TedM

Ok spin, I have even greater insight than before on this, so I'm really feeling naughty now..

Of course he talks about it because it is necessary to tackle the problem. At this point we will have to leave it like this: I think the 'remind' comment sounds goofy in your parsed version and you don't. I think it sounds appropriate with 3-11, and you don't.

If you bang your head hard enough maybe you'll knock some sense into it on this issue..

The only reason he would have to repeat the list again in his argument is if people were rejecting their original belief in Christ's resurrection. But we have no evidence of that.

It is time for me to show how the alleged interpolated verses fit into the chapter:

Consistent with verse 1 and beginning in verse 3, Paul first reminds them of what he originally preached to them and thereby establishes what it was the Corinthians believed. That belief, according to verse 11 came about through the preaching of Paul and at least some in the list of witnesses he gave:


Then he tries to show the logical threat to their salvation/faith for questioning the general concept of human resurrection:

He is saying 'how can you even think such a thing?--it logically means everything you believe (notice the bolded tense) is of no value.
He then arguably references back to the list he provided when they first believed to further show the seriousness of this issue:

Paul is making clear that they understand the implication to their current faith if the dead are not raised: It means the original message that they believed--the message in 3-11 was wrong. Does Paul yet need to defend it? Does he have to say: BUT IT IS NOT WRONG--500 people testified, etc.? No. Why, because no one was claiming Christ wasn't raised. I'll repeat it again: No one was claiming Christ wasn't raised.

One more time: No one was claiming Christ wasn't raised.

He already established that they believed and STILL BELIEVE Christ was raised.

What he is doing, again, is helping them see the implication of their questions. He drives it home in the next verses:

Notice the bolded: if ..then..you are still in your sins. This references back to verse 3: In your parsed passage there is no mention of a gospel of salvation from sins. Sure, they knew it, but verse 3 actually says it and verse 17 would appear to reference back to it.


Next he starts discussing the implications of their faith that Christ was raised, and how it addresses the question at hand:

First he reasserts their belief that Christ was raised, and was the first man raised:

Then he says that when Christ comes all who have died and are Christ's will be raised:

Later he covers those who are still alive when Christ comes:

And he spends a lot of time in between talking about the kind of body those who are raised will have (more evidence that the Corinthians weren't questioning Christ's resurrection--Paul would have spent considerable time discussing THAT instead of the kind of body humans would have).

As you can see though there is no need to try and convince them that Christ was raised by repeating what it was they heard that made them believe and that they still did believe.

Spin, you can argue that it was unnecessary for him to mention the appearances--and it was. But you cannot argue that he didn't reference back to it to help illustrate the seriousness of it--the implications to Paul and the witnesses who testified, and also the implication to their own souls (you are still in your sins).




The only way for you to be right is for Paul to have switched from talking about his own gospel --"the gospel which I preached to you...hold fast the word which I preached to you" to talking about a gospel message from himself and other unspecified people in verse 14: " then our preaching is vain" without explaining the switch.

Sure, you can explain it away, but it is nevertheless awkward.

But if you include the alleged interpolated passage there is no such awkwardness; The switch is handled nicely in your snipped verse 11 when after mentioning various witnesses Paul says: Here there is a smooth transition and there is no need to question who the others are that he refers to in verse 14: It would clearly be some of those witnesses he mentioned.



Not at all. I believe the argument starts in the same place you do--verse 12.

I believe 3-11 provides background information some of which Paul uses and some he doesn't. But, since Paul feels he has to show them that if they question resurrection in general it implies that Christ himself would not save them because he too would not be resurrected, it is not strange at all that he would feel compelled to repeat the whole message that they believed in for their salvation in the first place.



Ted

spin

TedM, you insist that vv.3-11 provide background information, but still there is no reference to the witnesses. You have tried to connect them, but failed, showing only that "we" are proselytizers, which in no sense implies witnesses. The unfathomable twelve, the outlandish 500. They are the work of a later crazed brain. They are obviously not part of a tradition Paul inherited, for they were not available to those who came after Paul. If there had really been 500 witnesses, you would have heard it echoed from one end of christianity to the other. Paul gives no hint of the witnesses in his argument. The best you can hope for is that some of the proclaimers of the gospel were witnesses, but that's not evident from what Paul says in vv.12-19. Never does he refer to any witnesses in his argument, just to proclaimers.

You are still hopeful about the "we" when you ignore the evidence from the rest of 1 Corinthians. Who is the "we" in 1:23, "we proclaim..."? or in 2:6, 3:9 and 9:4? The Corinthians know just as they would in 15:14. It's you who have been confused by vv.3-11 that don't understand.

You can't even get the witnesses out of v.11. It is still those who proclaim, not those who were the witnesses even in the interpolation.

V.11 is a hook to get the witnesses stuff back on track with the actual discourse. You can see exactly the same approach with 1 Cor 11:27 which hooks the Lucan last supper into Paul's discussion of the meal he has set up with his Corinthians. (And if you really want to discuss the last supper interpolation, do so in another thread, please. Here I'm pointing to an observable behavior.) There is also a small example in 1 Jn 5:7 with the use of "There are three that testify" which gets repeated to hook the insertion back into the discourse. You need to find more than just the hook.

archibald

Oh never mind.

Could we do the 500 thing? It sounds more juicy. The '3-11 block interpolation' argument from conflict is pretty much dead in the water, as anything more than pure speculation and subjective interpretation, and more than one poster has detailed perfectly plausible scenarios for including at least part of 3-11.

:huh:

spin

Your argument by vacuous assertion is really convincing.

archibald

Oh. It's not convincing to you, spin. I get that part. :]

And, briefly straying onto general, personal observations,

Spin, quite honestly, I've seen you take a pasting because of holding onto a dogmatic stance enough times (not on this website) to scratch my head and wonder why it is that your reputation on this particular website appears to be so good, with posters saying 'thank goodness you're here' and 'oh ban that other poster for being rude' and so on. I'm not saying a certain other poster wasn't rude, incidentally. At least Tim O'neill (your alter ego?), as one example, gets sanctioned, both by other members and mods on another forum when he's seen as unnecessarily condescending and patronizing. There appears to be no similar line here that you can be seen to cross. Do you honestly think it adds anything to your arguments? I'll give you a clue. It doesn't. And before you do something (irony alert) truly unpredictable and use the words 'bleating' or 'vacuous assertion', I'm talking about the content of your arguments. Your style is rather amusing, if slightly provocative and annoying.

What's happened here is that your argument has come a rational cropper, in relation to leading with the assertion that there is some kind of good case why 3-11 needs to be chopped en-block because of a supposed logical conflict with the context. It's not a cropper in that you're definitely wrong, it's a cropper because it's a weak case. As has been already demonstrated by several posters.

And, not unimportantly, drawing back to look at the wood instead of the trees, it has been asserted, quite reasonably, that there is only very limited use of scholarly methodological criteria being used into the bargain. Furthermore, taking an even wider perspective, it could be added that the scholarly criteria are arguably not as robust as historiographical methodology generally. If rational skepticism is to have any merit, it needs to be based on as good a methodological set of criteria, objectively applied, as possible. Otherwize, it's just a free for all of competing, subjective interpretations.

And if you wish to cite some initial remarks of mine in a previous thread, about perceiving mythicist tendencies to cite interpolations without good cause, you may do so. That is precisely why I started this thread, as a sort of test case, and bear in mind that I have since moderated my view by apologizing early in this thread, because it seemed there was more to discuss that I had first thought.

After the last few pages of discussion, I'm not so sure that I should have apologized quite so quickly.

Though probably I should have said, 'some mythicists'. And I'm trying to say 'mythicist', or 'MJer' now, because it seems 'myther' is not seen in a good light.

[/personal views]





Now. Is there anyone else, other than spin, who wants to argue that there is a strong case for en-block removal of 3-11 on grounds of conflict with context? Or can the thread move on to further considerations?

thief of fire

blank post

Toto

I think there is a strong case for regarding 3-11 as an interpolation but I see no reason to continue to argue about it.

aa5874

Why must other people not continue to make their arguments? If you personally do not want to argue then allow others to make their input.

After all, this is precisely why we have discussion boards.

There is simply ZERO evidence that 1 Cor. 15.3-11 is an interpolation.

1. It is claimed in virtually all the Pauline writings that Jesus Christ was RAISED from the dead.

2. No Extant epistle or writing attributed to "Paul" DENIES the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

3. No Extant writings attributed to any Heretic or Skeptic claimed "Paul" DENIED the resurrection of Jesus.

4. Church writers used the Pauline writings to argue that Jesus was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day.

5. The resurrection of Jesus is a FUNDAMENTAL event for the Christian Faith.

6. The Pauline writings are part of the NT Canon and is compatible with the Doctrine of the Church that Jesus Christ was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day.

Toto

I didn't say that others could not continue to argue. But you make my point as to its futility.

False

Irrelevant

That's not the point. Of course "Paul" says that Jesus was resurrected - otherwise Paul would not be a Christian. But Paul knows this for reasons other than this laundry list of other people who saw the resurrected Jesus.

All the more reason for some later church writer to insert this passage.

TedM

False. Verse 11 contradicts you. You keep acting as though an argument for your parsed version is an argument against interpolation. That's a false assumption. And, you keep ignoring my arguments in favor of the passage not being interpolated. What do you do? --you just keep going back to your arguments for your parsed version. NO WONDER I can't get anywhere with you. You don't acknowledge the validity of my arguments one iota.

'unfathomable'? outlandish? hilarious. Try 70,000--ever heard of Fatima?

assumptions, assumptions..

It is evident in verse 11.

I'm not ignoring anything. I've acknowledge that you could be right. And I've pointed out the awkwardness of it in contrast to the smoothness of including 3-11. Of course, you refuse to consider any such argument because you are fixated on only supporting your parsed version.


Ridiculous. It is obvious he is referring to someone in the list--apostles probably, and of course you are are ignoring the fact that Cephas was both a proclaimer and a named witness. At least you finally are addressing something about 3-11 though..congrats!


How convenient. It matches nicely so it MUST be an interpolation.

I did:

1. better reminder
2. better I to we transition
3. very Pauline language in the passage
4. better tie from verse 17 'you are still in your sins' to verse 3 'Christ died for your sins'
5. clear evidence that there was no need to reference witnesses as proof of Christ's resurrection in the argument given.
6. corroborates his prior reference in Ch 9 to other apostles having seen Jesus.
7. consistent characteristic of Paul to not reveal his source for the information (an catholic interpolator would have been tempted to put in 'I received from Cephas').