Originally Posted by Solo

The point you have evidently overlooked is that the "author" was interpolating in Paul's letter - which would make not including Paul on the list kinda very hard to sell. Don't you think ? I think.

Originally Posted by Toto

"Untimely" in this case means born too early, not later.

Originally Posted by stephan huller post 43; 30 August 2011

Why is the testimony of the Marcionite systematically ignored around here? Why doesn't this tip the scales in favor of interpolation and manipulation?

Originally Posted by David Hindley post 46

This is what Epiphanius (Panarion 42:11.8) says was included in Marcion's version of 1 Cor 15, which undermined his own positions about the nature of Christ (that he was on earth in appearance only):
About the resurrection of the dead: [15:1] "I remind you, brothers, of the gospel which I preached to you."

And: [15:17] "If Christ has not been raised, then vain" and so forth.

[15:11] "Thus we preach and thus you have believed"

[15:3ff] "that Christ died and was buried and was raised on the third day."

[15:54] "But when this mortal nature has put on immortality, then will occur what has been written: death has been swallowed up in victory."

[From The Panerion of St. Epiphanius Bishop of Salamis, translated by Philip R Amidon S.J., 1990]
If these passages are bolded in chapter 15 of the received text, we get:

15:1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain.

17 If Christ has not been raised, futile is your faith and you are still in your sins.

3-4 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,

11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."

You can see that these passages are cited in a different order than we have them in the received text. It seems that Stephan is suggesting that this was the order of the original, i.e., that it was much different than the 1 Corinthians we know.

Originally Posted by DCHindley, post 57

What I find is that 15:3-10 does not form a block interpolation. The reason is that a simple argumentative strand runs through 15:1-20 that is only interrupted by statements that unnecessarily complicate the sense of this argumentative strand.

RSV 1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel [i.e., Paul's gospel, which is that gentiles faithful to the Jewish God can share in the inheritance God promised to Abraham's children], which you received, in which you stand,
2 by which you are saved [in the day the promises are at last delivered to Abraham's children by God], if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain.
3a For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
3b that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God ["God" here has a definite article in the original Greek].
10a But by the grace of God [this "god" has no definite article, so the passage is something like "By divine grace ..."] I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.
10b On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God [this "God" has a definite article] which is with me.
11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12a Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead,
12b [H]ow can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13a But if there is no resurrection of the dead,
13b then Christ has not been raised; 14a if Christ has not been raised,
14b then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15a We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we (so) testified of God [these "Gods" both have a definite article]
15b that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise
15c if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16a For if the dead are not raised,
16b then Christ has not been raised. 17a If Christ has not been raised,
17b your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
18a Then those also who have fallen asleep
18b in Christ
18c have perished.
19a If for this life only we have hoped
19b in Christ,
19c we are of all men most to be pitied.
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
In this kind of has-to-be-wrong highly-speculative way of looking at chapter 15, the lesson about resurrection (into the age of promise when that day comes in God's good time) is not about Jesus at all. It is about asking those who think that there will be no resurrection how God will be able to deliver on his promise if those who have passed away cannot participate in some way.

The interpolator (whose additions as I identify them are boldfaced and offset), though, is trying to sell his dead and resurrected Christ as the alternate, and in his mind correct, answer to the resurrection deniers Paul addresses. Essentially, he is adding his own commentary to what Paul said.

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay, post 64

This is a brilliant analysis. It is easy to see when we separate the two streams that we are getting two completely different ideas or voices. We either have to believe that the writer was schizophrenic or a later writer did the interpolation you found.

....
....

Basically, when you take out all the sentences talking about Christ, you get a much more coherent and clearly Jewish dialogue. This simply would not happen if the material was organic to the first voice. It would become incoherent gibberish. Try reading an article about President Obama's policies and take out every sentence with Obama in it. The article becomes incoherent. The same thing should happen in this case. It doesn't. Thus proving that the Christ interpolation theory is most probably correct.

Originally Posted by mary helena, post 70

...
...
the third alternative could simply be that it's two 'Paul' traditions that are being fused together here. Two traditions involving two major figures in the developing of the JC storyline. A pre-gospel 'Paul' and a post-gospel 'Paul'.

The 'Paul' story is the roadblock that the ahistoricists/mythicist have to push aside. It's a story, because of its contradictions, that allows for 'Paul' to be the last of the apostles, ie the gospel JC story preceded him. (I've used it myself numerous times.....). But with a composite 'Paul' picture, an early and a late 'Paul', these contradiction in the 'Paul' story fade away. In other words' 'Paul' is first and 'Paul' is last and the gospel JC story is in the middle of the NT storyline...

No historical 'Paul' - in the sense of the NT contradictory storyline - and the assumed historical JC falls down from his pedestal......'Paul', from a critical scholarship point of view, is the last roadblock to be removed.....

footnote:
Ah - so there we have it - an early 'Paul' storyline about Aretas and Damascus and the grand escape - a storyline that fits around 63/62 b.c. and Aretas III. Not of course, that the early 'Paul' writer was actually in Damascus at that time - but that the early 'Paul' storyline is referencing a much earlier historical period of storyline development than the later 'Paul' story set within a time frame after the 15th year of Tiberius...

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay, post 114

I think you hit it. It is two texts that are being fused together. One talking about the resurrection of the dead generally, which Josephus tells us was a key issue between the Sadducees (non-believers) and the Pharisees and Essenes (believers). The second text is specifically about the resurrection of Christ.

I did make some mistakes in dividing the voices from DC Hindley's material. I mistakenly placed line 14B in both voice one and two. It should only be in voice two. Line 2 contains the phrase "in vain, which is in line 14b in voice two. It would be an amazing coincidence if both text contained the same phrase. Mostly likely line 2 belongs with voice two." Also 18a/18c which I had placed in voice one contains the phrase "falling asleep" which is in the voice two text. It most likely belongs with the voice two text.

Making there corrections allow both texts to read more smoothly. Here are the two voices corrected:

Here is voice one:
RSV 1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel which you received, in which you stand,
3a For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12b How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13a But if there is no resurrection of the dead,
15a We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we (so) testified of God,15c if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16a For if the dead are not raised,
17b your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
19a If for this life only we have hoped
19c we are of all men most to be pitied.

Here is Voice Two:

3b that Christ 2 by which you are saved if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain, died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God
10a But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.
10b On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.
12a Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead,
13b then Christ has not been raised;
14a if Christ has not been raised,
14b then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15b that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise
16b then Christ has not been raised.
17a If Christ has not been raised,
18a Then those also who have fallen asleep
18b in Christ.
18c have perished.
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep
19b In Christ.


I am not sure what the implications of these two voices are, but it seems certain that we are getting an earlier resurrection text and later Christ text intermingled. The later Christ text appears to have been written after the author read the first resurrection text. It deals with very similar themes in a similar manner. It appears intended originally to have been meant to follow the first resurrection text.
Perhaps it was spotted as a forgery and the writer of the second text decided to intermingle it himself.

Originally Posted by avi, post #3

The Marcionist version, which you [stephan huller] have cited:

differs from the Alexandrian text by omitting three words:

pauloV apostoloV ouk ap anqrwpwn oude di anqrwpou alla dia ihsou cristou kai qeou patroV tou egeirantoV auton ek nekrwn

The sentence remains ambiguous, with or without kai qeou patroV

We still DON'T know what the author of Galatians 1:1 intended: Was it Paul, or JC, or both, who was/were raised up from the dead?

Neither one makes any sense. Accordingly, why is it so crucial to arrive at a definitive declaration as to what the ORIGINAL text of Galatians contained? How does knowledge, if we possessed it, of the actual text flowing from Paul's quill, change any perspective on the evolution of Christianity, its fruitful dispersal throughout the Roman Empire, SO QUICKLY, accompanied by the equally rapid disappearance of so many other sects and entire religions?

The question which I believe is FAR MORE SIGNIFICANT, is how and why JC became "cristou", (annointed) in Paul's letters, but not, ubiquitously, in the synoptic gospels. In my opinion, Paul's repetition of the notion of "cristou", ad nauseum, suggests, to me at least, if to no one else, that Paul's epistles post date the synoptic gospels. How else to account for the paucity of references to "cristou" in the synoptic gospels.....

How could the Jews agree to join any religious movement touting JC, knowing full well, that JC had NOT been annointed. The Jews knew very well that JC had been executed, as a criminal, not annointed as a king. The Romans MOCKED JC, calling him "king" as he was dying on the stavros.

I can understand why the pagans may have been unaware of the significance of "cristou", but not the Jews.

Originally Posted by TedM

Why? If he was so anti-Paul that he considered him to not even be 'in Christ' after his own conversion, then he would not have believed Paul was worthy to have witnessed a resurrection, and therefore he need not have included him on the list, and any tradition otherwise would simply have been wrong to him. He could just make Paul out to be one who passed along the revelations given to others.

Originally Posted by Solo So, instead, he lets Paul crap on himself as the 'least (elachistos) of the apostles' and 'unworthy to be called' one, the intent of which seems obvious: to diminish Paul's authority in the (later) church. The other thing you are not registering in your zealous defense of the dogma is that in the mind of the faker, all the hard work of Paul still does not raise him above the lowest rang in the apostolic hierarchy. Pretty nasty stuff, if you ask me !

Originally Posted by TedM

Perhaps I missed it, but I am still waiting for an interpretation of the usage in 1 Cor 15 that makes some kind of sense. Let's keep in mind the following:

1. aborted means dead
2. stillborn means dead
3. The list reads as a chronological list, implying that he is last.
4. It specifically says he was last to have seen Jesus out of his list.
5. The author appears to be connecting being last with the term given.
6. Others, including blueletterbible, interpret the word as meaning 'untimely' born, which is a more general term and is more consistent with the idea of coming last-later.
7. The reference to being pre-ordained in GalatiAns is not inconsistent with an interpretation that this is referring to chronology.

Given the above, why should we use an interpretation that makes no logical sense whatsoever, when we already have one that makes perfect sense?

Originally Posted by TedM

That's my point. Your 'in this case' interpretation makes no sense. What sense does that make in the context of a chronological list of appearances in which he is not only placed last but outright says he was last to see a risen Jesus? How could he have been born too early and yet had the revelation last of all? Shouldn't 'untimely 'in this case' mean something that makes sense--like born too late?

Originally Posted by Gnostic Paul

. . . Here he alludes symbolically to the pneumatic election to show how the savior appeared to Achamoth "when she was outside the pleroma, 'as a kind of abortion.' Basilides explains that the whole elect has undergone the same experience, having remained "in formlessness, 'like an abortion.' Theodotus says that "as long as we were children only of the female (Sophia), as of a shameful syzygy, we were incomplete, infants, mindless, weak, unformed, brought forth like abortions."

From this amorphous state, Paul - symbolizing the elect - is redeemed by grace: "his grace in me was not empty" (since grace, charis, is an aion of the "fullness," the pleroma. Taking 15:10 as Paul's account of how he was "spiritually born," delivered through the "labor" of "the grace (charis) of God, the Valentinians explain that Paul alone received "the mystery of God" through the pleromic aion charis, while the other apostles received only what was transmitted through the psychic demiurge. From this they conclude that Paul alone received the pneumatic gospel, while the preaching of the rest remained only psychic

Originally Posted by Solo

So, IIUC, you are saying that the passage was not likely interpolated, because if the faker wanted to diminish Paul's standing in later church, he would have cut out him out of the apostolic directory altogether.

To which I am saying: He could not do that if he pretended to be Paul,...duh !

First, I already allowed for a partial interpolation with regard to some of the negative remarks, so your categorization of my 'zealous defense of the dogma' is not correct. Secondly, the 'faker' didn't say just that Paul worked hard. He said he worked HARDER THAN ALL of the others--harder than Cephas, harder than James. Why didn't he snip that out or tone that down Jiri? It is a Pauline phrase (Paul was quite proud of how hard he worked) and it is right there in the middle of the alleged interpolated block. Just another 'clever' interpolation? I get tired of that non-falsifiable argument.

Originally Posted by RParvus

More precisely, ektroma means ‘premature birth,’ and was used not only for stillborn births and abortions, but also for premature live births (See J. Munck’s “Paulus tanquam abortivus,” in A.J.B. Higgins [ed.] “N.T. Essays: Studies in memory of T.W. Manson, pp. 180-95.”) In regard to 1 Corinthians 15: 3-11: my own opinion is that it is a proto-orthodox interpolation and that the ‘ektroma’ idea was borrowed from the so-called Ignatian letter to the Romans. I say “so-called” because I think the Ignatians are actually reworked letters of Peregrinus. Peregrinus, with typical rhetorical exaggeration, was trying to outdo his hero Paul in self-depreciation. Paul’s name means ‘child, little one.” So by referring to himself as a ‘premature birth,’ Peregrinus was making himself even smaller and less significant than Paul. And you’ve got to give him credit, in antiquity you couldn’t have been any smaller than a ‘preemie’ and still be a living and breathing human being!

By the way, I think the proto-orthodox may have borrowed a lot of ideas from Peregrinus writings. Thus, for instance, whoever fabricated the Pauline Pastoral letters may have taken 2 Tim. 1:16, “was not ashamed of my chains” from IgnSmy. 10:2. And 2 Tim. 4:6, “for I am already being poured out as a libation” may have been taken from IgnRom. 2:2. The direction of dependence is usually thought to be the other way around. But, as Paul Foster notes: “The question remains as to the direction of dependence. This is not as easily resolved as may at first appear to be the case. The dating of the Pastorals is notoriously difficult. Arguments about the more primitive and complex forms of parallels are often easily reversed, and discussions about theological developments fail to recognize the pluriform and non-linear evolution of Christianity. The issue cannot be treated in detail here; suffice it to note that the latest period suggested for the composition of the Pastorals, the early second century, overlaps with the traditional date of the martyrdom of Ignatius in the reign of Trajan. The dating of the Ignatian correspondence may not be as secure as is often supposed, and may itself come from a later period. Perhaps all that can be concluded is that the balance of probability is in favour of Ignatius knowing 1 and 2 Timothy, rather than vice versa.” (“The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers,” edited by Andrew Gregory and Christopher Tuckett, pp. 171-2).

Originally Posted by Toto

:facepalm:

You are trying to force the phrase to mean what you want it to mean, rather than what it clearly does mean.