Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 08-30-2011, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

The fact [Mr DCH you obviously wrong headed person you] that the text may read just fine without the passages in question is no evidence that the passages in question are unoriginal to the text.

If you want to use the let's-remove-the-passage-and-see-how-the-rest-reads approach, you must show that the passages in question, when present, create for a cumbersome, less effective, argument. And this they certainly do not do; on the contrary, without them the argument has no substance whatsoever.

It's really hard to make a case that Paul didn't believe in a resurrected Jesus without disregarding all of the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians.

Jon

Mmmm, I'm not totally following you there, but I will agree that it is incredibly hard to conceive of a Paul who isn't into Jesus Christ. I suppose that is because in Western culture, the world revolves around the theology of Jesus Christ, and it just seems ludicrus to think otherwise, even if one doesn't like Jesus theology (I'm neutral, FWIW).

All one has to do is compare the unbolded text (I've modified it slightly to better reflect the Greek when the Christ theology is set aside) to the bolded.

Are we to really think that Paul answers resurrection disbelievers by two answers: Resurrection is how God delivers on his promise of a blessed future age in the promise land AND that Jesus' resurrection proves the fact of resurrection?

If these folks he is addressing were already Christians who believed that Jesus died and was resurrected as part of a cosmic redemption drama, how would asserting Jesus was resurrected as firstfruits of the resurrected dead add to the former argument, that God will fulfill his promises to those with Abraham's faith, even gentiles?

Dang, now it is really past by bedti...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

DCH

Steven Carr · 08-30-2011, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Now, how about providing some evidence that early Christians thought of the resurrection as merely spiritual/metaphorical?

They didn't think of the resurrection as 'metaphorical'.

But even on your reading early Christian converts in Corinth were scoffing at the very idea that their god would choose to raise corpses.

Paul rushes to assure them that heavenly things were as different from earthly things as a fish is different to the moon, that Jesus became a spirit, and that flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of god.

You are aware, being an educated person, that people had no idea what heavenly things were made out of, and just assumed that they could not be made out of earth, air, fire and water - elements found on earth.

Paul did not rush (he waited and then wrote a second letter), but he did tell them in 2 Corinthians that if their earthly body was destroyed, they would get a new body made by god - presumably out of the same celestial stuff that heavenly things were made out of.

judge · 08-30-2011, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

For the long suffering reader, if you missed it, there are three problems with 1 Cor 15:3-11:

The resurrection witnesses have nothing to do with Paul's discourse of the logical necessity of belief in the resurrection. In fact, the witnesses suggest that faith in the resurrection is not necessary.
The verb παραλαμβανω suggests a hierarchical relationship between Paul and the people who supposedly supplied the witness testimonies that is inappropriate.
The self-deprecating statement about Paul's aborted birth is inappropriate for one who is singled out at birth for great things.

1. Paul does not say faith in the resurrection is necessary but that the resurrection is necessary. You are reading later christian ideas into paul here.
Its a subtle difference but one you'll have to drop.

2.This about as weak an argument as we can get. You have a 'suggestion" which you consider is inappropriate.

3.You still will not or cannot even say what the metaphor "aborted" even means. Until you do you can't use it.

PhilosopherJay · 08-30-2011, 10:52 PM

Hi DCHindley,

This is a brilliant analysis. It is easy to see when we separate the two streams that we are getting two completely different ideas or voices. We either have to believe that the writer was schizophrenic or a later writer did the interpolation you found.

My major disagreement is with 14B, it has to go with the second voice because its "in vain" matches 10A's in vain" Also 9 and 10B belong with the whiny interpolator

Here is voice one quite logical:
RSV 1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved [in the day the promises are at last delivered to Abraham's children by God], if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain. 3a For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

12b [H]ow can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13a But if there is no resurrection of the dead,
14b then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15a We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we (so) testified of God
15c if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16a For if the dead are not raised,
17b your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
18a Then those also who have fallen asleep
18c have perished.
19a If for this life only we have hoped
19c we are of all men most to be pitied.

Here is Voice Two almost screaming:

3b that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God
10b On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me

10a But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.

12a Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead,

13b then Christ has not been raised; 14a if Christ has not been raised,

14b then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

15b that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise

16b then Christ has not been raised,

17a If Christ has not been raised.

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Voice Two additions,

18b in Christ

19b in Christ,

Basically, when you take out all the sentences talking about Christ, you get a much more coherent and clearly Jewish dialogue. This simply would not happen if the material was organic to the first voice. It would become incoherent gibberish. Try reading an article about President Obama's policies and take out every sentence with Obama in it. The article becomes incoherent. The same thing should happen in this case. It doesn't. Thus proving that the Christ interpolation theory is most probably correct.

Here is another bonus concept. It seems to me that we can identify the interpolator as the same person who edited the letters of Ignatius.
Note from this orthodox website

Quote:

Throughout his epistles Ignatius frequently uses language that echoes characteristic phrases found in the Pauline writings. Apparently struck by Paul's depreciating reference to himself as "the offscouring of all things" (I Cor. 4:13), Ignatius twice employs it with reference to himself in his Epistle to the Ephesians (8.1;18.1). He uses Paul's expression , "lest I be found a castaway" (I Cor. 9:27) in Trail. 12.3, and in Rom. 5.1 he incorporates almost verbatim Paul's phrase from I Cor. 4:4 "but not by this am I justified". Again and again he makes use of phrases drawn from Paul's vivid description of himself when writing to the Corinthians: "Last of all, as to one untimely born, he [Christ] appeared to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God lam what I am"(I Cor.15:8-10). These words obviously made such an impression on Ignatius that he includes echoes from the passage in five of his letters:

I am unworthy, being the very least of them and an untimely birth; but I have obtained mercy to be someone (Rom. 9.1).
I who am the very least of the faithful (Eph. 21.2).
I am not worthy to be called a member [of the church in Syria], being the very least of them (Trail. 13.1).
I am not worthy to be called a member (Magn. 4.1).
I am not worthy to belong to it [the church], being the very least of them. But by God's will I have been judged worthy, not because of the witness of my own conscience, but by the grace of God (Smyrn. 11.1).

The real reason Ignatius seems to echo Paul is that the same writer edited both sets of letters. It has been clear to me for a long time that the set of letters now said to be from Ignatius were originally meant to be letters written by Paul. The same writer has been at work on both. It would be interesting to subject the letters of Ignatius to the same tests you applied to Paul's letters. I bet that most or all of the interpolated material in Paul will match the author/editor of Ignatius extraordinarily closely.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Anyone claiming 1 Cor 15:3–11 as an interpolation is missing the clear and obvious point of the chapter that makes the matter moot.

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is trying to convince his audience of the reality of bodily resurrection. He does this by invoking the resurrection of Jesus as an example of what his fellow Christians can look forward to.

As far as an MJ/HJ debate goes, it doesn't even matter whether the first several verses of chapter 15 are interpolations or not, because the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15 speaks to Paul's belief in a bodily, historical Jesus.

Jon,

What I find is that 15:3-10 does not form a block interpolation. The reason is that a simple argumentative strand runs through 15:1-20 that is only interrupted by statements that unnecessarily complicate the sense of this argumentative strand.

RSV 1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel [i.e., Paul's gospel, which is that gentiles faithful to the Jewish God can share in the inheritance God promised to Abraham's children], which you received, in which you stand,
2 by which you are saved [in the day the promises are at last delivered to Abraham's children by God], if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain.
3a For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,

3b that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God ["God" here has a definite article in the original Greek].

10a But by the grace of God [this "god" has no definite article, so the passage is something like "By divine grace ..."] I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.

10b On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God [this "God" has a definite article] which is with me.
11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

12a Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead,

12b [H]ow can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13a But if there is no resurrection of the dead,

13b then Christ has not been raised; 14a if Christ has not been raised,

14b then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15a We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we (so) testified of God [these "Gods" both have a definite article]

15b that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise

15c if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16a For if the dead are not raised,

16b then Christ has not been raised. 17a If Christ has not been raised,

17b your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
18a Then those also who have fallen asleep

18b in Christ

18c have perished.
19a If for this life only we have hoped

19b in Christ,

19c we are of all men most to be pitied.

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

In this kind of has-to-be-wrong highly-speculative way of looking at chapter 15, the lesson about resurrection (into the age of promise when that day comes in God's good time) is not about Jesus at all. It is about asking those who think that there will be no resurrection how God will be able to deliver on his promise if those who have passed away cannot participate in some way.

The interpolator (whose additions as I identify them are boldfaced and offset), though, is trying to sell his dead and resurrected Christ as the alternate, and in his mind correct, answer to the resurrection deniers Paul addresses. Essentially, he is adding his own commentary to what Paul said.

Ahhh, bedtime.

DCH

TedM · 08-30-2011, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

For the long suffering reader, if you missed it, there are three problems with 1 Cor 15:3-11:

The resurrection witnesses have nothing to do with Paul's discourse of the logical necessity of belief in the resurrection. In fact, the witnesses suggest that faith in the resurrection is not necessary.
The verb παραλαμβανω suggests a hierarchical relationship between Paul and the people who supposedly supplied the witness testimonies that is inappropriate.
The self-deprecating statement about Paul's aborted birth is inappropriate for one who is singled out at birth for great things.

1. The witnesses provide a missing description of what it was Paul preached with regard to Jesus' resurrection. While Paul says their faith would be in vain if Christ were not raised, he ALSO says that the testimony they had received from multiple witnesses would have been false, in verse 15:

Quote:

Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.

So when you say the multiple witnesses have nothing to do with the argument, you are not seeing how the actual discourse ties in nicely with the multiple witnesses.

2. There need not be an implied hierarchical relationship in the text. The word is appropriately applied to simple oral transmission of person to person, which would apply in the case of Paul having heard the basic story prior to deciding to persecute the folks who believed it.

3. You are placing way too much weight on the other citation you gave for that word. You are apparently ignoring the words that preceded it: and last of all .. he appeared to me. I've yet to see you even explain the self-deprecating word in context. What is it you think is actually meant in that verse?

Ted

spin · 08-30-2011, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

For the long suffering reader, if you missed it, there are three problems with 1 Cor 15:3-11:

The resurrection witnesses have nothing to do with Paul's discourse of the logical necessity of belief in the resurrection. In fact, the witnesses suggest that faith in the resurrection is not necessary.
The verb παραλαμβανω suggests a hierarchical relationship between Paul and the people who supposedly supplied the witness testimonies that is inappropriate.
The self-deprecating statement about Paul's aborted birth is inappropriate for one who is singled out at birth for great things.

1. Paul does not say faith in the resurrection is necessary but that the resurrection is necessary. You are reading later christian ideas into paul here.
Its a subtle difference but one you'll have to drop.

You are somehow trying to deal with a discourse issue by talking about something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

2.This about as weak an argument as we can get. You have a 'suggestion" which you consider is inappropriate.

When you state an assertion, you are supposed to disguise the fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

3.You still will not or cannot even say what the metaphor "aborted" even means. Until you do you can't use it.

I have already done so. It is a self-put down whinging about the fact that Paul's birth was all wrong and out of place and the result is ugly and it would have been better had he been born earlier. The image is deliberately ugly. This is a conflict with the notion of something god ordained. Get over it.

spin · 08-30-2011, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

For the long suffering reader, if you missed it, there are three problems with 1 Cor 15:3-11:

The resurrection witnesses have nothing to do with Paul's discourse of the logical necessity of belief in the resurrection. In fact, the witnesses suggest that faith in the resurrection is not necessary.
The verb παραλαμβανω suggests a hierarchical relationship between Paul and the people who supposedly supplied the witness testimonies that is inappropriate.
The self-deprecating statement about Paul's aborted birth is inappropriate for one who is singled out at birth for great things.

1. The witnesses provide a missing description of what it was Paul preached with regard to Jesus' resurrection. While Paul says their faith would be in vain if Christ were not raised, he ALSO says that the testimony they had received from multiple witnesses would have been false, in verse 15:

Quote:

Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.

So when you say the multiple witnesses have nothing to do with the argument, you are not seeing how the actual discourse ties in nicely with the multiple witnesses.

You are resolute in not understanding the text. The "we" is the same as in v.14, ie those who proclaimed the gospel. Stop trying to change the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

2. There need not be an implied hierarchical relationship in the text. The word is appropriately applied to simple oral transmission of person to person, which would apply in the case of Paul having heard the basic story prior to deciding to persecute the folks who believed it.

Wrong. The significance of the verb has been explained a number of times. (Note the passive.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

3. You are placing way too much weight on the other citation you gave for that word. You are apparently ignoring the words that preceded it: and last of all .. he appeared to me. I've yet to see you even explain the self-deprecating word it in context. What is it you think is actually meant in that verse?

The phrase itself is irrevocably self-deprecatory: his birth is an abortion. It wasn't necessary. It added nothing to the discourse. It is a pure attack on Paul. All that was needed is a "born at the wrong time" to cover up the issue.

You've done your best, TedM, but we need more than your apology. :wave:

judge · 08-30-2011, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

3.You still will not or cannot even say what the metaphor "aborted" even means. Until you do you can't use it.

I have already done so.

You've done nothing of the sort.

Quote:

It is a self-put down

Possibly

Quote:

whinging about the fact that Paul's birth was all wrong and out of place

Its nothing to do with pauls birth.

Quote:

and the result is ugly and it would have been better had he been born earlier.

Still thinking the metaphor is literal

Quote:

The image is deliberately ugly. This is a conflict with the notion of something god ordained. Get over it.

Youre trying to compare a literal birth with a metaphor which just happens to use an image related to birth.
Metaphors aren't literal. Thats the problem you have

TedM · 08-30-2011, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

So when you say the multiple witnesses have nothing to do with the argument, you are not seeing how the actual discourse ties in nicely with the multiple witnesses.

You are resolute in not understanding the text. The "we" is the same as in v.14, ie those who proclaimed the gospel. Stop trying to change the subject.

I'm not. The 'we' goes back further to verses 10-11 (part of the alleged interpolation):

Quote:

but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

'We' includes the multiple witnesses if you include the passage. I see where you can say it includes unspecified others in contradiction to Paul's 'I' in your parsed passage, but it fits better when you include 3-11. I see no way around that for you spin, so assume you'll fall back on it referring to unspecified others from earlier in the epistle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

2. There need not be an implied hierarchical relationship in the text. The word is appropriately applied to simple oral transmission of person to person, which would apply in the case of Paul having heard the basic story prior to deciding to persecute the folks who believed it.

Wrong. The significance of the verb has been explained a number of times. (Note the passive.)

The blueletter says it simply means 'to receive something transmitted'. That's passive, and it doesn't require a hieracrchy:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...gs=G3880&t=KJV

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

3. You are placing way too much weight on the other citation you gave for that word. You are apparently ignoring the words that preceded it: and last of all .. he appeared to me. I've yet to see you even explain the self-deprecating word it in context. What is it you think is actually meant in that verse?

The phrase itself is irrevocably self-deprecatory: his birth is an abortion. It wasn't necessary. It added nothing to the discourse. It is a pure attack on Paul. All that was needed is a "born at the wrong time" to cover up the issue.

Yet he was born. An abortion is not a birth spin. It makes no sense even if he were born because it would have been BEFORE his time--not 'last of all' as he said.. 'Untimely' the definition again in the blueletterbible seems the proper definition, and doesn't seem to denote something ugly--just that he was late to the party.

That being said the comments about his being unfit to be called an apostle are in such contrast to his question "am I not an apostle?" in Ch 9, that I could be persuaded to see a small interpolation there, yet as I pointed out before it is immediately followed by something very Pauline--that he labored MORE THAN ALL OF THEM. Why would an anti-Paul interpolator say that Paul labored more than Cephas, James, and all of the apostles? It makes no sense. Another reason to accept the passage as authentic.

From what I see the passage still fits the context and your objections are all simply and reasonably answered.

Thanks for your thoughts. We probably are at an impasse unless you have anything more to add.

I am in the process of reviewing Price now to see what he might add to the argument for interpolation.

Ted

maryhelena · 08-30-2011, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi DCHindley,

This is a brilliant analysis. It is easy to see when we separate the two streams that we are getting two completely different ideas or voices. We either have to believe that the writer was schizophrenic or a later writer did the interpolation you found.

My only disagreement is with 14B, it has to go with the second voice because its "in vain" matches 10A's in vain"

Here is voice one:
RSV 1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel which you received, in which you stand, 2 by which you are saved [in the day the promises are at last delivered to Abraham's children by God], if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain. 3a For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God
10b On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.
11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

12b [H]ow can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13a But if there is no resurrection of the dead,
14b then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15a We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we (so) testified of God
15c if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16a For if the dead are not raised,
17b your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
18a Then those also who have fallen asleep
18c have perished.
19a If for this life only we have hoped
19c we are of all men most to be pitied.

Voice Two:
3b that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
10a But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.
12a Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead,
13b then Christ has not been raised; 14a if Christ has not been raised,
14b then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15b that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise
16b then Christ has not been raised. 17a If Christ has not been raised,
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
Voice Two additions,
18b in Christ
19b in Christ,
Basically, when you take out all the sentences talking about Christ, you get a much more coherent and clearly Jewish dialogue. This simply would not happen if the material was organic to the first voice.

Hi, Philosopher Jay

That's great, setting the two 'voices' apart like that - but I don't think the choice is between a schizophrenic or interpolation (with all the ulterior christian motives that that term often implies). I don't think that interpolations lead automatically to two 'voices' - unless perhaps the one doing the interpolation is doing a seriously bad job. In the case of the Pauline interpolations it seems no attempt has been made to harmonize the storyline. Rather the interpolations, the contradictions, are left to stand out. So, the third alternative could simply be that it's two 'Paul' traditions that are being fused together here. Two traditions involving two major figures in the developing of the JC storyline. A pre-gospel 'Paul' and a post-gospel 'Paul'.

The 'Paul' story is the roadblock that the ahistoricists/mythicist have to push aside. It's a story, because of its contradictions, that allows for 'Paul' to be the last of the apostles, ie the gospel JC story preceded him. (I've used it myself numerous times...

..). But with a composite 'Paul' picture, an early and a late 'Paul', these contradiction in the 'Paul' story fade away. In other words' 'Paul' is first and 'Paul' is last and the gospel JC story is in the middle of the NT storyline...

No historical 'Paul' - in the sense of the NT contradictory storyline - and the assumed historical JC falls down from his pedestal......'Paul', from a critical scholarship point of view, is the last roadblock to be removed.....:devil3:

footnote:
Ah - so there we have it - an early 'Paul' storyline about Aretas and Damascus and the grand escape - a storyline that fits around 63/62 b.c. and Aretas III. Not of course, that the early 'Paul' writer was actually in Damascus at that time - but that the early 'Paul' storyline is referencing a much earlier historical period of storyline development than the later 'Paul' story set within a time frame after the 15th year of Tiberius...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.