TedM

The only evidence I see for that is the anti-Paul sentiments which could have been short additions to an otherwise coherent passage.

avi

The issue is whether or not, part, or all, of this passage from one of the epistles attributed to the single author, Paul, 1 Corinthians 15 could represent an interpolation.

To my way of thinking the analysis performed by David, as summarized by Philosopher Jay, and MaryHelena, is outstanding. I appreciate that this analysis is OPINION, not EVIDENCE, but it strikes me, at least, as well thought out, comprehensive, detailed, analytical, and most importantly, OUT IN THE OPEN, where anyone can dispute the analysis.

That was not the case in the early days of Christianity. Disputes were settled in arbitrary fashion, out of public eye, and unavailable for comment.

The very worst illustrations of this rigid, totalitarian approach to doctrine, was elaborated in the 16th century, in England and Switzerland:
England murdered loyal Christians, for committing the crime of introducing a Bible written in English, rather than Latin.

In Switzerland, the murder, by burning at the stake, of my hero, Michael Servetus, an Anatomist, Scientist, Physician, and linguist, who read the bible in the original Hebrew and Greek, and accordingly opposed Trinitarianism, for which he had been condemned by the Catholics, yet was murdered as a heretic by Calvin and Luther.

avi

Iskander

Christianity is like any other religion, but better than most.

I am allergic to the word truth when written in capital letters, as in TRUTH.

aa5874

Well, so far the evidence of antiquity that I have seen so far suggests that the TRUTH is that the Pauline writings are historically a PACK of LIES about being a WITNESS to the resurrected Jesus Christ.

When the writings of Justin Martyr are examined, it is seen that the writer is NOT aware of the supposed Martyr "Paul" or Acts of the Apostles.

The details about the resurrection in the "Pauline" writings and all the events about "Paul" in Acts of the Apostles cannot be found.

archibald

' 1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain........?.....12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.'

I'm sorry to harp on about this Ted, but, the more one reads this over and over.....

I mean, can you just imagine, if this sort of rapid switch from singular person to plural, when using the same verb, within a couple of lines of the same passage, were to crop up in a passage which was being cited as an interpolation? Surely, it would be cited as a blatant clue?

This is what worries me about whether contextual evidence of this nature is sometimes being handled with impartiality.

TedM

I guess I'll forgive you for harping on it ..

Seems better this way and worse spin's way to me too. You have presented it in a clearer way than I did..perhaps you can do that for all the other points I raised too

It is possible Paul had something else altogether originally but that's another issue and is even more speculative.

archibald

Personally, I would be happy to move on to this consideration.

Stephen, what do you make of this below, as a starter for discussion? Yes, I know it's from wiki (precautionary pinch of salt added) and I know that Hunter and Pannenburg and Campenhausen are/were Christian scholars (precautionary pinch of salt added), but at least they are professionals.

'The antiquity of the creed has been located by most biblical scholars to less than a decade after Jesus' death, probably originating from the Jerusalem apostolic community.[2] Based on linguistic analysis, the version received by Paul seems to have been limited to verses 3-5. Concerning this creed, Campenhausen wrote, "This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text,"[3] whilst A. M. Hunter said, "The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony. It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability." '[4]

(my underlining)

Verses 3-5 being only:

"3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve." (KJV)

Personally, it just makes me curious (I do not have enough background knowledge to be able to judge the quality or otherwize of the 'linguistic ananysis') because, if there is a case, it would eliminate the '500 witnesses problem', and the 'obsequious Paul problem' .. Perhaps these guys just wanted to eliminate those obstacles? I don't know. Depends what is meant by linguistic analysis, and whether it's any good.


And here are the relevant footnotes:

2. see Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man translated Lewis Wilkins and Duane Pribe (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) p. 90; Oscar Cullmann, The Early church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology, ed. A. J. B. Higgins (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966) p. 66–66; R. E. Brown, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (New York: Paulist Press, 1973) pp. 81; Thomas Sheehan, First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity (New York: Random House, 1986) pp. 110, 118; Ulrich Wilckens, Resurrection translated A. M. Stewart (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1977) p. 2; Hans Grass, Ostergeschen und Osterberichte, Second Edition (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962) p. 96; Grass favors the origin in Damascus.

3. Hans von Campenhausen, "The Events of Easter and the Empty Tomb," in Tradition and Life in the Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968) p. 44

4. Archibald Hunter, Works and Words of Jesus (1973) p. 100

And also, you started a point about Marcion way back which I think never got fully addressed?

Iskander

Good posts, archibald. I have enjoyed reading them .

archibald

Ah yes. When the text doesn't help you, there is always the argument from hegemony. :]

archibald

I am afraid I may have edited my most recent (wiki) one a couple of times after you posted. :redface: