Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 09-28-2011, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

....So, we are off to a good start. We have at least tacit agreement that "what I also recieved" and "according to the scriptures" are interpolations....

You are off with a BAD START.

You MUST FIRST establish when 1 Cor 15 was written and produce either a known original text WITHOUT the supposed interpolation or a known original Pauline writing where the writer CONTRADICTED the so-called interpolation.

You cannot show that a Pauline writer could NOT have written all of 1 Cor 15.

All you appear to be doing is attempting to remove the evidence that shows the Pauline writings are ALL LATE.

Let's see, what is a good smilie for AA going on the ignore list?

:wave::wave2:

TedM · 09-28-2011, 12:26 PM

Hi Jake,

I think the claim to resurrection has plenty of scriptural support for those looking for it. Isaiah 53 for starters. after being put in a grave he 'shall prolong his days'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

It is evident that Marcion and the Jews were right. There is no scripture that states Christ will die, be buried, and rise after three days.

...
I would support the idea that 'what I also received' was a later interpolation...

Three days is when a person was deemed to truly be dead, so no scripture is required.

Ted

Hi Ted,

I will respond to your other points later. For now, lets start with 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

I think your point that "three days is when a person was deemed to truly be dead, so no scripture is required" is reasonable. So I take it that "according ot the scriptures" is likely an interpolation.

So, we are off to a good start. We have at least tacit agreement that "what I also recieved" and "according to the scriptures" are interpolations.

1 Corinthians 15
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

Jake Jones IV

TedM · 09-28-2011, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Your attempt to use the Latin writing Tertullian to give you insight into the earlier Greek form is an utter failure. You don't know Tertullian's expertise in Greek or his approach to translation.

Are you claiming Tertullian just couldn't figure out what the Greek word meant so he dropped it from his transcript? What evidence do you have for this other than wild speculation in order to salvage your pet theory on 'whole interpolation'?

You don't mind if I don't respond to your lack of knowledge in what you are trying to talk about.

I do mind. Why is it so difficult for you do give a simple explanation? Could he figure out the meaning of the word or not? What evidence do you have that he could not? Was Ireneaus equally handicapped?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Is Irenaeus any help to you in establishing a text with appearances?

Yes. I thought we went through this on the other thread. He writes as follows in Against Heresies, book 3, ch 13:

Quote:

And again, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he had recounted all those who had seen God after the resurrection, he says in continuation, "But whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed, " acknowledging as one and the same, the preaching of all those who saw God after the resurrection from the dead.

His text had resurrection appearances other than to Paul....OH I see you have an explanation:

Quote:

Irenaeus seems to be referring to two different versions of 1 Cor 15. In 3.18.3 he moves from the Marcionite version of v.3 straight to v.12, separated only by his commentary. This seems to be the form of the Marcionite version of 1 Cor, but in 3.13.1 he refers to a version with the appearances.

That's incredibly ridiculous, spin. You can't be serious. He's jumping around with quoting text.

Quote:

Early on when asked I put forward a rough notion that the interpolation may have happened between the time of Marcion and of Irenaeus. You've said absolutely nothing that makes an impact on this.

Let's resolve first whether there was one after Tertullian also for the 'which I received' part.

jakejonesiv · 09-28-2011, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

note as I mention above that Irenaeus referenced the list of appearances (not by name) to people other than Paul. This shoots down the 'whole interpolation' theory. Shot to pieces.

Hi Ted,

Marcion did not have the witness lists in his text.
Tertullian AM 3.8
Epiphanius Panarion 41
Adamantius: Dialogue on the True Faith in God; De Recta in Deum Fide;

You know, I have only have time to hit the high points here. If you want a more in depth study see Robert Price. If you want a truly scholarly examination of the issue, see H.Detering.

Links are included in my earlier message today

Jake

TedM · 09-28-2011, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

note as I mention above that Irenaeus referenced the list of appearances (not by name) to people other than Paul. This shoots down the 'whole interpolation' theory. Shot to pieces.

Hi Ted,

Marcion did not have the witness lists in his text.
Tertullian AM 3.8
Epiphanius Panarion 41
Adamantius: Dialogue on the True Faith in God; De Recta in Deum Fide;

You know, I have only have time to hit the high points here. If you want a more in depth study see Robert Price. If you want a truly scholarly examination of the issue, see H.Detering.

Links are included in my earlier message today

Jake

But you mentioned the missing text in Ireneaus first. IF the witness list was in his text, then you are proposing TWO interpolations, are you not?

aa5874 · 09-28-2011, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

note as I mention above that Irenaeus referenced the list of appearances (not by name) to people other than Paul. This shoots down the 'whole interpolation' theory. Shot to pieces.

Hi Ted,

Marcion did not have the witness lists in his text.
Tertullian AM 3.8
Epiphanius Panarion 41
Adamantius: Dialogue on the True Faith in God; De Recta in Deum Fide;

You know, I have only have time to hit the high points here. If you want a more in depth study see Robert Price. If you want a truly scholarly examination of the issue, see H.Detering.

Links are included in my earlier message today

Jake

We have NO actual text from Marcion that can be dated by paleography.

The available data do NOT allow any valid claims that 1 Cor 15 was interpolated.

archibald · 09-28-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Irenaeus seems to be referring to two different versions of 1 Cor 15. In 3.18.3 he moves from the Marcionite version of v.3 straight to v.12, separated only by his commentary. This seems to be the form of the Marcionite version of 1 Cor, but in 3.13.1 he refers to a version with the appearances.

That's incredibly ridiculous, spin. You can't be serious. He's jumping around with quoting text.

Ted, could you link me to the text here, or just remind me what the text is from, so I can find it somewhere online?

As explanations go, that one would appear to be, er, well, I don't know what to think. I'd better read the text first.

S'okay I got it.

3.13.1 seems to deal with Paul not being the only witness. So starts with '1. With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege that Paul alone knew the truth.....'

3.18 seems to deal with whether Jesus and Christ are more than one entity, and whether Jesus was a man or not. 3.18.3 seems to be about the latter.

Iow, there seems to be a reason for mentioning parts relating to multiple witnesses in the former, and parts relating to Jesus' human aspect (the bits about him being dead and rising) in the latter.

:huh:

I'll tell you what I think. I think the witness list and v11 are the only non-interpolations in the whole chapter, on account of how that's all that gets quoted in 3.13.1. I might need to add that I have a really strong sense that this passage may in fact be the only original one in the whole chapter. And the text is really, really loud as well, which I tend to think is always a dead (Jim) giveaway for interpolaton spotting.

And that's just for starters. Have you seen the gap in 3.18.3 just before the quote from 1 cor 15 3-4? It's from fucking Jeremiah 17:9! Holy smoke. The entire text between Jeremiah 17:9 and 1 cor 15:3 is an interpolation.

This, I need hardly tell you, may change everything.

TedM · 09-28-2011, 03:13 PM

Thanks for the laugh archibald.

spin · 09-28-2011, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Your attempt to use the Latin writing Tertullian to give you insight into the earlier Greek form is an utter failure. You don't know Tertullian's expertise in Greek or his approach to translation.

Are you claiming Tertullian just couldn't figure out what the Greek word meant so he dropped it from his transcript? What evidence do you have for this other than wild speculation in order to salvage your pet theory on 'whole interpolation'?

You don't mind if I don't respond to your lack of knowledge in what you are trying to talk about.

I do mind.

Well, go and pick up sufficient linguistics skills.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Why is it so difficult for you do give a simple explanation?

There is no simple resolution of the willful desire not to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Could he figure out the meaning of the word or not?

That is the issue I tried to point you to seeing the problems over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

What evidence do you have that he could not? Was Ireneaus equally handicapped?

Probably not as much as you.

For christ's sake TedM, if you want to talk about linguistics learn some basic ground rules. Translation issues fill books.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Is Irenaeus any help to you in establishing a text with appearances?

Yes. I thought we went through this on the other thread. He writes as follows in Against Heresies, book 3, ch 13:

Quote:

And again, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he had recounted all those who had seen God after the resurrection, he says in continuation, "But whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed, " acknowledging as one and the same, the preaching of all those who saw God after the resurrection from the dead.

His text had resurrection appearances other than to Paul....OH I see you have an explanation:

Quote:

Irenaeus seems to be referring to two different versions of 1 Cor 15. In 3.18.3 he moves from the Marcionite version of v.3 straight to v.12, separated only by his commentary. This seems to be the form of the Marcionite version of 1 Cor, but in 3.13.1 he refers to a version with the appearances.

That's incredibly ridiculous, spin. You can't be serious. He's jumping around with quoting text.

That is your assumption and you are free to believe whatever you like. It's crystal ball bullshit, of course. But any explanation will do. He just conveniently jumped from v.3 to v.12 in 2.18, reflecting the Marcionite text by accident. I'm sure you're all right with coincidences like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Early on when asked I put forward a rough notion that the interpolation may have happened between the time of Marcion and of Irenaeus. You've said absolutely nothing that makes an impact on this.

Let's resolve first whether there was one after Tertullian also for the 'which I received' part.

You've had most of the thread.

judge · 09-28-2011, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You don't mind if I don't respond to your lack of knowledge in what you are trying to talk about.

I do mind. Why is it so difficult for you do give a simple explanation?

I think its pretty obvious why spin wont do this.

Quote:

That's incredibly ridiculous, spin. You can't be serious. He's jumping around with quoting text.

Yes, Spin is being "incredibly" ridiculous.

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

09-28-2011, 03:13 PM	#458
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	Thanks for the laugh archibald.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.