archibald

I do not know the answer to those questions. Therefore, I don't mind accepting, without someone providing some confirmation, that someone from the time of Acts could have referred to Acts as 'scriptures'. The fact that it may have been written for a certain purpose does not necessarily imply that it was descbied as 'scriptures', but I will keep an open mind.

Do you, by the way, have any citations which might help, in this regard? Some citations of it being referred to as 'scriptures' in the 2nd C?

The point is, even if that is true, there is simply no indication that the epistle means 'the scripture of Acts', and the necessity for the interpolator to mistakenly put the wrong words in his mouth is less parsimonius than that Paul (or an interpolator) meant older scriptures.

There may be other clues towards interpolation. There may even be clues that might lead us to think that the passage containing this word may be an interpolation. But this word itself is not one of the clues.

I can't remember what other thread it came up in, but it may not be worth your while hunting for it, since it only came up briefly, and appeared to not be directly on-topic, in that thread.

Bingo the Clown-O

Why does it have to be from the time of Acts?

It only needs to be from the time of when 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 was written.

Right?

We need to get inside of the mind of the author of 1 Corinthians 15:3-9. We need to know if he thought that Acts was scripture.

We’ll never know for sure, but it certainly looks like it to me.

Bingo the Clown-O

Sure there is. The indicators are implicit; not explicit.

In post 483 I listed some indicators.
All of the “appearances” can be found in 'Christian' scripture.

That’s all we need for the author of 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 to write what he wrote. Afaik it explains everything.

archibald

It doesn't have to be from the time of Acts, but I think that's when spin located the interpolator. Mind you, having said that, someone else with an interpolation hypothesis thought it had to be much earlier than that. I was just confused, and decide that the whole thing is rather too speculative.

I think my only point is that to have any interpolator referring to the scriptures of his own time rather than what would have been plausible at the time of the text he is trying to interpolate is, of itself, a very weak indicator.

On several occasions before this, I had heard arguments that when 'Paul' said 'Christ died according to scripture', he meant 'happened as described by OT scripture', so the scriptures being from later is a comparatively new one on me.

archibald

Well, I don't know how you know which, if any, didn't start out in Paul.

In any case, the 'from scriptures' bit can be seen as relating to 'died for our sins' which is in the OT scriptures, if one reads them a certain way.

I agree that if you read 'and that' as meaning that the appearances were also 'in scriptures', then you could be right.

But then how to explain the text including Paul on the list?

Bingo the Clown-O

Right. The shit about Paul being called “the least” in verse 15:9 is a clue. It has a dependency on Matthew 5:19, and Matthew 5:19 has a dependency on it.

It looks to me like it was the same author behind both sections.

archibald

I think the idea that there may have been some interpolating going on is quite accepted by many in the thread. I just think the word 'scriptures' of itself is not much of a pointer.

Bingo the Clown-O

I think 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 wants the reader to imagine that ‘Paul’ was writing a letter to a church in Corinth, and that he was asking them to remember an earlier time when he read the scriptures to them.

It’s all fiction. There was no Paul. There was no church in Corinth. But there was Christian scripture, and that is what the author was talking about.

Like I said in my earlier post - it looks like midrash on Acts 10:39-41.

It’s all about scripture.

aa5874

The claim that "Jesus DIED for our SINS" is NOT found in Hebrew Scripture at all.

In Hebrew Scriptures BULLS AND GOATS DIED for SINS.

Examine Leviticus 16.

The BLASPHEMY in 1 Cor 15.3 is NOT in Hebrew Scripture.

You WILL NEVER EVER FIND THAT "JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS" in HEBREW Scripture.

NEVER.

It is BULLS and GOATS forever .

Only in CHRISTIAN Scripture Jesus Christ DIED for the Sins of JEWS.

John 3:16 - 1Cor 15:3 - "Jesus died for our SINS" is and will NEVER, NEVER, EVER be from Hebrew Scripture.

The statute is EVERLASTING. ONLY BULLS and GOATS for HEBREWS.

The Pauline writers have been EXPOSED.

They were AWARE of CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES.

The Pauline writings are LATE.

The FRAUD of the Church has been EXPOSED once and for all.

ALL the writings in the NT CANON ARE AFTER the FALL of the TEMPLE.

Bingo the Clown-O

Like I said in post 483; the appearance to ‘Paul’ can be found in Acts 9:1-19, Acts 22:6-13, or perhaps Acts 26:12-18.