Johnny Skeptic

For purposes of this thread, I am primarily referring to 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Since the Bible makes so many questionable claims, isn't it reasonable to consider the passage suspicious by association with a book that contains many errors? Although I believe that the passage is an interpolation since the resurrection of Jesus is out of the question, for purposes of this thread, I am not suggesting that the passage is probably an interpolation, only that it is plausible that it is an interpolation, and that at the very least, people should be agnostic about the passage pending the possible availability of future evidence that favors either side.

aa5874

First can I take what is in this post at "face value"?

In anticipation that the answer will be in the affirmative I will proceed.

1 Corinthians 15.3-8 cannot be deemed to be an interpolation just because resurrections do not occur. It is known that people have written fiction to deceive or simply write about rumors as if they were true or write about things people believe at a given period in time.

An interpolation is a passage that when analysed is not likely to have been written by the original writer either because a known similar titled writing by the very author does not have the passage or that the passage contradicts the author.

Examine excerpts from other epistles about the resurrection.

Ro 4:24 - Ro 10:9 - 2Co 4:14 - Ga 1:1 - Eph 1:20 - Col 2:12 - 1Th 1:10 - The Pauline writers claimed Jesus was raised from the dead MULTIPLE times in other letters.

1 Cor 15.3-8 cannot be deemed to be an interpolation since there is no source that can show that there are earlier copies of 1 Cor 15 without verses 3-8 and that the resurrection of Jesus does contradicts other epistles.

And there is always the possibility that any author could have amended his own writing.

Doug Shaver

It seems to me you're conflating authenticity with reliability. I think it's also a mistake to refer the "the Bible" as if it were a single book. Questions of reliability have to be asked about individual authors.

I don't see the logic of that inference. That would only make sense on the assumption that Paul was infallible. Are you really trying to suggest that there is no way he would have believed in the resurrection unless it actually happened?

I have no problem at all with that conclusion, just with the reasoning you used to get to it.

Juststeve

For the reasons stated by others I see no reason to suspect that the passage in question is not authentically from Paul. It is just the sort of thing Paul would say and probably reflects what he believed.

Why does Johnny doubt that Paul wrote it himself?

Steve

dog-on

I think that the passage contradicts what Paul says in Galatians, so I do not believe that the author who wrote Galatians is the author of the Corinthians passage.

Which one is "Paul" would be the question. The Paul of Galatians or the Paul of Acts?

Juststeve

Where do you see a contradition with Galatians?

As to Acts, Paul can't contradict himself in Acts because he didn't write Acts.

Steve

aa5874

Authenticity does not only involve authorship it also includes dating.

For example, a painting maybe falsely claimed to have been done by a certain painter to give the false impression that it was earlier than it actually was.

There is simple no corroborative source of antiquity external of the Church writings that can eliminate the very real problem that the Pauline writings were dated early either in ERROR or DELIBERATELY by the authors to give the FALSE impression that there were Jesus believers, persecuted Jesus believers, churches all over the Roman Empire and that there was a character called Jesus the Messiah, Creator of heaven and earth BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Now, 1 Cor. 15.3-8 cannot be shown to contradict any other passage in the Pauline writings since ALL over the Epistles it is claimed Jesus was raised from the dead.

Toto

Which others? aa5874 seems to be arguing against an argument that was not made. Paul did believe in the resurrection, but he did not consider himself the least of the apostles or hand on what was given to him by others.

The case for interpolation has been made by Robert M Price: Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation

As far as I know, the case against this passage being interpolated is just that one does not accept the idea of interpolations. Price has a response to apologist William Lane Craig's criticism of this thesis here.

aa5874

I do not think you even understand my argument.

But there is something wrong with yours, the very Pauline writer claimed he was LEAST among the apostles.

1Co 15:9 -

Toto

But this is a very unPauline statement, based on the rest of his letters,