Atticus_Finch

Actually, you did make that assertion in your first post. Are you trying to say that you do not believe your own assertion? Or are you trying to state that your assertion is based upon the scholarship of Dr. Price? Since when does having "2 PhD's" mean that you can't be wrong?

My question stands. Is there anything from the language of the passage which suggests that it is an interpolation?

Also, how does it contradict Acts 1:15? Acts says 120 believers gathered AFTER the ascension in the upper room. Corinthians says that 500 saw the ascension. You need to explain yourself better to argue that the two contradict.


Regards,

Finch

Toto

Is this an assertion or a question:

Since I am not a certified Biblical scholar, I prefer to rely on someone who can read the Bible in its original language.

The OP asked for explanations. I provided a link to some explanations. I am not saying that having 2 PhD's means that one can't be wrong, but it does elevate Price's observations above those of a casual observer, and Price does discuss other approaches to the question.

Why are you resisting reading Price's article? Price thinks that the entire section is an interpolation, an idea which is not universally accepted. But he does explain an accepted idea on this passage, that the section has form of a traditional rabbinic formula.

You can see the linguistic structure of the passage from this diagram

• [he appeared] to Cephas,
  then [he appeared] to the Twelve,
  then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep,
  then he appeared to James,
  then [he appeared] to all the apostles

The structure balances Cephas / the twelve and James / the apostles - the identifiable leaders and two identifiable groups that historians believe were rivals in early Christianity. In the middle of this - totally out of place like an elephant in the living room - is a sentence that breaks the flow of the formula - a mass appearance to 500 anonymous brethren and a report as to what happened to them, sticking out like a sore thumb.

It's not proof, but it is a strong indication. If you reject the idea that there could be interpolations in Paul without a smoking gun, you will probably not accept that this is an interpolation.

You need to read your scripture a bit more carefully. Acts says that there were 120 believers (or brothers) at that time - after the ascension. Paul never mentions the ascention - he says that Jesus "appeared" to 500 brothers at some unspecified point.

I'm sure that any apologist can think of a way to reconcile these - maybe there were a lot more than 120 believers in Acts, but the author forgot to mention them. Maybe the appearance to the 500 was at some later time, like the appearance to Paul. But this apologist might want to explain why Mary or the other women who saw the risen Jesus are not mentioned in this list, or why the order differs from that listed in Luke. . .

Vorkosigan

Finch --

the language of that passage is un-Pauline, or so I've read. Further, it contains a clear anachronism. The Twelve had become Eleven because of Judas' death at the time referred to in the passage.

So who were the Twelve He appeared to?

Vorkosigan

Boro Nut

The eleven apostles and Jesus himself, silly.

Boro Nut

Llyricist

He brought a mirror???


I knew it... it was all done with smoke and mirrors

Dargo

Even if the magic 500 existed why would Jesus appear to so few? Why not appear in the temple before the whole city of Jerusalem? Why not appear before the Roman Empereror? This is supposedly the greatest event in human history. You'd think a god would want to provide reasonably convincing proof it actually happened.

Roland

If Jesus made his presence TOO obvious, there would be no room left for faith. Dumb logic, I know, but there you have it.

It makes me wonder why, if Jesus was curing people by the hundreds and raising others from the dead, the Emperor wouldn't have just hired him or kept him around in case he or someone in his family got sick or died.

Atticus_Finch

I don't read Acts 1 to say there were only 120 believers. "1:15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty people)". I guess you could read it to mean that there were only 120 believers. A more natural reading to me is that there were 120 believers at the gathering described.

Regards,

Finch

Steven Carr

Acts 1:15 says 'in those days'. Clearly an unspecified time and not related to the upper room meeting.

The language of Acts suggests that they were the only believers that there were. They are referred to as 'the' disciples, rather than 'some of the' disciples.

Acts implies Christianity then grew from this small number in Jerusalem.

Why else give a count of the number? It serves no purpose in explaining what Peter said. It is quite irrelevant to the proceedings.

The only purpose it serves is to contrast with the far greater number converted in Acts 2, so that Luke can say that the growth was explosive.