rgprice "1 Cor 15:5-10 is clearly an interpolation" --- I call BS

[gryan]

Re: Hoffmann

With implications for his interpretation of 1 Cor. 15.3-14, Hoffmann had this to say:

"It is true that the existence of the gospel traditions about Jesus and patristic appeals to them do not prove his existence. What they prove instead is a coordinated effort to prevent a deposit of historical tradition from being eviscerated by the religious mythicizers of the period.[27] The actuality of his existence was not the topic of discussion in the ancient period.[28] It is taken for granted by all ancient commentators, including Paul, whose entire career pivots on the message of the crucified/historical Jesus and the glorified Christ (1 Cor. 1.23; 1 Cor. 15.3-14). [29]"
https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2 ... cal-jesus/

[neilgodfrey]

Re: Hoffmann

With implications for his interpretation of 1 Cor. 15.3-14, Hoffmann had this to say:

"It is true that the existence of the gospel traditions about Jesus and patristic appeals to them do not prove his existence. What they prove instead is a coordinated effort to prevent a deposit of historical tradition from being eviscerated by the religious mythicizers of the period.[27] The actuality of his existence was not the topic of discussion in the ancient period.[28] It is taken for granted by all ancient commentators, including Paul, whose entire career pivots on the message of the crucified/historical Jesus and the glorified Christ (1 Cor. 1.23; 1 Cor. 15.3-14). [29]"
https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2 ... cal-jesus/

Old Hoffy was all anti-Carrier and anti-"myther" by 2012. Before then he edited and wrote introductions to mythicist-sympathetic authors and books. But he hated Carrier so much he ditched that camp entirely and was reduced to all sorts of special pleading and nonsense and precious few actual valid arguments. He was so desperate that he tried to wriggle out of an argument by declaring that his opponent was implying Paul organized his letters by the chapters and verses we have in our bibles today. Hoffy lost all credibility except among the Casey-Stephanie Fisher-Crossley trio.

Now if you have an argument to go with Hoffy's declamation..... ?

[StephenGoranson]

"Old Hoffy....Hoffy lost all credibility except...."

Does that include on a certain blog a featured (cherry-picked?) comment?:
“Neil, this is actually rather useful. Good job.”
— R. Joseph Hoffmann, – June 2014

[mlinssen]

"Old Hoffy....Hoffy lost all credibility except...."

Does that include on a certain blog a featured (cherry-picked?) comment?:
“Neil, this is actually rather useful. Good job.”
— R. Joseph Hoffmann, – June 2014

Remarkable, the surprising surprise there, subtly conveyed via the word 'actually'.
And then the little pat on the head, how very lovely. I'd never heard of Hoffmann before but I like him already!

[neilgodfrey]

"Old Hoffy....Hoffy lost all credibility except...."

Does that include on a certain blog a featured (cherry-picked?) comment?:
“Neil, this is actually rather useful. Good job.”
— R. Joseph Hoffmann, – June 2014

You wish! I even include a very positive comment from good old James McGrath. Just to show that even certain enemies could recognize something worthwhile when they weren't all hung up about Jesus mythicism. But enter the very whiff of mythicism and they suddenly seem to lose their marbles -- or at least Hoffy did after Carrier joined what was his side. C'est la vie.

Funny you know -- how once people decide you are beyond the pale on some hobby horse issue of theirs they can no longer isolate the exchange to that hobby horse but have to find total depravity in every move, every thought, every appearance, every diary entry, of their opponent. The war becomes total. Another c'est la vie.

Edited: why the "cherry-picked" reference? Did you expect a blogger to close his eyes and pull comments out at random? What a funny term to use. As if being selective with comments one decides to show is some sort of character defect --- see the c'est la vie above.

[StephenGoranson]

Again, neil, presuming? I don’t think you exhibit “total depravity.”
You sometimes seem to write in excessively black and white terms.
I try to learn new things every day. From wherever, whomever.
That said, some sources may deserve more skepticism than others.
What sometimes seems lacking in some quarters is a plausible historical trajectory. Not mere “we won’t be fooled again” but constructive observations on history.

[gryan]

Re: Hoffmann

Pertaining to Hoffmann's reading of 1 Cor 15:5-10 --which is the focus of this thread--this footnote of interest:

"[132] I do not deal in this essay with the conundrum of multiple Jameses and the redactional gymnastics that have brought them into existence. Dealing only with Paul’s letter to Galatia, it is my view that the James referred to in Galatians 1.18 [sic--meaning 1:19] and the brother referred to in Mark 6.3 represent the earliest strand in the literary tradition. The allusion in 1 Corinthians 15.7 (cf. 5) is a doublet, perhaps representing two different versions of the letter, or two different resurrection traditions, one associated with Peter and the twelve, the other attached to James and the apostles."
https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2 ... cal-jesus/

[neilgodfrey]

Again, neil, presuming? I don’t think you exhibit “total depravity.”
You sometimes seem to write in excessively black and white terms.
I try to learn new things every day. From wherever, whomever.
That said, some sources may deserve more skepticism than others.
What sometimes seems lacking in some quarters is a plausible historical trajectory. Not mere “we won’t be fooled again” but constructive observations on history.

Ah Stephen -- presuming again, again? Not everything I write in a comment is about you. Allow me, if you will, to roll my eyes in mild exasperation at a more general problem when you take me to task for x, y or z. It is true, though, is it not, that you do not like me and that you do presume the worst in me in this little phrasing or that wording -- it all reveals some character flaw to have a dig at. Not this time necessarily, but a history. And that is how these things go, is it not?

Now, if you would really like to discuss historical methods -- and not mere "I'm not going to be fooled again" approaches (another loaded mind-reading presumption there) -- then let's get into it. I would love nothing more.

Do you think I lack a "constructive approach to history"? (I'm not saying you do think that -- am asking you.) If so, in what way? Let's have a discussion about something I'm quite interested in.

[flowers_grow]

In Paul we read the ektroma represents his wicked past; in Ignatius it represents his johnny-come-lately status. How can we tell if both are drawing on a common saying? Or if someone with a knowledge of Ignatius added the passage to 2 Corinthians?

I am trying to see this difference, but "Last of all, as an untimely birth, he appeared to me" seems to be about Paul being last too. He follows up explaining he is least because he persecuted the church. That's after a whole sequence in the text of people coming before Paul, and then Paul coming last. So he is last because he is least.

Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans also says he isn't worthy, though he doesn't really explain why.

But as for me, I am ashamed to be counted one of them; for indeed I am not worthy, as being the very last of them, and one born out of due time.

Who is "one of them" and "last of them"? Is "them" in chapter 9 referring all the way back to chapter 4 which mentions apostles? Is it referring back to the Churches in Syria? why would he be last there? It's pretty difficult to figure out!

I can see "last like an ektroma" being an expression of humility, but the grammar in Paul and Ignatius is quite different.

In Paul it is explained why he is last, where in Ignatius it is just out of place. But if Ignatius is referring to 1 Corinthians 15 it's also unclear why, except as part of the general babble of "oh look at me the martyr!".

[robert j]

Right below what you quoted from BeDuhn:

1 Cor 15.5–10 is unattested.

What BeDuhn was referring to when he said,

It is clear that the evidence of the Apostolikon does not support
the suggestion that 15.3–11 is an interpolation, put forward by Price,
“Apocryphal Apparitions.”

...is the case put forward by RMP that:

3 For I handed down to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

...was a part of the interpolation. In fact, RMP builds his case for the whole interpolation on his reading of 1 Cor 15 3. I agree with BeDuhn, that 1 Cor 15:3-4 appears to be original and not interpolated.

Go to page 240 and you'll notice that BeDuhn does not include 1 Cor 15:5-10 in his reconstruction. So, clearly, BeDuhn also agrees that 1 Cor 15:5-10 was not in Marcion's version of the letters. BeDuhn was rejecting RMP case for 3-11 being an interpolation. BeDuhn rejects that position, but then agrees that 5-10 is.

Where does BeDuhn agree that v. 5-10 is an interpolation?

You seem to be mixing apples and oranges. BeDuhn finds v. 5-10 unattested in his very narrow list of Patristic sources. And he also concludes that very same narrow list of Patristic sources does not provide support that 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is an interpolation.

For others not as familiar with the subject of proposed reconstructions of Marcionite versions of Paul’s letters, when BeDuhn says, “1 Corinthians15.5-10 is unattested” (or that any Pauline passage is unattested), he means those verses are not attested in some very specific and limited texts in which polemic attacks on Marcionite views are found. The primary texts commonly used for such an endeavor are Tertullian’s Five Books Against Marcion, the 4th century Panarion by Epiphanius, and the late 3rd-early 4th century dialogues of an Adamantius by an unknown author. A few other minor and likely even less reliable sources are occasionally used to supplement the primary sources. When BeDuhn reports that, “1 Corinthians15.5-10 is unattested” (in those specific, limited set of texts), that is not incompatible with the fact that between the works of Irenaeus and other works by Tertullian, verse 8 and a portion of v.10 are cited. And if we include the works of Origen, all the verses of 15:5-10 are cited.

Here is a somewhat wider portion of BeDuhn (white highlighting mine) ---

It is clear that the evidence of the Apostolikon does not support the suggestion that 15.3-11 is an interpolation, put forward by Price, “Apocryphal Apparitions.”
1 Corinthians15.5-10 is unattested. Harnack considers the verses to have been present, but his case specifically for v. 9 is insufficient. (The First New Testament, p. 285)

His highlighted comments above provide context for BeDuhn’s statements, but do not change his conclusions.

BeDuhn claims that his evaluation of the evidence leads to both of these conclusions ---
1. It is clear that the evidence of the Apostolikon does not support the suggestion that 15.3-11 is an interpolation, and,
2. 1 Corinthians 15.5-10 is unattested

BeDuhn believes that both of those are true.

That a verse or passage is unattested in Marcionite studies does not lead to the conclusion that the verse or passage is an interpolation. I like BeDuhn’s relatively even-handed and balanced approach to the topic, and several of his comments and conclusions could be drawn upon to make my point here. Here’s one example ----

Under the heading of “The Character of the Apostolicon”, BeDuhn writes ---

As far as we can tell, the Marcionites read identical versions of 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians (“Laodiceans”), Philippians, and Philemon, while very minor differences affected their reading of Galatians …. (pp. 208-209)

And yet, for example, in his proposed reconstruction of a Marcionite 1 Corinthians using the limited set of texts, BeDuhn reports that many verses and several relatively long passages in that letter are unattested (pp. 233-242 and 272-289).

One might see those observations as incompatible. But apparently, text can be unattested (in those specific texts) yet still could be considered as original to the letter, and still could have been included in the version of the letters used by Marcion. BeDuhn provides an explanation, and I think these comments should be kept in mind when someone tries to make a case for an interpolation in Paul’s letters based primarily on the claim that it is not attested in Marcion ---

Our ability to reconstruct the First New Testament is hampered by the nature of our sources, all of which are polemical attacks on Marcionite views written by leaders of other forms of Christianity. They make no attempt to quote every word of Marcion’s text, and even when they do quote, they do not do so exactly. Rather, they cite that which is relevant to their argument … (p. 34) (underlining mine)

Do you believe that any portion of Paul’s letters that is not attested --- in the very narrow selection of the polemic writings of the Patristic heretic hunters commonly used to propose a reconstruction of a Marcionite text --- is necessarily, ipso facto, an interpolation?