rgprice wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:45 am
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 F
ive 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?