TedM

Would you agree that such a writer would probably not have known of the current gospel records of events if he did that? Also, that such an interpolation would have had to have been 'slipped' by other Christians who were already aware of Paul's writings (Clement quotes from Paul extensively around 90-100 AD, I think)? What date makes the most sense to you given these two issues?


Exactly. We only have this one account. Maybe what really happened was debated within the community. In the 'miracle of the sun' event at Fatima in 1917, some 40-80,000 people were present in anticipation of a revealing from God when the sun supposedly did things that were unusual. They reported different things and some saw nothing, but a common report about the event is that everyone saw the sun do unusual things. When religious fervor is high, these kinds of things are sometimes experienced, reported, and carried on in tradition.

ted

Johnny Skeptic

Why should I?

A tamperer in the 2nd or 3rd century could easily have claimed that Paul made the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses, but that it had been lost and he (the tamperer) found it.

Regarding dating, ancient historian Richard Carrier told me that it is impossible to accurately date when most of the books in the New Testament were first released. Dates of composition and dates of release are two entirely different matters. Do Christians not find it strange that John (if that is who actually wrote the book of John) waited for over 50 years before writing the book of John, or before releasing the book of John?

TedM

Because the 'creed of Paul' is different from the 4 gospel records in significant ways: mention of 'twelve' instead of 11 (sign of no knowledge of Judas--although some manuscripts do say 11), the appearance to James, the lack of appearances to women, the mention of 500, no mention of angels or an earthquake, or even an empty tomb. All of these suggest that the 'creed' was written either before traditions or accounts like those of the 4 gospels had developed, or the writer you suggest (Paul's interpolator) didn't know of them or rejected them, yet wanted readers of 1 Cor to accept his point of view as though it had been Paul's. Do you agree? If so, do you still think it is most likely this 'interpolation' happened possibly in the 3rd century--long after the 4 gospels had been accepted?

Perhaps. But, don't you think copies of 1 Cor were circulating among churches and had been for 100-200 years? If so, do you think his claim would have been accepted to the degree that people got together and decided to 'draft' it into all of the existing copies at that time?

Do you think people wrote them and then sat on them for years on end? It makes most sense to me that once they were written, they were distributed to whoever they were addressed. There is an early tradition of letters (such as Revelations) being distributed to multiple churches. It is likely that the hunger of the developing early churches would have led to fairly rapid copying of certain texts--especially those of Paul. What does Carrier mean by 'accurate'? Within 1 day, 1 year, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years? It's a relative term. If you go to earlychristianwritings.com, and just read some of the background, you'll see that while there are date ranges on a number of writings, in many cases the majority of scholarship agrees on a fairly small date range 10-30 years.


I don't know about the avg Christian, but for me the answer is 'not at all.' for a simple reason: Early Christians though the 'kingdom of God' had arrived, and that Jesus would be returning/coming to earth at the right hand of God at any moment. The expectation was so strong that some sold all they had, stopped working, and put off getting married. Why should an apostle immediately sit down after Jesus' death and write a book about Jesus' activities if he believes the kingdom of God had already begun with the coming of Jesus and the wheels were in motion for his return during his own lifetime?

Please note: I don't have the answers, just some ideas about what seems likely to me, so please remember that I too am skeptical of certain things so there is no great need to convince me of anything.

ted

Diogenes the Cynic

My feeling about the "twelve" is that, while an HJ would have had followers, I think the number 12 is a symbolic one and probably not a historical one. Aside from Simon/Cephas/Peter (assuming all of those various mentions are intended to refer to the same person) and James, the alleged brother of Jesus, there isn't much strong attestation (and at least one, Judas, is almost certainly a fiction). I wonder if a small group was inflated to 12.

Johnny Skeptic

Why not? Today, occasionally previously unknown supposedly original works by music composers and authors of the past are discovered. In the 2nd century, Harry the Tamperer could have been a dishonest church leader and said "Hey, guys, here is a previously undiscovered fragment that I just discovered of Paul's claim about 500 eyewitnesses. The fragment must have been lost before the first copies of 1st Corinthians were written."

TedM

What about John? What about the portrayal of Phillip in Acts? What about the mention of several by Iraneaus--as having been known by Polycarp, who was martyrd and claimed to have known some of the apostles ( I think he mentioned Philip, Andrew and John)? What about the Papias mention of Matthew? I've never looked into the issue much, but am curious how early and strong the traditions are for the various apostles traveling to various places--Thomas to India, etc....? 12 is definitely a symbolic number important to the Jews given the 12 tribes, but that very fact may have contributed to there being an original 'twelve' in the first place.

ted

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

They do seem historical, at least as much as, say, Pontius Pilate. And why need we balk at 500? More than 500, Paul doesn't say "exactly this many," he says there were more than that.

My sentiments, exactly...

Regards,
Lee

TedM

It is possible. I'm just not so sure it is probable. Assuming you are right, you the issue of when is still an issue. When do you think this interpolation--with all of its differences with the gospel records of tradition--most likely would have occured?

ted

Johnny Skeptic

Knowing where possible becomes probable is often beyond our ability to reliably determine, except of course when one is a fundamentalist Christian.

I don't see "all of its differences with the gospel records of tradition." One simple addition does not correlate with all of its differences. Before the possible addition of the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses in the 2nd century, the tradition might very well have been reliance upon the few eyewitnesses mentioned in the Gospels, and if the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses was added in say 175 A.D., all of the supposed 500 eyewitnesses would have been long gone. By that time, no one could have reliably checked things out.


Regarding dating, as I told you in a previous post, ancient historian Richard Carrier told me that accurately dating the books of the New Testament is very difficult. I believe that the notion that the author of the book of John waited for over 50 years to write or release the book of John is an absurd notion.

TedM

What you are suggesting is that someone added the claim of 500 some 125 years after the original letter had been written, and was able to get it added to other copies that came into existence during that 125 year period, to the point of eventually including all known copies, without nary a mention of such a change by the Church or those who may have held the copies. I don't know if that is reasonable or not. You are also suggesting that even though they added the claim of 500 for some unknown reason they also added the appearance to James, and did not rely on a gospel tradition of initial appearances to women, angels, earthquakes and an empty tomb. Those are a lot of differences. To me the only time period that makes sense for this to have been an accepted interpolation is one that preceded any gospel record of post-resurrection appearances. 175AD sounds too late for that, but I'd have to do more research to say for sure. The original gospels probably were written before 100AD as most scholars say, but I don't know what the scholarship is with regard to the final chapters on resurrection appearances.

I will start a thread with some questions on this..

Why should he write a book if he expecting Jesus' quick return to earth?

ted