aa5874

Hippolytus has contradicted Tertullian. Marcion did not use the Pauline writings instead he plagerised the doctrine of Empedocles.

It makes very little sense for Marcion to have re-written and altered the Pauline writings, supposedly in circulation for at least 100 years before, that do not contain the doctrine of Dualism when Marcion could have just simply plagerised the doctrine of Dualism from Empedocles.

This is an APOLOGETIC writer under the name of Hippolytus in "Refutation against all Heresies"7.18


See "Refutation Against All Heresies" 7 by Hippolytus for the doctrine of Marcion and Empedocles.

Johnny Skeptic

Isn't the dating of First Corinthians and Second Corinthians an important issue? When were they written? If they were written in say 90 A.D., it would have been pretty difficult for people to check things out about sixty years after the supposed facts.

spamandham

You are welcome to your certainty. I will remain skeptical about all ancient history, and even more so about Biblical history.

However, even for those willing to claim certainty where I do not consider it reasonable to do so, surely you must distinguish between the quality of evidence of the years of reign of Augustus vs. the quality of evidence that Paul of Tarsus penned 1 Cor 15 sometime in the mid 1st century. Surely this is *why* you mentioned Augustus?

spin

Freud's thinking was simple and straightforward as well. It doesn't make it correct. I'm not arguing with Baur here, but with your choice to go back a century and a half to an early thinker who was a pioneer, but who is now more a historical interest rather than an important figure.

I think you can establish the precedent with the psalms. You can merely assume that 1 Clem quotes the texets you want it to.

When you assume your conclusions as you have, I guess you must think you're right.


spin

spin

When you said "in this case it is" that was, as I pointed out, an unsupported assertion. You may well want to support it now.

It was when you said "which I find completely untrue". You left it dangling, nude and crude.

This is what you said, "He cites Ehrman's mistaken idea that Christian literature was in a "state of flux" prior to the late 2nd century.. that may be true for the canon but not the content of the letters."

As you see, yet another unsupported assertion. Post hoc ass-covering doesn't change the fact, Jeesus.

If you stopped to think a few seconds you'd stop the unsupported conjectures.

What you are doing is forgetting that you are talking to other people, people who are trying to understand what you forget to say, as that is so obvious to you.

Here's the text:
It doesn't say what you claim.

Then quote properly.

You don't know when it was written and you don't know by whom.

2 Thess actually suggests that they were tampered with. Hence the attack on tampering. This suggests that 2 Thess is relatively late.

Umm, how many of those in the congregation were readers or who iknew all of the acceptable texts??

You said, purely unsupported, "First, no one had that kind of power." Now if you want to say what you should have said when I called you out, feel free.

When were your sources for this displacement copied?

"Are too."
"Am not."
"Rubbish."
...


If there was an active effort to bring Paul into the fold, one deals with Paul's texts. Your attempted logic of a manipulation of Paul must mean a manipulation of Acts, but as there wasn't for Acts, so there wasn't for Paul is a web of conjecture on your part.

Perhaps you also have a misconception over the nature of deviant mss. Does "different" mean "deviant"? What is actually deviant about the material in Western Acts that is upsetting you?


spin

spin

You need to make this case--with your examples clearly referenced and logic explained--rather than assume it. Ok, so Paul uses ωφθη in 1 Cor 15:5, 6, & 7. Acts 26:16 uses the same verb, meaning "appear", as does LXX Ps 42:2, Cant 2:12, Isa 1:12, Jer 13:26, etc. What's the stylistic issue?

Perhaps the writer knew more than you do. Or at least had different assumptions.

This isn't just a bunch of assertions, right?

Some writers are more skilled at their job than others. Besides, a longish text gives an analyst more exemplars to analyze than five or six verses. It's not serious to base a stylistic analysis on such a small sample.

I know that it's going to be hard to put aside the bald assertions and provide the meat to the message, but that's what you need to do.


spin

Solo

Yes, I would agree that if it is an interpolation it would have been an early one. There appears to be no "textual" case for one, as all early extant manuscripts include this passage. But, I believe Price has a strong case for interpolation based on dissimilarity of this passage to the Pauline corpus.

In addition to what Price says in his essay, there is the issue of Paul's 'penitential posturing' in 15:8-9, which is not just un-Pauline but grotesquely anti-Paul. Not only Paul did not consider himself "least of the apostles" and "unfit to be called one", his attitude is exactly and consistently opposite to what the verses indicate. Paul's calling to the mission is directly from God and owes nothing to men. He considers himself not a least inferior to the superlative apostles. He has confidence in the Lord that his flock will take no other view than his. And those who trouble his flock (with other views than Paul's) are subject to Lord's judgment. On the 'persecution' there is also a huge discrepancy between what this passage says and how Paul (or a genuine Paul's tradition) present his attitude. This passage says that Paul was unfit to be called an apostle because he 'persecuted the church of God'. But in Phl 3:4-6 Paul considers his persecutory 'zeal' as a sign of Judaic uprightness (dikaiosyne) , and a duty as a Pharisee. Galatians 1:13-16 also attribute the persecution to his advanced learning and zealous guard of the Judaic traditions - i.e. as a mark of superiority !!! Also, when Paul converted, he was called through 'God's grace' and God was 'pleased to reveal his son in Paul'. Though the phrasing of Gal 1:15 has been under scholarly scrutiny, the intended idea is clear. God chose Paul as his tool because Paul was an exceptional man, not as a reprimand, or in an act of 'even-Steven' on the road to Damascus. This legend or the kind of self-flagellation of 1 Ti 1:13, grew out of the kind of critique of Paul that 1 Cor 15:3-11 naively presents as Paul's own agreement to a low standing on the apostolic nomenclatura, which probably dates from several decades after Paul's death.

(Going by the 'James' marker as below Cephas and the twelve, but still meriting a distinct mention, I would venture the insert was created before the writing of the Acts whose author evidently has all sorts of problems in handling this figure).

Jiri

spin

Just to clarify, the text of 1 Cor 15:5, 6, & 7 use ωφθη. What makes it a specifically Pauline stylistic matter? Where is this verb used in the Pauline corpus? And what is the issue with οραω?


spin

hjalti

But that means that we don't know how many there were, or if we should expect them to have influenced our 14-letters collection.
I don't think that it's clear from the text that they were supposed to have individual letters and not some collection.
Wait, you were giving an example as to how changes don't go unnoticed in the mss. record, and then you admit that we don't have any of the other differences from the Marcionite and the "orthodox" version in the mss tradition? :huh:renassault, now you're just speculating.

Johnny Skeptic

In an article at http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...-to-craig.html, Robert Price comments on William Lane Craig's criticism of his (Robert Price's) article on First Corinthians.