archibald

Spin,

Also, showing that he could have switched to plural for no obvious reason in this case is not the same as saying it is likely that he did or that this is the better explanation. Not with TedM's points about context, which I at least partially accept, not with the fact that Paul also makes it clearer on many other occasions why he switches (or uses both) and especially not when there is a clear reason in the context in question.

aa5874

The Greek word ektrwma has been translated to English to mean untimely or out of due time by virtually ALL English versions of 1 Cor. 15.8.

In the CONTEXT of 1 Cor.15, the Greek word ektrwma does NOT signify early when the Pauline writer is CLEARLY claiming to be LAST.

1Co 15:8 - The Greek word exaston in 1 Cor.15.8 meaning LAST destroys any claim that the Pauline writer implied he was born "early".

Again, the Pauline writer is claiming to be LAST to SEE the resurrected Jesus so the Greek word ektrwma does NOT signify wretched.

Now, please state the SOURCE of antiquity where any person CLEARLY asserted that ektrwma means "wretched" or some deragotory term.

It is CLEAR that ektrwma by analogy can mean UNTIMELY or OUT of DUE TIME


Well, after reading the rest of "Paul's" letters "least of the apostles" does NOT stand out like a sore thumb.

The Pauline writer was claiming that he was least among the apostles because he PERSECUTED the Church of God.

1 Cor 15:9 - 1 Cor.15 is COMPATIBLE with Galatians 1 where the Pauline writers claimed that they PERSECUTED the Church.

Ga 1:13 - I find your arguments that there are interpolations in 1 Cor. 15. to be EXTREMELY weak. You have UTTERLY failed to show that the Pauline writers could NOT have written all of 1 Cor. 15.

spin

Rubbish. A reminder is not a rehearsal of the story. This was a dead issue when you first tried it.

The only succession that we have seen in the passing on of teaching regarding Paul is from the revelation from god. Telling someone about something is in itself not what the verb is about. It is receiving of patrimony, inheritance.

Wrong. Half-assed response.

So we have LXX before and Valentinus after. This should tell you that you are just off the planet on this. Oh, but Paul is using it the way I think it should be.

This is what I could salvage from the link (which I gather is modern Greek):
[T2]abortion|n|(sthg undeveloped, abnormal)|κάτι αφύσικο, μεταφορικά έκτρωμα ουσ.ουδ.||
freak|n|(monster)|μεταφορικά τέρας (της φύσης), έκτρωμα ουσ.ουδ.||
eyesore|n|(sthg ugly)|έκτρωμα, τέρας ουσ.ουδ.[/T2]

I've already given you the functional definition. I've already given you the etymology (εκ= "out of", τρωμα= "wound" -- pretty unmistakable). It's not difficult to figure out. The LXX εκτρωμα is used three times (Nu 12:12, Jb 3:16, Ec 6:3) and in each case the NRSV euphemistically translates the original to be "stillborn". Putting it together, it is not a pretty picture. Who wants to turn what Paul says into something more palatable?

Flyspecks you see as possible don't indicate all the flyspecks. You can pick and choose what you want and you don't want, but that tells us about you, not the text.

Too bad the interpolator was too busy worrying about his idealized list of appearances to think of the logistics.

Iskander

Your reply should be the final word on this point; it is for me, anyway.><

archibald

Try some Bisodol Spin. You appear to be regurgitaing rather a lot.

You know, this 'dead issue' is a bit like your 'exceptionally strange'. It doesn't become any stronger as an interpretation just because you keep repeating it. Repeating it as a slight straw man in any case, since everybody agrees that a brief statement about a reminder need not necessarily be follwed by the reminder.

What, incidentally, is a half decent 'literal translation'?

Is it something like 'I am yet making known to you brothers the good message which I bring to you and which ye beside got?'

Making known that which I bring, and had already brought.

Hm.

Totally unexpected for this to be follwed by him making something known.

Tut tut. You forgot to embolden, underline and capitalize. Again.

TedM

What is rubbish is your inability to see how 3-11 qualifies just fine as a reminder of what it was they were first told about the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We have no other instance of Paul saying where he learned of the resurrection appearances to others (although we can reasonably infer from Galatians 1 that others believed in it before Paul), but we do have 1 Cor 9 in which Paul strongly implies that other apostles had seen Jesus' resurrected, since he appears to list his own 'vision/appearance' as one of the criteria for being an apostle. So, it is totally irrelevant whether Paul mentioned receiving OTHER information directly from God or not. Your conclusion just doesn't have the facts to support it. We have 1 Cor 9 and a common sense understanding that Paul would have heard of the resurrected Jesus story (whatever it was) from others. You have no case here.


So far the only evidence you are provided regarding interpolation that has any validity at all is that of overly negative references to Paul. That comprises one verse out of 9. Your reasons for rejecting the other 8 verses are weak.

We have what we have. To dismiss it as being the work of a distracted and inattentive interpolator when the gospel accounts of appearances to the remaining disciples all say 'eleven' just doesn't cut it IMO. The level of carelessness would have been high. When BTW do you think it was interpolated, and why then?

avi

It is not the last word, from my point of view.

I agree with aa5874, with regard to his interpretation of ektrwma. Yes, he is correct, in my opinion, as one who is completely illiterate (especially in Greek), and Toto errs here, only because of the CONTEXT.

Yes, I too believe that ektrwma signifies "untimely".

But that is very different from drawing the general conclusion, as several, including aa5874, have done:

I completely disagree with this assessment.

In my opinion, DCHindley's research, and Philosopher Jay's and MaryHelena's comments on the likelihood of an interpolation inserting all of those "cristou's" in this passage, makes perfect sense to me.

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how the Jews of that era would have joined the nascent Christian movement, knowing that Jesus had been executed as a criminal and blasphemer, not annointed as a "king".

There is no logical reason for "Paul" to have written "Cristou", and in my opinion, after reading DCHindley's explanation, I don't think he did write it. I think someone else inserted those passages.

avi

TedM

The argument for interpolation in the pro-orthodox anti-Paul verse has a flip side to it that argues against a catholic interpolation: The catholic interpolator would have been inclined to change 'Cephas' to Peter, and in order to further the idea of Peter's role as head of the church as the first Pope given the keys to the kingdom by Jesus in Matthew he would not have included James in the list of those who Jesus appeared to. The gospels saw no need to include James in the appearance, so why should an interpolator of one of Paul's epistles do so? Sure we can come up with reasons but my point is that the simplest thing would have been to not even mention James, especially since Paul makes no mention of James anywhere else in the entire epistle.

Toto

I was going to ignore this as so completely wrong that no one would take it seriously, but someone has.

Yes, the most popular translation for ektrwma is "out of due time" or "untimely" - because of the bourgeois squeamishness of the Bible translators, who know that their market is dominated by elderly women. But it really means "miscarriage."

And it does not mean that Paul is claiming to be early or late in relation to other apostles.


That has already been done in this thread.

It may be "clear" to you for some reason, but you won't find any support in any literature of the time for this idea.

You can find one other instance where the same interpolator added a not about persecuting the Church. But the overwhelming character of Paul's letters is incompatible with this.

TedM

I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how someone suspected of having been the Messiah and claimed to have been seen after being crucified during Passover would not have been a candidate for starting a movement of believers in him as the resurrected Messiah since there is a passage such as Isaiah 53 which those looking for a Messiah could have applied nearly perfectly to such a man.

I'm also waiting for someone to explain to me why Gentiles would pay attention to a Jewish man touting Jewish scriptures if they didn't believe there was some historical basis for the claim of resurrection.