Solo

Yes, it is a point to consider. My inclination is to view the mystical "twelve" as a literary creation of Mark which was "converted" into an explicit, ID-ed "twelve disciples" by Matthew. That Mark did not use the "disciples" to overlap with the "twelve" is apparent from 2:15, 4:10 cf. 4:34, and his other uses of the mystical number. The power of Matthew's suggestion that this is what Mark meant permanently restricted the exegesis of the original narrative gospel even though I believe Matthew was well aware of the eschatological function of the "the twelve" (19:28). Mark 3:14 does not appoint a restricted group of disciples to preach but an eschatological cipher "twelve" representing the twelve tribes. The only character explicitly linked to "the twelve" in Mark is Judas.

So, if I am correct about the origin of "the twelve", the theoretical terminus a quo for 1 Cr 15:3-11 would be the gospel of Mark, and ad quem, the writing of Matthew. In practical terms, since we do not know the rate of diffusion of Matthew, or its early oral deposits, the period would be extended somewhat. The situation is somewhat similar to Gospel of Peter, which does not know the reduction to eleven, but which most exegets see as dependent on Mark.

Best,
Jiri

Johnny Skeptic

What kind of evidence?

What do you mean by "internal" evidence?

andrewcriddle

Some manuscript evidence and/or evidence from quotation by orthodox and/or unorthodox early Christians.
Evidence that the passages contains post-Pauline ideas. It is very hard to argue that ideas/concepts are clearly post-Pauline but dated from well before 100 CE.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

What do you mean? What kind of quotation?

What do you mean? If 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 was written in 90 A.D., it was obviously post-Pauline.

Why? If the passage was written in 90 A.D., and was not widely circulated until the second century, it would not have been much of an issue. It is not reasonably possible to adequately evaluate which and how many first century Christians believed that the end justifies the means, and dishonestly tried to make Christianity look good. A good deal of that definitely happened regarding grossly exaggerated claims of the numbers of Christian martyrs. Even some prominent Roman Catholic officials and experts of past centuries admitted that.

A deliberate coverup in a very small, uninfluential, widely rejected first century Christian church is plausible.

andrewcriddle

There are obviously many possibilities, for example evidence that Marcion omitted the passage. My point is that none of these possibilities appear to be fulfilled.

I think you are blurring the line between the possibility that the passage is an interpolation and a positive argument that it is an interpolation.

(I think I've tried to explain this before. I just don't think that suggesting possibilities without any positive arguments in their favour is likely to help in recovering the original text of Paul. )


Andrew Criddle

aa5874

There is EVIDENCE from an APOLOGETIC source that place Paul AFTER gLuke.

Church History 3.4.8
There is NO DOUBT that the EVIDENCE from the Church is that Paul was aware of gLuke.

Now, gLuke has been deduced to have been written after the Fall of the Temple and AFTER gMark.

The EVIDENCE from the Church itself support LATE PAULINE writings and that PAUL was ALIVE AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

Johnny Skeptic

But it is not necessary for skeptics to offer a positive argument for an interpolation since all interpolations are not obvious. If you believe that all ancient texts are valid unless they are reasonably proven to be invalid, you are mistaken. You are apparently confusing "plausible" with "probable." Skeptics only need to show that it is plausible that the passage is an interpolation. Why isn't it plausible that the passage is an interpolation? How you do determine the plausibility of interpolations regarding all ancient texts?

But all of the explanations for the writings of antiquity are not going to appear just to satisfy our curiosity. You have not provided any positive arguments that the passage is not an interpolation. There is certainly positive evidence that many Christians grossly exaggerated the numbers of Christian martyrs.

In your opinion, what does it take to properly evaluate ancient texts, intelligence, education, common sense, an honest desire to find the truth, or something else? This is a very important issue. If intelligence is an issue, surely many skeptic Bible scholars, many of whom are former Christians, have a lot of intelligence. The same goes for education, and common sense. Surely at least some skeptic Bible scholars have an honest desire to find the truth. If a God exists, I doubt that he demands that people have a lot of intelligence and education in order for them to try to find the truth.

As I have told you before, if multiple, independent attestations were actually convincing, they would be convincing no matter what they promised believers, but that is not the case since if the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, far fewer people would believe that the Bible is true. You ignored what I said, but you ignoring what I said does not make it less true. Simply stated, no carrot, no rabbit. It is really quite simple.