TedM

I'm wondering what the window of opportunity might have been for an interpolator to have written 1 Cor 15:3-8. During what time period would this have been most possible to have occurred? It seems to me that an analysis of this question might be helped with a discussion regarding when the Gospel resurrection accounts were likely written, and known.

Some of the oldest manuscripts of Mark have an empty tomb and the word from an angel that Jesus was resurrected and would make appearances, but gives no account of those resurrection appearances.

Matthew, Luke, and John all have some significant differences with regard to the resurrection events.

It appears to me that Matthew and Mark's original are very similar, but that Matthew added specific appearances and an implied ascention in Galilee. Luke has appearances occur in Jerusalem, and an explicit ascention just outside of Jerusalem. John is less clear, as it says in 20:10 the disciples Peter and John seeing the open tomb, then returning to their homes--which seems to imply Galilee, followed by Mary Magdalene telling the diciples she saw the risen Jesus, followed by appearances to all disciples in Jerusalem, followed by chapter 21 of an appearance in Galilee, and no mention of an ascention.


Does scholarship have a stance with regard to whether the post-resurrection appearances as detailed in Matthew and Luke were in their original works or were by later interpolators? It seems to me that the very existence of such different accounts is an argument against later interpolation--since one would expect the interpolation to be in the direction of reducing apparant inconsistencies.

If there was no interpolation for the endings of Matthew and Luke--they are the orginal works, then I'm wondering what the implications are for 1 Cor 15:3-8. Putting an apologetic bias option aside for the moment, it seems likely that whoever wrote these three passages was unaware of the other two, or such traditions.

Was Matthew or Luke aware of 1 Corinthians? When is the latest that an interpolator of 1 Cor 15:3-8 would NOT have been aware of either Matthew or Luke's appearances or traditions within the Christian community that led to their accounts or that developed from their accounts? What is the window of opportunity for such an interpolation, and is it conceivable that by that particular time such an interpolation would have eventually successfuly 'won out' over whatever copies of 1 Cor existed at that time.

ted

andrewcriddle

FWIW and IIUC the standard suggested interpolation is 1 Corinthians 15:3-11.

IMO there are major continuity problems with 1 Corinthians 15 reading 1-2 then 9-onwards.

Andrew Criddle

TedM

Oops. Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of the creed, not the whole passage.

I read where Robert Price thinks it was an interpolation after the gospels. It seems more likely that IF it was an interpolation--a big IF for me--it would have been before the gospels, reflecting a lack of awareness of the accounts of Matthew and Luke. That doesn't leave much time for a successful interpolation IMO. I was wondering if scholars have given much discussion to the 'when' of such an alleged interpolation.. Do you happen to know Andrew?

ted

Johnny Skeptic

Actually, there is no need for skeptics to suggest an interpolation regarding 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. The key verse in the passage is verse 6. It says “After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.� There is no mention that Jesus was recognized from a short distance away or that he said anything. Matthew 28:17 says “And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.� There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to assume that the same was not the case with the 500 brethren. In fact, there are not any good reasons at all for any to assume that any of the 500 brethren did not doubt.

TedM

Ok, but I thought you were one of the skeptics who is suggesting this passage is an interpolation! Does this mean you have changed your mind?

A few more points:
1. For those that get all bent out of shape on the number 500 being so exact, as is clear from the verse, it never says 500. In fact is says "above five hundred"

2. I've read that those who think it is interpolated are in a small minority among scholars.

I have no problem with the passage as being authentic. I think it fits the context, and since I don't think Paul was a mythicist the mention of the burial is not a problem either.

I was just curious as to when those who claim interpolation think it was interpolated and why they choose that time period.

ted

Johnny Skeptic

Not at all. I just wanted to show that I can reasonably refute the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses without suggesting the possibility of an interpolation.

Opinions vary among skeptics who think the passage was an interpolation, but as I showed in my previous post, suggestions of an interpolation are not neccesary in order to successfully question the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses. Most Christians and scholars will dispute any claim that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is an interpolation, but I would like to see them try to successfully contest my arguments against the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses that I mentioned in my previous post. Over the years I have learned that when I don't get anywhere using a given approach it is often more productive to use a different approach.

TedM

You say in another post that this succesfully questions the claim, but to me it actually is an argument in favor of the event happening, though also that some doubted. If only "some" doubted, that means others didn't doubt--thus the claim itself is valid, though neither you or I can say whether any of those who believed they saw a risen Christ really did. We can only assume that they didn't on other grounds.

ted

Johnny Skeptic

Regarding Matthew 28:17, actually there is no reasonable proof that the event took place, or for that matter that the event regarding the 500 eyewitnesses took place. Only Paul mentions the 500 eyewitnesses, and there is not any corroborative external evidence at all.

If someone claimed that Ronald Reagan rose from the dead and was seen by 500 people, and that some of the 500 people who were his best friends doubted that it was Ronald Reagan, then following your own same line of reasoning "it actually is an argument in favor of the event happening." I do not believe that such an argument is valid.

1 Corinthians 15:6 says “After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.� Matthew 28:17 says that some worshipped Jesus, but 1 Corinthians 15:6 is actually not comparing apples to apples since unlike Matthew 28:17 it does not mention that anyone recognized Jesus and worshipped him.

Mark 16:12 says "After that he (Jesus) appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country." Paul does not say in which form Jesus appeared to the brethren, only that he appeared to them."

Since you have said that you do not believe that 500 people saw Jesus in bodily form after he rose from the dead, your arguments are only addressing what you think people "thought" they saw rather than what you think they "actually" saw. There is no reason for me to debate you regarding what they thought they saw. Christians are my opponents, not you. They believe that 500 people saw Jesus in bodily form. It is that notion that I oppose.

Ted, you are merely a casual observer of the New Testament, but to fundamentalist Christians and most skeptics, there is nothing at all casual about Bible apologetics. Are you not aware that there is a lot at stake here? Many skeptics, including me, oppose fundamentalist Christianity "only" because the majority of them attempt to legislate their religious views at the expense of other groups of people who disagree with their Bible based agenda. Fundamentalist Christians are the chief opponents of homosexuality, same sex marriage and physician assisted suicide. They stir up a lot of hatred. Wherever you go in the world, no matter what the religion, fundamentalist are always trouble.

You have stated arguments opposing 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 being an interpolation, but I would like for you to state arguments opposing 1 Corinthians 15:6.

TedM

I misunderstood your previous post to be an argument that Matthew's account may have been of the same event--thus a partial/possible corroberation. Also, that the reporting of the existence of 'doubters' would be a more 'factual' reporting--thus increasing the chances that the reporting has some historical truth. But, I see now you are not trying to use Matthew to corroberate it, and Paul certainly doesn't say that the group included doubters, so my mistake in undestanding your remarks.

ok.

We do use these forums for different reasons, so maybe you and I should avoid discussion, as I think my inquiries/challenges, etc.. are probably just a distraction to your purpose.

I think it is most likely that Paul wrote it, and it reflected an event that involved 500 people, but since I am doubtful of the supernatural claim, I tend to believe the people there just thought they had a revelation of some sort, instead of one actually happening. If I were arguing against it, I might point to the lack of its mention in the Gospels, but a stronger argument against bodily resurrection appearances to me is a couple of very specific differences between the gospel endings--those being 1. where the appearances took place and 2. where and if the ascention took place and 3. the breathing of the Holy Spirit. It seems unlikely to me that if those happened the tradition wouldn't have been consistent on at least those points.

ted

Johnny Skeptic

Following are my revised arguments regarding the 500 eyewitnesses:

The chief eyewitnesses were the 500 eyewitnesses and the disciples. Regarding the 500 eyewitnesses, 1 Corinthians 15:6 says “After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.�

There is no indication that Jesus was recognized by anyone from a close distance. The texts mention that Jesus was not recognized on at least two other occasions. Mark 16:12 says “After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.� Luke 24:13-16 say “And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.� There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to conclude that 1 Corinthians 15:6 is any different from Mark 16:12 and Luke 24:13-16.

Christians appropriate to themselves great latitude when interpreting the two dissimilar accounts of the death of Judas, and that latitude is greater than the latitude that I have appropriated to myself regarding interpreting 1 Corinthians 15:6 as compared with Mark 16:12 and Luke 24:13-16. Consider the following Scriptures:

In the Revised Standard Version, Matt 27:3-10 say:

When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money." So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."

Acts 1:15-20 say:

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel'dama, that is, Field of Blood.) For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and `His office let another take.'

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

In 1 Corinthians 15:6 there is no indication that Jesus said anything, making my arguments even better.

The claim of the 500 eyewitnesses in 1 Corinthians is not corroborated anywhere else in the New Testament. In addition, it is not corroborated anywhere in external records. In short, the evidence that we have is insufficient to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that there were 500 eyewitnesses.