TedM

As I reflect, if the Marcionite version did not have the list of appearances, then he well could have been looking at it, since the writing was against heresies, including those by Marcion. I apologize to you spin, as it didn't click with me exactly what you were saying on this issue until I re-read it later.

A few thoughts:

1. The argument against whole cloth interpolation stands untarnished by a Marcionite version that excludes passages. Why? Because we know that Irenaeus still had a version that mentioned the witnesses, yet he didn't include the 'what I received' phrase.

2. It is not clear to me that Marcion did exclude the verses when I reviewed Tertullian AM 3.8, but since Maricon did not believe Jesus was resurrected in the flesh, and because he rejected apostolic authority of Peter, James, and John it would be most expected that he would have removed such passages had they existed.


3. Ireneaus, who writes against numerous heretics in Against Heresies, writes in Book 1, Ch 27.4:

Are we to believe that Ireneaus could not have known what the gospels or Paul's epistles looked like before Marcion? Paul's epistles would have existed for 100 years or so--how could Ireneaus have said that no one else mutilated scriptures if he didn't know what they used to contain? Are we to believe that orthodox made a bunch of changes to Paul's epistles in a 30 years time frame and no one noticed?

archibald

You cannot be seriously suggesting that you prefer an explanation involving two different sources being used in the same book over a perfectly rational explanation that there were, in that book, different reasons for quoting different parts of 1 cor, as part of a pattern of short quotes from all over the place, where they are relevant? The text doesn't 'coincidentally jump' at all.

Please, tell me you do not prefer the former. Or that if you do, that you have a better reason.

jakejonesiv

Hi Ted,

Thanks for the reply.

I have no problem with multiple variations and interpolations of 1 Cor. 15:1-11. Indeed, by the time we reach the end of the study, two will seem conservative since 1 Cor. 15:6 will turn out to be an interpolation within an interpolation.

I am not quite sure what we should be proposing as Irenaeus' text. I am glad you capitalized the word “IF” in your question. That shows a commendable degree of awareness. Who does Irenaeus actually identify by name as alleged recipients of the appearance of Christ? Not Peter. Not James, not even the 500 as far as I can see.

No, instead we see alleged appearances to the fallen Sophia - Sophia's abortion (Achamoth) and Paul. Wouldn’t that be a hoot if this were the earliest version of the “witness list”?

Sure seems off the wall, but it is possible that the author of 1 Cor. 15:8 had in mind the Valentenian appearance of Christ to Sophia. It is precisely in this discussion that Irenaeus references Paul the abortion. H.Detering has suggested the catholic editor was trying to be clever.

1 Cor. 15:8 ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι ὤφθη καμοί.

The clarity of the definite article τῷ would be unnecessary if the author had used the term ἐκτρώματι, without a very particular miscarraige/abortion in mind.

The texts are all over the place in the second century. Snippets of 1 Cor. 15:3-11 appear here and there in the Church Fathers, but darn few of the specific appearance statements are seen.

N/A

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.

Also, and I would like to get your thoughts on this; some scholars have suggested that the list of alleged appearances would be better termed “Authority Lists” rather than “Witness Lists” because the practical application was to confer authority to the groups who looked to the figures of Peter, James and Paul respectively as their proxy heads.

1. Peter was supposed to be the first Bishop of Rome and was eventually elevated to Pope.
2. James (usually conflated with “James the Just”) was the proxy head of Jewish (or Judaized) Christianity, the Ebionites etc.
3. Paul was considered the Apostle by many sects, including many that are now deemed heretical.

I think it is a worthwhile observation, and very clearly illustrates that the appearance to the 500 brethren is odd, because no authority is inferred to anyone by it.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

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

Bingo the Clown-O

But not directly. Not in verses 3-11, which are the verses that the OP is asking us to consider.

In verses 3-11 his leading argument is that he was a witness of the resurrected Jesus because the scriptures say so. His ‘proof’ was that the ‘scriptures say so’.

... the gospel that I preached to you …
… hold firmly to the message I preached to you …
… Christ died for our sins …
… he was buried and was raised on the third day …
… he appeared to Cephas …
… he appeared to the twelve …
… he appeared to more than 500…
… he appeared to James …
… he appeared to all the apostles …
… then he appeared to me…

He goes on to say that Christ appeared to him last because he was the least of the apostles. And once again his claim is supported by scripture.

Matthew 5:19
“Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven”

See my point?

‘Paul’ is talking about himself in the third person - as though he is a character in a book. It’s kind of funny, and it supports the argument that 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is an interpolation.

archibald

Jake,

Where did Luke (or indeed Irenaeus) get the idea that Jesus may have appeared to the disciples?

I know. You want the same list. Ok. Maybe Luke didn't do a list.

Bingo the Clown-O

Hey,

Thanks for pointing that out. I was aware of the appearance to James in the Gospel of the Hebrews, but I didn’t know about the appearance to “the 500” in the Acts of Pilate.

So now every “appearance” can be accounted for in scripture. That’s great. I learn something new every day.

Bingo the Clown-O

Call me a nut, but seeing as how 1 Corinthians 15:9 depends on Matthew 5:19 and visa versa, I suspect that the author of the Sermon on the Mount is the interpolator of 1 Corinthians 15:3-11.

TedM

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?

maryhelena

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

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

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 brethren - Jews....

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