skunker

Guys, according to Timothy McGrew, a New Testament scholar, "Virtually every New Testament scholar in the world thinks this position (that the 500 witnesses were forged) is laughable on its historical merits - and that includes hard-core skeptics like Gerd Lüdemann."

Robert Price is the only guy with an academic position in Biblical studies that makes that kind of statement you linked to. I believe he posts here, correct?

Again, McGrew and other scholars suggest that there is no manuscript evidence of interpolation. Even Price admits he has no manuscript evidence and the consensus in the field is that one cannot make a plausible case for interpolation in the absence of such evidence.

If I am wrong, then let me know. thanks.

dog-on

That's why it is simpler to just call Paul a liar...

Toto

Please give a more specific citation. I can't find any New Testament scholar named Timothy McGrew. I think that anyone who calls Gerd Lüdemann a hard-core skeptic is probably a committed Christian apologist.

Incorrect. R.G. Price posts here as Malachai. Robert Price does not spend his time on message boards.

You are wrong. There is no manuscript evidence for any of Paul's letters that can be dated before the end of the second century, but plausible cases can be made for many interpolations.

mens_sana

Indeed, it would be naive — unless divine intervention were part of the believer's orientation.

This is very true. Even the ancients asked for some kind of evidence for extraordinary situations. It is just that what was extraordinary for them is even more extraordinary for us.

Paul would have been convinced by his own revelation. That makes other accounts he has heard seem more reliable.

mens_sana

There is no documentary evidence that 1 Corinthians 14.34-35 is an interpolation, but many scholars think it comes from the hand of the author of I Titus 2.11-15, a later follower of Paul.

andrewcriddle

I suspect that you mean 1 Timothy 2.11-15.

Andrew Criddle

stonewall1012

I find it interesting that you all completely ignored my critique of Mr. Rice. I say again Q does not exist not evidencially. I'm not saying the theory does not have merrit but to call Q and Mark a "patchworks of well-worn fragments.” is to give the clear impression that Q is a document that we physically have in our possession. No one knows what q actually IS. Is it oral tradition? Is it an neo document? Is it a full document? What exactally is Q?

Finally, I asked a simple question. What would this interpolation look like... when did it occur? Marcions cannon in 154 clearly contends Paul's 1 Corinthians is authoritative. For others to have accepted it it had to have been in circulation for a while. at least 20 or more pluse years. IF Polybius cites it that pushes it's "forgery" back even further. If its forged you then have to give it time to be "interpolated" When did this occur? When was the post James -Peter conflict over which Mr. Price contends was necessary for the origional formula to be employed? The window for forgery begins to shrink down to a time where we have little information 80-110. I ask you when did this occur? Who did it Why and for what purpose?

mens_sana

Thank you, Andrew. My senior moments seem to be coming more often. :blush:

mens_sana

Does not exist evidentially? Narrowly defined, Q consists of those passages where Matthew and Luke agree. Those agreements exist and that is what Q IS. And the 2 source hypothesis explains the Synoptic sources better – if not perfectly – than the other schemas. (See "The Synoptic Problem" (New Jerome Biblical Commentary (or via: amazon.co.uk)) by Frans Neirynck for a convincing presentation.

Now was it oral tradition or a document? Probably both. Wm Arnal's Jesus and the Village Scribes makes a very good case for a document that goes back into Jesus' lifetime or very close to it. James Robinson's paper "A Written Greek Sayings Cluster Older than Q: A Vestige" (Harvard Theological Review 92:1 (1999) 61-77) also makes a cogent case for it having been a document.

So we can indeed say what the Q document IS. But we cannot say what it is NOT because, as you pointed out, it is not extant. This means that much of the more recent work on Q, such as that of Kloppenborg, is a house of sand — because that work deals in what Q is NOT.

stonewall1012

Yes, I know that Q is the title that is given to those passages where the Synotics agree. Thank you..

My point was that calling Mark and Q a collection of "patchwork documents" is misleading. We don't know that Q is a document at all. All we have are phrases in Synoptic gospels that in some cases are exact... Could those be "liturgical" in nature? I will be the first to admit that practices in worship possibly guided the creation of the accounts. We also don't know if Q or Mark was an entire document completely intact which makes his "patchwork" comment even more suspect. There is little reason to suspect that Mark or Q was LESS complete when ever Matthew "used" them as resouces than what we have now.

My largest problem is not his facutal errors however. His argument from "silence" is not convincing enough for me. I am supposed to believe that his obvious disdain for christian appologists hasn't influenced his "reading" into the silence? It comes as little surprise to me that the "silences" say that ALL of the sources that are purported to come from the 1st century are all forgeries. Not only do the "silences" contend that the 500 witness are interpolation but that the entire book is forged with the interpolations coming later... One must ask just how many interpolation Mr. Rice might find given that he thinks the entire "formula" is a larger interpolation of which the 500 witnesses is another interpolation?

It gives me the impresstion that almost as soon as the letter was forged its interpolation began. Of course this doesn't surprise me as it appears obvious to me that MR. Rce believes that interpolations continued up until Nicea. So that they wrote and rewrote these books so that they sound "plausible" forgive me if I do not buy into such a grandious conspiracy theory that rivials Dan Browns imigination. All of this is based upon a periscope that appears out of place ... to our 21st century minds.
This theory has the added benefit of fixing all his problems... If some evidence doesn't appear to fit his "theory"... it's an interpolation.
Moreover there is no way to counter this theory because all evidence that supports his view would have been wipped out by the "Winners".
I would have one question.. Would Mr. Rice would have us believe that the government that couldn't wipe out a myth in 300 years and rose to "take it over" is the same government that turned around and with such effectiveness wiped out all dissidents?
That I have difficulty believing.