Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 08-04-2002, 05:09 PM

King Arthur, you appear to have been confused. The person arguing for interpolation is Robert Price, not Richard Carrier. The whole passage of 15:3-11 is thought by Price to be an insertion, not just the statement about the 500.

best,
Peter Kirby

Clutch · 08-04-2002, 05:15 PM

KA,

You might have noticed that I set aside the question of whether it was a lie on Paul's part, and in fact agreed with Peter Kirby that one needn't impute lies -- at least, not large ones -- in explaining the development of an almost entirely spurious set of stories.

What I have explicitly addressed is what I deem to be the only important question about the 500-witness claim: its evidential status. Which is what I said from the outset.

Nor was your quoted remark restricted to the "lying" issue, since your countervailing suggestion has nothing to do with Paul's state of mind -- one half of lying -- and everything to do with the truth of his claim -- the other half. Hence your claim, that had Paul been lying (that is, wrong) some genuine witness would have spoken out, is as relevant to the evidentiary force of the passage as to whether Paul lied. Which is why I pointed out your statement's elementary defectiveness on two counts.

Whether Paul lied is unascertainable, provided one is willing to attribute a sufficiently credulous nature to him. Lying is very difficult to prove in court even today, with living witnesses and massive context, since strictly it involves proving the knowing intent to deceive. If Paul was sincere but misled by otherwise reliable sources, if he was plain foolish, if he himself was antecedently self-deluded -- then he was not lying. It might be easier to argue that he was in some looser sense epistemically culpable. But none of this is terribly significant in comparison with the evidential point: the claim of 500 witnesses is evidentially empty.

King Arthur · 08-04-2002, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by peterkirby:
King Arthur, you appear to have been confused. The person arguing for interpolation is Robert Price, not Richard Carrier. The whole passage of 15:3-11 is thought by Price to be an insertion, not just the statement about the 500.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ah frick! Man, you got me there!

I totally freakin' screwed up! I can't believe it!!! I'm no longer Mensa man!!!

Oh well. It's even worse than I thought if the suggestion is verses 3 - 11. I still don't see any evidence of tampering. Nothing is mentioned in Metzger's Commentary.

It seems that it totally screws everything up if you remove this part. There is a decent transition "GAR" ("For") so that isn't messed up. And after verse 11, there is a conditional statement set up in which he mentions Christ being raised from the dead. Without verses 3 - 11 or at least some part of them, this doesn't make much sense.

Oh well, I didn't really read Price's stuff because I found it rather silly. I'll go read it and see if there is anything to what he says.

Good job! It's hard to trip up the Kingster!

Toto · 08-04-2002, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur:


Good job! It's hard to trip up the Kingster!

It seems to be surprizingly easy.

I'm not sure what is worse, your adolescent insults or your patronizing.

Robert Price is not someone you should be calling "silly".

I only posted a reference to the article for overkill. Even if that section is not an interpolation, your arguments have as many holes as a wheel of Swiss cheese.

Toto · 08-04-2002, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur:
. . .

He calls this an interpolation because the "formal structure" is broken? Well, my first challenge to this is that out of the many manuscripts, there is no evidence of this as an interpolation. Go look for yourself in the critical texts - NA27th for instance.

Second, I don't see why it necessarily has to break the "formal structure". Paul is giving the "appearances" of Jesus in order. The appearance to the 500 appears in its order. As a matter of fact, the beginning of the sentence starts with the exact same greek words. The form even fits in with the previous verses. There is a list of ordered witnesses here that seems coherent.

Here is how the sentences begin from 4 - 8:

Greek
4 - Kai hoti etaphe (note similarity of etaphe to ophthe)
5 - Kai hoti ophthe (note ophthe continues...)
6 - Epeita ophthe (the verse in question)
7 - Epeita ophthe
8 - Eschaton...ophthe

English
4 - And that he was buried...
5 - And that he appeared...
6 - Then he appeared... (verse in question)
7 - Then he appeared...
8 - Lastly...he appeared...

It follows a trend. I see no break and no evidence of significant tampering.

I think [Price] inflated his case. I don't think this was an interpolation.

You think ophthe {appeared or seen} is a parallel to etaphe {buried}? Possibly, but that just brings verse 5 in.

You can find the Greek <a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B46C015.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.

The broken trend is the break between the verses that start with kai oti and the verses that start with epeita (verse 6).

Sort of like marking your list with bullet points then breaking to little circles half way through.

You could have found this out by reading the article before responding to it. But since you know everything, why bother. </sarcasm>

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]

Maverick · 08-04-2002, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur:


Now you're hearing a different point of view. If you don't have the brains to look a little deeper and perhaps learn some Greek and use a little logic, then don't fault me. Just go with the flow man. You'll get the hang of intelligence after a short go-around. Look at Toto after all, he's really coming along now!

King Arthur,

Official Warning - Please refrain from the insults.

Maverick - BC&A Moderator

King Arthur · 08-04-2002, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
You think ophthe {appeared or seen} is a parallel to etaphe {buried}? Possibly, but that just brings verse 5 in.

They rhyme. Duh...

Quote:

You can find the Greek <a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B46C015.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.

I'm sure others will find this useful, but I have my own critical texts which list variants. You should too.

Quote:

The broken trend is the break between the verses that start with kai oti and the verses that start with epeita (verse 6).

Sort of like marking your list with bullet points then breaking to little circles half way through.

With your logic then verse 7 is an interpolation as well. It is nothing like you say. Peter would know this probably. You wouldn't.

Quote:

You could have found this out by reading the article before responding to it. But since you know everything, why bother. </sarcasm>

I still haven't read the article and I still think it is stupid. Show me the evidence... It ain't there. What Price is arguing is pure speculation.

King Arthur · 08-04-2002, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Maverick:


King Arthur,

Official Warning - Please refrain from the insults.

Maverick - BC&A Moderator

Hey! You can't give official warnings. I'm the King.

You guys have no stomach.

Toto · 08-04-2002, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur:


I still haven't read the article and I still think it is stupid. Show me the evidence... It ain't there. What Price is arguing is pure speculation.

You also didn't read Peter Kirby's post after he corrected your mistake about the author of the article. (Hint: his claim of interpolation is not limited to a single verse.)

I say the only reason you haven't read the article is that you would have to admit that Robert Price knows more than you do. You've probably read it and know you can't find a hole in his arguments.

So let's just start with the simplest part of his thesis. If this incident, of the risen Jesus appearing to 500 of the brethren, were 1) true and 2) in the original epistle, why is it not mentioned in the Gospels? Did Mark not know about it? Had Luke not heard about it? Did Paul know about it, and then everyone forgot by the time the Gospels were written?

King Arthur · 08-04-2002, 07:34 PM

How about let's start with this, Toto.

Where's the beef?

There is no evidence of interpolation for these verses. The only thing we have to go on is Price's word and speculation.

You were the one who brought up the one verse again, that's why I attacked it. It was you who didn't pay attention.

I doubt you completely understand Price's arguments, so I don't know how you'd know if I defeated them or not.

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]

08-04-2002, 07:34 PM	#40
King Arthur Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: Camelot Posts: 290	How about let's start with this, Toto. Where's the beef? There is no evidence of interpolation for these verses. The only thing we have to go on is Price's word and speculation. You were the one who brought up the one verse again, that's why I attacked it. It was you who didn't pay attention. I doubt you completely understand Price's arguments, so I don't know how you'd know if I defeated them or not. [ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

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

08-04-2002, 05:09 PM	#31
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	King Arthur, you appear to have been confused. The person arguing for interpolation is Robert Price, not Richard Carrier. The whole passage of 15:3-11 is thought by Price to be an insertion, not just the statement about the 500. best, Peter Kirby

08-04-2002, 05:15 PM	#32
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	KA, You might have noticed that I set aside the question of whether it was a lie on Paul's part, and in fact agreed with Peter Kirby that one needn't impute lies -- at least, not large ones -- in explaining the development of an almost entirely spurious set of stories. What I have explicitly addressed is what I deem to be the only important question about the 500-witness claim: its evidential status. Which is what I said from the outset. Nor was your quoted remark restricted to the "lying" issue, since your countervailing suggestion has nothing to do with Paul's state of mind -- one half of lying -- and everything to do with the truth of his claim -- the other half. Hence your claim, that had Paul been lying (that is, wrong) some genuine witness would have spoken out, is as relevant to the evidentiary force of the passage as to whether Paul lied. Which is why I pointed out your statement's elementary defectiveness on two counts. Whether Paul lied is unascertainable, provided one is willing to attribute a sufficiently credulous nature to him. Lying is very difficult to prove in court even today, with living witnesses and massive context, since strictly it involves proving the knowing intent to deceive. If Paul was sincere but misled by otherwise reliable sources, if he was plain foolish, if he himself was antecedently self-deluded -- then he was not lying. It might be easier to argue that he was in some looser sense epistemically culpable. But none of this is terribly significant in comparison with the evidential point: the claim of 500 witnesses is evidentially empty.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.