Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 07-01-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

How likely really is it that the proto-orthodox would bother to co-opt the texts of their rivals by interpolation instead of doing something easier and less traceable, such as forge their own texts?

Stephen Carlson

It is not either/or. The proto-orthodox did both. Example: 2 Peter.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv · 07-01-2006, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

This is very much like the question that I asked earlier. I do not see why anyone would hijack Paul for the true faith and nobody else. Is there an analogy for this? Did the proto-orthodox hijack anybody else that we know of?

Ben.

John the Baptist.

Jake Jones IV

dog-on · 07-01-2006, 01:03 PM

Quote:

This is very much like the question that I asked earlier. I do not see why anyone would hijack Paul for the true faith and nobody else. Is there an analogy for this? Did the proto-orthodox hijack anybody else that we know of?

About every character in the OT...

S.C.Carlson · 07-01-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

It is not either/or. The proto-orthodox did both. Example: 2 Peter.

For it to be both, you have to show both. I'm interested in the supposed co-opting of a contemporaneously produced text by a rival. Evidence of forgery is on the wrong prong.

Stephen

dog-on · 07-01-2006, 01:57 PM

The Marcionite prologues in the Latin Vulgate.

Ben C Smith · 07-01-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

John the Baptist.

Jake Jones IV

What text did John the baptist write that the proto-orthodox interpolated for their own purposes?

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 07-01-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

1:22 And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea.
1:23 They only heard it said, “He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”

Paul showed his Gospel to all the churches in Judea and then is worried about how his Gospel will be received 14 years after has had already shared it with them?????????

No, I wrote that he (may have) shared his gospel with Cephas (unofficially) and then with the churches of Judea (officially) 14 years later. When he visited with Cephas he was still unknown by sight to the churches in Judea (1.22).

Quote:

Were these people of "repute" the same James and Peter he supposedly already meet with 14 years earlier? Paul didn't discuss his Gospel with Peter in his first supposed meeting?

Yes, I think so. However, the indication is that his meeting with James was very brief. That is why he can gloss over it and claim that he received nothing from any man.

Quote:

Without the interpolation of 1:18-24, them would refer to 1:17, which seems to a more logical reference.

Why? The them in 2.2 is best read as a larger group than the those of reputation of 2.2:

...and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the gentiles, but in private to those [of them, understood] who were of reputation....

The churches of Judea would be a larger group than the ones he ended up meeting with, apparently the three pillars of 2.9.

Quote:

One other thing, notice 1:20. The only other places where this appears in Paul happen to be in two other likely interpolation candidates (Rom 9:1; 2 Cor 11:31)...

It is as I thought. You opt for interpolation at the drop of a hat.

In my reading, Paul makes his little oath as a way of affirming that, even though he did meet with people in Jerusalem, he got nothing of great import in his gospel from them.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 07-01-2006, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

About every character in the OT...

What interpolations in the OT did you have in mind, anyway?

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 07-01-2006, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The Marcionite prologues in the Latin Vulgate.

They are called the anti-Marcionite prologues. Latin text available on one of my webpages.

Ben.

dog-on · 07-01-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

No, I wrote that he (may have) shared his gospel with Cephas (unofficially) and then with the churches of Judea (officially) 14 years later. When he visited with Cephas he was still unknown by sight to the churches in Judea (1.22).

And you know this how? "Unofficially", did I missed where Paul says this? What would be the purpose of Paul's visit to see Cephas? According to Paul, he didn't need Peter to give him the Gospel. The three year reference is inserted to conform (as well as possible, probably without being too obvious), with the account in Acts.

Quote:

Yes, I think so. However, the indication is that his meeting with James was very brief. That is why he can gloss over it and claim that he received nothing from any man.

Where does Paul say his meeting with James is very brief? So when Paul can "gloss over it and claim that he received nothing from any man", are you saying that he was being less-than-honest by saying that he received his Gospel from no man?

Quote:

Why? The them in 2.2 is best read as a larger group than the those of reputation of 2.2:

The word "them" is referring to "those who were apostles before me". What leads you to believe that this is a larger group, how big is a "larger group"?

Quote:

...and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the gentiles, but in private to those [of them, understood] who were of reputation....
The churches of Judea would be a larger group than the ones he ended up meeting with, apparently the three pillars of 2.9

.

I read this as, Paul met in private with the so called pillars, who were, those that were apostles before him.

You seem to need to assume many things to make your reading work.

Quote:

It is as I thought. You opt for interpolation at the drop of a hat.

No, only if it makes sense in context with the rest of the Epistles.

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

07-01-2006, 01:57 PM	#215
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	The Marcionite prologues in the Latin Vulgate.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.