Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 08-30-2011, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Here is the passage before the interpolation:.......

.......We could also look at the problems with the claimed 500 and various other clangers among the appearances, but there is sufficient evidence in the three issues I point out above to think that vv.3-11 is an interpolation.

Good points, Spin (apart from perhaps sounding a bit too sure about the interpolation at the outset). If you are interested (and you may or may not be and I won't lose any sleep either way) it was this post which got me thinking there was more to the interpolation case than I had thought previously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Further, the idea of Paul writing he was [I]"unfit to be called an apostle, because ......

.....Best,
Jiri

More good points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Hi spin,

I have long been interested in this topic......

.......Considering all of the above, I would have to conclude that the objections raised here have satisfactory answers and those answers even reveal that verses 3-11 are MORE APPROPRIATE to the both the immediate context and the context of the entire epistle than if they were not there originally, and at least on these basis are more likely to be original to the text than not.

Ted

Good counterpoints.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This is a misrepresentation of the text in that it leaves out very important ideas. The text is ........

......It's an interpolation, TedM........

..........And your edited summary adds nothing that needs comment. It just is a more succinct encapsulation of your errors.

Good countercounterpoints. Maybe a bit too much certainty there in the midst. You're like Tim O'Neill's alter ego.

Hey, maryhelena, maybe spin is a composite character too? :]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Ok spin, lets see if your replies hold up under scrutiny.......

.........So, for me at least, your objections are easily and reasonably answered. Your biggest (seemingly) objection--ie the passage is interrupted--is IMO just not true and --again for me--the passage is actually more logical as it currently stands because it fits the immediate context as well as the overall context better than does the parsed version you have given.

Ted

Good countercountercounterpoints.

Looking forward to future installments.

Iskander · 08-30-2011, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Wow, the (not unenjoyable to read) vortex of speculation/interpretation which accompanies all sides of discussions on these issues never ceases to amaze me!

I will admit this however, I was wrong to imply (in a previous thread) that the claim for interpolation in this passage is spurious, because there is perhaps slightly more to the argument in favour than I had thought.

On that basis, for my own personal purposes, I am going to upgrade it to 'possibly an interplation, possibly not an interpolation', since that seems the more rationally skeptical thing to do now.

Though I am still thinking back to Price's conclusions (posted earlier) and noting that the main criteria which offer support are those of the general form 'Paul would or wouldn't say this, or that, so if the text says it, or doesn't say it.........'

So Price's final lines seem reasonable:

'......the weighing of the evidence and of the various criteria must be left to the judgment of each scholar, I venture to say that the emergent hypothesis, while it can in the nature of the case never be more than an unverifiable speculation, can claim a significant degree of plausibility as one among many options for making sense of the passage.'

In The New Oxford Annotated Bible, the so called ‘interpolation’ is treated as an skilful technique to create rapport with the crowd ready to show dissent.

Paul proceeds in clear steps in a slow introduction to his main argument. He will confront the problem once the conditions for success have been created by his “interpolation”. Here Paul is shown as a skilful speaker and not the clumsy one the defenders of interpolation expect .

Quote:

15. 1-58
Arguments for resurrection
The issue is not identified until v.12: Some of the Corinthians are denying the resurrection of the dead. Paul’s own term for the deceased is “ those who have fallen sleep” in 7.39,11.30,15.6,18.20;1 Thess4.13. The recurrence of the dead along with the prominence of the antitheses “mortal-immortal” and “perishable-imperishable” in Paul’s arguments here suggests that, as people embedded in Hellenistic culture and influenced by the Alexandrian-Jewish teacher Apollos, the sceptical Corinthians view their souls as separable from their bodies. Indeed, because they possessed wisdom their souls were immortal, so the resurrection of their “perishable” body, once it was “dead” made no sense. Paul proceeds in clear steps.
15.1-11
The proclamation of Christ’s death and resurrection
Paul reminds the Corinthians of the movement’s early creed,vv.3-5, to establish common ground and he expands the list of witnesses to the resurrection, including himself, to increase its credibility.

stephan huller · 08-30-2011, 04:28 PM

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

MCalavera · 08-30-2011, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

As I said in another thread, Paul saying he was the least of the Apostles could be easily explained by the idea that he was using a sudden manipulative tactic to "confirm" to people how "genuine" and "sincere" he was.

Why do you think he needed to be manipulative in that that particular instance, given that everywhere else he considers his revelations at least equal to those of other apostles, if indeed not the superior and exclusive (Gal 5:10) ?

Best,
Jiri

Actually, I think he was being manipulative throughout all his writings, not just this one instance.

I admit my wording was horrible.

judge · 08-30-2011, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

3. And another dead give away, Paul tells in Gal 1:15 that god "had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace". His birth is special, yet 1 Cor 15:8 talks of his being "untimely born", though in fact it means "miscarried/aborted" (see LXX Job 3:16). Either god set him apart at birth or his birth was, umm, "untimely", not both.
.

Three are many problems with your arguments here that I can see, but Spin, this one is very starnge. Being "untimely born" or "aborted", cannot and does not refer to his physical birth. It's an idiom.
How can a living person have been aborted?

DCHindley · 08-30-2011, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The Marcionite version is very different. See Epiphanius's discussion in the Panarion.

Thank you Stephen. I will do my best to keep an open mind throughout this new thread. Can you elaborate on what the key differences are, or provide a link?

Toto, if you have additional perspective, this is hopefully the thread to spit it out.

I guess Stephan left his hand scanner at home when he was reading Epiphanius on some of his many plane trips.

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.

DCH

aa5874 · 08-30-2011, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, once you admit "Paul" is a liar then you have confirmed that the Pauline writings are NOT reliable sources and MUST be corroborated by non-apologetic sources.

There is ZERO non-apologetic corroborative sources for "Paul" and even Acts, an apologetic source for Paul, is considered a work of fiction.

1. "Paul" is a liar.

2. The author of ACTS is a Fiction writer.

3. The history of "Paul" is found in Fiction called Acts of the Apostles.

4. "Paul" corroborates events in the Fiction called Acts of the Apostles.

I fail to see the logical connection between your points.

Well, you you have at least acknowledged the very first point that "Paul" lied.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

...Yes, Paul (who was very likely a person who existed at one point in time) lied (depending on how one defines lying)....

judge · 08-30-2011, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

1. This separates the topic set up in vv.1-2 from the Pauline discussion,

Assuming your conclusion.

Quote:

a discussion on the necessity of the resurrection. However, if vv.3-8 were genuine, there would be no need to argue the necessity of the resurrection, for there have been such marvelous witnesses to it

Whether or not the resurrection is a logical necessity (in pauls mind) has nothing to do with whether it was witnessed. It's necessity is "theological" (in pauls mind)

JonA · 08-30-2011, 06:29 PM

Anyone claiming 1 Cor 15:3–11 as an interpolation is missing the clear and obvious point of the chapter that makes the matter moot.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is trying to convince his audience of the reality of bodily resurrection. He does this by invoking the resurrection of Jesus as an example of what his fellow Christians can look forward to.

As far as an MJ/HJ debate goes, it doesn't even matter whether the first several verses of chapter 15 are interpolations or not, because the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15 speaks to Paul's belief in a bodily, historical Jesus.

The only way to achieve anything in the MJ/HJ debate with eliminating 1 Corinthians 15:3–11 is to eliminate the entirety of chapter 15. If the MJers aren't ready to do that, then the debate about the authenticity of verses 3–11 are just for fun; no consequences.

Jon

stephan huller · 08-30-2011, 06:42 PM

Thank you so much DCH

I am actually packing for a plane trip to Vegas but I didn't expect anyone to take the time to cite the material. It is very interesting. One of a number of curiosities about the Marcionite canon.

Thank you again

08-30-2011, 06:29 PM	#49
JonA Regular Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Minnesota! Posts: 386	No Consequences Anyone claiming 1 Cor 15:3–11 as an interpolation is missing the clear and obvious point of the chapter that makes the matter moot. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is trying to convince his audience of the reality of bodily resurrection. He does this by invoking the resurrection of Jesus as an example of what his fellow Christians can look forward to. As far as an MJ/HJ debate goes, it doesn't even matter whether the first several verses of chapter 15 are interpolations or not, because the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15 speaks to Paul's belief in a bodily, historical Jesus. The only way to achieve anything in the MJ/HJ debate with eliminating 1 Corinthians 15:3–11 is to eliminate the entirety of chapter 15. If the MJers aren't ready to do that, then the debate about the authenticity of verses 3–11 are just for fun; no consequences. Jon

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-30-2011, 04:28 PM	#43
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Why is the testimony of the Marcionite systematically ignored around here? Why doesn't this tip the scales in favor of interpolation and manipulation?

08-30-2011, 06:42 PM	#50
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Thank you so much DCH I am actually packing for a plane trip to Vegas but I didn't expect anyone to take the time to cite the material. It is very interesting. One of a number of curiosities about the Marcionite canon. Thank you again

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.