archibald

Sure point taken. I know where my limitations are. :]

It was just a query, in case. The reason I thought there had to be an 'in case' is because....of my not being as familiar......so.....I'm puzzled as to why others (say spin, or Toto perhaps, or someone else) didn't make this now seemingly potent point in the interpolation thread, or even seem to note when you raised it (which I think you did, briefly).....so...I guess I was trying to anticipate a possible shortcoming and guessing what it could be.

Incidentally, I still don't see Paul claiming anything about the source of his gospel in v6-7, but not for the same reason as Ted, I think. The 'which is not another' gospel seems, in some translations, to be taken to mean 'which is not a proper gospel' and so relates to the 'false' gospel of the 'opponents, but this doesn't shed any light in relation to what you said. Out of curiosity, could you clarify? I'm not questioning that 'Paul' does claim it, later, in v12.

archibald

Couple of things.

You may know more about dates than me. But, assuming Iraneus was c180 CE, that does seem to set a marker (assuming we can trust the source) for a point when the bulk of vv3-5 were 'in', but when 'which I also received' was 'not in'. Which, if true, is a valuable piece of the puzzle.

I also wonder, if Iraneus was not exactly a teenager at that time (died in 202 I think, though not sure when born), then presumably he wasn't reading the material for the first time in say 180. Presumably he was familiar with it earlier in his life. Which would seem to narrow the 'window of interplating opportunity' even a bit more. I'm sure some have candidates for who the interpolator might have been, or at least when (and as I keep wondering, how) the interpolation (or interpolations) might have been effected. And perhaps even more importantly, for the wider HJ/MJ debate, why. What is there, to make us think that anybody was countering an 'MJ heresy', for example? I only refer to this 'overarching' issue as an example, not because anyone has strongly cited it in either of the threads to do with 1 Cor 15.

Is there any reason to think that? Even Marcion's 'docetic' phantom, going by Tertullian's reaction, was an earthly phantom, it seems. Not human, just looked like one.

I repeat, I am not averse to thinking that there could have been interpolations prior to the Ms that are extant.

Regarding spin's en-block hypothesis, it isn't clear whether he necessarily meant 'en-block in one go'. He can clarify this, but I'm wondering if he did mean 'in one go' and whether this is why he hadn't cited Tertullian, or Iraneus, since it seems odd not to have played what looks like a strong card.

Same goes for Toto's '50% addition' hypothesis, in that he hasn't said if he meant 'in one go', though I do confess, I am sceptical about such an extensive claim, even if it were carried out piecemeal, or how he feels confident which half is 'in' and which is not. But Toto is going to elaborate, and like everything else, it is probably not impossible. I'm hoping it's something more than speculation based on one possible/plausible hypothesis, since it seems that criteria is useful for any one of at least a hundred possible hypotheses. And I don't mind anyone having a personal favourite. It just escapes me why anyone would approach anything like confidence, in the absence of any 'hard' evidence. It just doesn't seem like rational scepticism, for starters. :]

As for the 'god' reference, my initial reaction was to think that the terms were interchangeable for the writer, therefore rendering it not odd.

spin

Once you admit interpolation, then attempts at saving any of the passage fail as arbitrary. Well, maybe this bit is an interpolation, but I think this other bit isn't. OK, I admit that there's a problem with the abortion reference and there's a problem with the use of παραλαμβανω, but despite the fact "that the passage makes pretty good sense without 3-11", I believe most of it is kosher.

archibald

If that's not your best shot, I think you need to have another go.

TedM

Ok, but once you start speculating on multiple interpolations, you multiply the problems associated with successfully integrating them--ie it is more difficult for more than one interpolation of a passage to be integrated than just one in a given time period.



Yep.

Yes, the juicy bits were there already.

Not sure. Spin's angle seems more focused on catholic orthodox -- putting Paul in his place.


Yep.


That would be a good solution. They are interchangeable but it seems odd given the context of the entire para and his typical use of Lord or "Son" when referring to Jesus as something other than Jesus or Christ.

spin

Your comment is not relevant to what you were responding to. I gave no hint of multiple interpolations in 1 Cor 15:3-11, just multiple indications of one interpolation, which you to varying degrees acknowledge.

archibald

I think some comment or clarification on the Tertuullian/Iraneus thing is needed, at this point, from you, Spin. Otherwize, it appears that the 'which I also received' may be read as evidence of a separate interpolation for this phrase.

stephan huller

Tertullian's citation is not the same as the Vulgate:

Now to see other Latin citations of 1 Corinthians.

archibald

Stephan, some of us farties are now scrabbling around the net for a translator. :]

Aha!

Latin: Tradidi enim vobis in primis quod et accepi : quoniam Christus mortuus est pro peccatis nostris secundum Scripturas :

KJV: For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

http://wikichristian.org/index.php/B...rinthians_15:3

That's one of 'em.

stephan huller

Important note:

http://www.skypoint.com/members/walt...NonInterp.html

This just about settles it. Irenaeus's Latin text is pretty significant. It seems to confirm a tradition. The Ambrosiaster is also very significant as it is a commentary on all the Epistles of St. Paul, with the exception of that to the Hebrews which is pre-Jeromian. The indication then is that the early Latin text agreed with what must have been the Marcionite reading here. Case closed.