

Toto, I can't tell what you really think on the matter since you wrote just a few days ago:
I don't know what point you think the verse is making and why you seem to insist that 'untimely' misses the point when you keep giving different suggestions as to what the verse MIGHT mean. IF you don't know what it DOES mean how do you know that the blueletterbible definition of 'untimely' is wrong?



I interpret 'called from birth' to mean 'predestined' --called from his mother's womb (the actual phrase in Galations)-- to preach the gospel. In that light there is absolutely no conflict and nothing to resolve. There is no conflict as long as before he dies he fulfills the calling.

spin

It's not a matter of convincing about the raising of Jesus, but the use of the appearances. If you don't use them then you functionally nullify any validity of vv.3-7.

You should have used the link I provided when I mentioned the issue first. Just to give another source Lampe (Patristic Greek Lexicon) gives as the most relevant definition, "receive in succession, customs, teaching", the significance of "in succession" needs the consideration here.

And I've cited its use in the LXX which shows the derogatory nature of the word in usage. Irenaeus citing Valentinus (A.Haer. 1.4.1) talks of Sophia's separation from the Pleroma as εκτρωμα, which shows how grave it was to Valentinus. Either his birth was a derogatory issue or it was not. It cannot be both. If it was derogatory, what's the problem? God's set him aside as special before birth... oh, wait his birth was an abortion.

It's called apologetics, TedM.

"Paul the abortion" is alright by you because christians know that when he says "abortion" he doesn't really mean "abortion: he means something else. This is par for the course. Redefine your terms so that they suit you better.

Ummm, what about the twelve?? You can get rid of whatever you like. We're back to the flyspecks on the buttered bread that you pick out so you can eat the bread. You have no idea what you're eating.

You have given the apologetics. When you want to address any issues we might get something a bit more communicative.

TedM

Only when you restrict their validity to one issue. I don't--they fulfill the 'reminder' Paul mentions in verse 1.


Wouldn't that apply to learning a traditional creed? If so I don't see the problem.


One verse, right? I consider that laughable.

130 years after Paul, right?

If you don't like the source maybe you can provide another one. Here's a Greek to English translation that says it could mean 'abnormal'. That is not so harsh -- and by virtue of being last to see a risen Jesus, or by virtue of having persecuted the church FOUNDED BY THE PRIOR MENTIONED WITNESSES -- he would have been 'abnormal'. He admits in Ch 9 that he is considered 'least' of the apostles by others..so it is consistent.
http://www.translatum.gr/dictionary/...=English-Greek

In any case, I have already said that I could see how a few anti-Paul words within the block may have been interpolated in at a later time.

Not sure but it would seem to me that any interpolation later than those that knew of the gospels would have said 'eleven'. I don't care if the disciples were referenced as 'twelve' in other contexts--anyone familiar with the gospels would not have written 'twelve' in this context.

gotta turn in now..

Toto

Pay attention.

The Greek word ektrwma means "miscarriage" or "abortion." It does not mean "untimely" in a general sense. It clearly does not mean that Paul was born too late to meet Jesus, or was later than other apostles, because the "untimely" reference is to an earlier time.

Obviously, Paul was not a literal abortion, but by analogy, ektrwma can also mean "wretched" or some other derogatory characteristic. Paul might have meant this, and this is the preferred meaning for Christians. Or he might have been using the term in the sense that the Valentinian school used it - to indicate that he was not fully formed until he was visited by the Christ spirit.


Read the rest of Paul's letters. You get the feeling of confidence and self assurance. This nonsense about "the least of the apostles" stands out like a sore thumb.

aa5874

What is so difficult to resolve? "Paul" could NOT have been called from birth by God.

Who can God call from birth and which TRUE Christians did "Paul" persecute Before the fall of the Temple?

The conflict is resolved once it is understood that "Paul" attempted to historicize the resurrecction of Myth Jesus in 1 Cor 15.

TedM

Agree. That part most likely is an interpolation:

2 Cor 11:
1 Cor 15:9

archibald

Yes he did. Though, as I have repeatedly said, even Price (who is of course only 1 scholar and arguably in a small minority) concludes with a list of other criteria and a statement that he only claims plausibility as one of a number of possible interpretations because his interpretation can only be unverifiable speculation and because some of the criteria are not strong. And of course he is setting aside the 'biggie', manuscript evidence, or what a rational skeptic might call 'actual evidence'. This is all a long way from someone saying 'It IS an interpolation', as has been said here.

I'm not saying he's out of bounds to set ms evidence aside necessarily, since I accept that ms evidence will not turn up all interpolations, but I do think it is among the strongest criteria, and trying to set the case in as wide a methodological context as possible, other forms of criteria do become more speculative and the question of when the alleged interpolation took place and how it got into all ms has to be expolored a bit more. It might be worth adding that the other 'strong' criteria, language analysis, is also largely set aside by Price, and his knowledge of Koine Greek is not much brought into play.

It might also be worth noting that someone (Stephen Huller) has repeatedly cited something about Marcion, which on the face of it would appear to be evidence of a slightly 'harder' nature (albeit from Marcion's time), but this has not yet been explored. And I don't know why, since I have asked twice.

Yes, and I for one would not be disappointed if that was a non-issue in this case. However, not only have I personally taken part in more than one debate elsewhere where it was cited as supporting HJ, and contested as such, it was cited as supporting HJ when it was first introduced recently on page 7 of the thread that this one was born out of (Wells = Doherty) and one initial response was 'people just love to quote this' and it is my impression that a few responses have suggested that some see it in an MJ/HJ light.

Having said that, if I am out of kilter and if it is agreed that the issue has no bearing on the HJ/MJ issue, that is absolutely fine with me.

Odd. Have you forgotten that you said that your 'conflict' issue, which we have mainly (though not entirely) been discussing was 'the biggest problem' with the passage? And also that it might be seen as something which distinguishes an en-block interpolation case from a partial interpolation one? Perhaps this is why there has been some focus on it.