Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 09-29-2011, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

So Ted, you have put a lot of study into this, if you wouldn’t mind, could you give me the earliest external confirmation of the canonical text (as we read it now) of the witness list? I can’t find anything earlier than Origen’s Contra Celsum - Book 2 CHAP. LXV written about 248 CE. That is almost 200 years too late to do us any good.

From what I saw in the catana at http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ena/index.html it looks like Origen is the earliest that names them. The Ireneaus reference isn't included in the catana so perhaps there are other side-references that are missing (?).

I got lost when you mentioned Sophia as the witness Ireneaus was possibly referring to. Would not that have been an odd thing for Ireneaus to not have commented on?

Hey Ted,

Great resource! But the links seem to be screwed up.
BTW the reference to Sophia is there.

Quote:

And that the Saviour appeared to her when she lay outside of the Pleroma as a kind of abortion, they affirm Paul to have declared in his Epistle to the Corinthians [in these words], "And last of all, He appeared to me also, as to one born out of due time..

Jake

jakejonesiv · 09-29-2011, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...Interesting story. I would not have thought of the five hundred as being Roman soldiers..Seems a creative solution to that...Prob is that if the 500 came from this story, how does that explain the Origen reference? How early was this story? Ted

Justin Martyr (Apol 1.35) had some version of “the “Acts of Pilate” in the mid second century, although we don’t know exactly what it contained.

Still, I find the request to "explain" a text from the mid third century a bit odd. Might as well point to P46 and say explain that.

Jake

And what would give the alleged interpolator the idea that he/she could transform the 500 Roman soldiers, in The Acts of Pilate, into brothers and sisters in 'Paul's writing?

Perhaps the story that is preserved in Slavonic Josephus might have supplied some ideas......

Quote:

But others said that it was not possible to steal him, because they had put guards all round his grave,—thirty Romans, but a thousand Jews.

So, large numbers at the burial site. Perhaps it's The Acts of Pilate that did the initial exaggeration re the number of Roman soldiers - and the alleged interpolator, into 'Paul's writing, decided to make a compromise re the 1000 Jews of the SJ story - and interpolates 500 brothers and sisters - Jews....

1) 30 Roman soldiers and 1000 Jews (Slavonic Josephus)
2) 500 Roman soldiers (The Acts of Pilate)
3) 500 brothers and sisters, Jews. (1 Cor.ch.15)

Hi Maryhelena,

Thanks for the suggestions!

I think you must be looking at an English translation for "brothers and sisters" in 15:6. My guess is the NIV.

The Greek is πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς, five hunderd brethren.

Best,
Jake

maryhelena · 09-29-2011, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...Interesting story. I would not have thought of the five hundred as being Roman soldiers..Seems a creative solution to that...Prob is that if the 500 came from this story, how does that explain the Origen reference? How early was this story? Ted

Justin Martyr (Apol 1.35) had some version of “the “Acts of Pilate” in the mid second century, although we don’t know exactly what it contained.

Still, I find the request to "explain" a text from the mid third century a bit odd. Might as well point to P46 and say explain that.

Jake

And what would give the alleged interpolator the idea that he/she could transform the 500 Roman soldiers, in The Acts of Pilate, into brothers and sisters in 'Paul's writing?

Perhaps the story that is preserved in Slavonic Josephus might have supplied some ideas......

Quote:

But others said that it was not possible to steal him, because they had put guards all round his grave,—thirty Romans, but a thousand Jews.

So, large numbers at the burial site. Perhaps it's The Acts of Pilate that did the initial exaggeration re the number of Roman soldiers - and the alleged interpolator, into 'Paul's writing, decided to make a compromise re the 1000 Jews of the SJ story - and interpolates 500 brothers and sisters - Jews....

1) 30 Roman soldiers and 1000 Jews (Slavonic Josephus)
2) 500 Roman soldiers (The Acts of Pilate)
3) 500 brothers and sisters, Jews. (1 Cor.ch.15)

Hi Maryhelena,

Thanks for the suggestions!

I think you must be looking at an English translation for "brothers and sisters" in 15:6. My guess is the NIV.

The Greek is πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς, five hunderd brethren.

Best,
Jake

OK, Jake - you got the right translation - so I've gone back and edited my post....

Bingo the Clown-O · 09-30-2011, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I think your point that "three days is when a person was deemed to truly be dead, so no scripture is required" is reasonable. So I take it that "according ot the scriptures" is likely an interpolation.

<edit>

You’ve overlooked the possibility that the author was referring to ‘Christian’ scripture such as Acts 10:40.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acts 10:40

God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen.

You’ve also overlooked the possibility that the author was just repeating what ‘Jesus’ said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus

We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him and spit on him; they will flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.

Neither case requires Hebrew scripture to actually say that the messiah will rise on the third day, yet both possibilities provide reasonable explanations for why 1 Corinthians 15:3 says "according to the scriptures."

jakejonesiv · 09-30-2011, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bingo the Clown-O

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I think your point that "three days is when a person was deemed to truly be dead, so no scripture is required" is reasonable. So I take it that "according ot the scriptures" is likely an interpolation.

You’ve overlooked the possibility that the author was referring to ‘Christian’ scripture such as Acts 10:40.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acts 10:40

God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen.

You’ve also overlooked the possibility that the author was just repeating what ‘Jesus’ said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesus

We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him and spit on him; they will flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.

Neither case requires Hebrew scripture to actually say that the messiah will rise on the third day, yet both possibilities provide reasonable explanations for why 1 Corinthians 15:3 says "according to the scriptures."

Bingo,

I don't know where you are coming from, but if it is your position that the book of Acts was considered to be Christian Scripture when "Paul" presumably wrote 1 Corinthins in the mid first century, <retort removed>

Likwise, repeating what Jesus allegedly said (base on oral tradition) is not scripture. <edit>

archibald · 09-30-2011, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Bingo,

I don't know where you are coming from, but if it is your position that the book of Acts was considered to be Christian Scripture when "Paul" presumably wrote 1 Corinthins in the mid first century, you are an idiot.

I think the suggestion might be that someone from the time of Acts interpolated, and clumsily used a word ('scriptures') in relation to the texts of their time (or presumably later, since Acts wasn't 'scripture' as soon as it was penned, I'm assuming). He's not the only one in here with this view, I believe, which is slightly less idiotic, I think, even if it isn't particularly persuasive. In fact, I'd be tempted to think it's still irrational. It's certainly completely unnecessary.

jakejonesiv · 09-30-2011, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Bingo,

I don't know where you are coming from, but if it is your position that the book of Acts was considered to be Christian Scripture when "Paul" presumably wrote 1 Corinthins in the mid first century, you are an idiot.

I think the suggestion might be that someone from the time of Acts interpolated, and clumsily used a word ('scriptures') in relation to the texts of their time (or presumably later, since Acts wasn't 'scripture' as soon as it was penned, I'm assuming). He's not the only one in here with this view, I believe, which is slightly less idiotic, I think, even if it isn't particularly persuasive. In fact, I'd be tempted to think it's still irrational. It's certainly completely unnecessary.

Hi archibald,

Thanks for trying to help. But Bingo ws objecting to my statement "I take it that according ot the scriptures is likely an interpolation."

<removed for consistency>

aa5874 · 09-30-2011, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Bingo,

I don't know where you are coming from, but if it is your position that the book of Acts was considered to be Christian Scripture when "Paul" presumably wrote 1 Corinthins in the mid first century, you are an idiot.

I think the suggestion might be that someone from the time of Acts interpolated, and clumsily used a word ('scriptures') in relation to the texts of their time (or presumably later, since Acts wasn't 'scripture' as soon as it was penned, I'm assuming). He's not the only one in here with this view, I believe, which is slightly less idiotic, I think, even if it isn't particularly persuasive. In fact, I'd be tempted to think it's still irrational. It's certainly completely unnecessary.

May I remind you that NOTHING you say is conclusive so it makes no sense to post hoping that people would draw conclusions from what you write.

You are in an ADMITTED irrational position.

You CLAIM certainty and ADMIT the OPPOSITE--Nothing is conclusive.

Toto · 09-30-2011, 09:54 AM

[staffwarn]Exchanges of personal insults violate the rules of engagement on this board[/staffwarn]

andrewcriddle · 10-01-2011, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...Interesting story. I would not have thought of the five hundred as being Roman soldiers..Seems a creative solution to that...Prob is that if the 500 came from this story, how does that explain the Origen reference? How early was this story? Ted

Justin Martyr (Apol 1.35) had some version of “the “Acts of Pilate” in the mid second century, although we don’t know exactly what it contained.

Still, I find the request to "explain" a text from the mid third century a bit odd. Might as well point to P46 and say explain that.

Jake

Some version of the Acts of Pilate may possibly be early. The problem is that the reference to five hundred soldiers comes in version B of the Acts and is not found in Version A. See Acts of Pilate for a comparison of chapter 12 in both versions. ( www.earlychristianwritings.com seems to be down.)

It is most unlikely that material found only in Version B is early.

Andrew Criddle

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

09-30-2011, 09:54 AM	#479
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	[staffwarn]Exchanges of personal insults violate the rules of engagement on this board[/staffwarn]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.