avi

1 Corinthians 15:3

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

kata tas grafas

When did tas grafas become associated with "the four gospels"?

But, if Paul did not intend tas grafas to represent the four gospels,
then, to which particular document does this expression refer?

Is there sufficient evidence within Paul's epistles, to convince forum
participants that Paul possessed access to, and had read, the four gospels?

How does your response to the question of Paul's having encountered
the four gospels, depend upon your understanding of Paul's intention, in writing tas grafas?

avi

stephan huller

As the Catholic tradition does not believe that Paul ever wrote a gospel text, my assumption would be that the Jewish scriptures are meant here. I don't think that any Catholic authority would read the text the way you are suggesting as the fourfaced gospel was only introduced with Irenaeus. As such Paul is saying that he explained to his followers that the Passion narrative was predicted in the Jewish writings (cf. Tertullian Against Prax. 29, De Anima 55 etc.) The Marcionites definitely held this was not the case (i.e. the rulers of the world would not have crucified Jesus if they had known what was about to happen - viz. the redemption of humanity).

avi

Thank you Stephan, for this illustration, demonstrating the inadequacy of my represention of this question.
Yes, obviously, on rereading what I had written, one could easily misunderstand my meaning. I had not intended for the question to appear as though I had imagined that Paul himself may have written one of the four gospels.

What I had sought to inquire about, was related to what you have explained next:
Yes, that is the dogma.
We no longer have "Irenaeus"' original Greek, so, we cannot know which word he used to describe the four gospels, so as to differentiate them from grafas.
In other words, how does Irenaeus differentiate scriptures, meaning original Jewish texts, from the four gospels?

I disagree. I don't find yours an unreasonable interpretation, but, in my unlearned opinion, it is not the best explanation of 1 Corinthians 15:3.

Let us look at Paul's text from 1 Corinthians 15: 1-6--->
This text is obviously related to the four gospels of the new testament, not to some prophesy in the ancient Jewish texts. Certainly there were no references in the ancient scriptures to Cephas, or "the twelve". Prophecy is generally expressed using future tense, do these verbs not all employ past tense, instead? Paul is describing something that actually happened, not something simply predicted to happen at some distant future time.

My claim, perhaps utterly without foundation, is that the author of Paul's epistle 1 Corinthians 15:3 and 4, was thinking about the four gospels, not the ancient texts, when he set quill to papyrus, and wrote: "according to the scriptures". In other words, I hypothesize that this author, "Paul" sought to equate the four gospels with the ancient Jewish texts, raising the stature of MML&J to the same lofty position held by "the Bible". According to this interpretation, "Irenaeus" has merely confirmed "Paul's" intent, i.e. "Paul" and "Irenaeus" could well be one and the same person.

I therefore dispute the notion that Paul is simply relating the Passion narrative to an earlier prediction. I do not know enough about the Marcionists or their beliefs to challenge your last sentence:
Further, I am so uninformed about the significance of the Marcionists, that I fail to understand why their opinion, (if one can indeed identify that opinion, absent any text written by them,) should weigh on this question of whether or not 1 Corinthians 15: 3-4 "according to the scriptures" refers to the old testament or the new.

Thanks for your input, Stephan, well written.

avi

Doug Shaver

Sometime in the late second century, at the earliest.

We cannot tell which one in particular, but when he referred to "scriptures," he was talking about some of the books that Christians a long time later called the Old Testament.

I don't know about other forum participants, but so far as I'm aware, there is zero evidence for anything like that. In general, even the most hard-core inerrantist fundamentalists don't believe that the gospels existed during Paul's lifetime.

spin

Another good reason not to read Paul through the post hoc lens of the Marcionites. The former doesn't represent the views of the latter.

spin

One normally uses the nominative form, ie αι γραφαι (ai grafai), rather than the accusative.

The first person to assume the four gospels seems to have been Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.11.8).

Iskander

1 Cor 15:3, refers to the transmission of oral and liturgical tradition. A similar formula was used for the transfer of Jewish tradition from teachers to students from generation to generation.

In 1 Cor 11:2
2 I congratulate you for remembering me so consistently and for maintaining the traditions exactly as I passed them on to you.

The traditions: the beliefs and practices of Christianity stemming from Christ. By extension it refers to the gospel as it was delivered to the early church.
Ignatius Catholic Study Bible

spin

This in no way refers to a written gospel. Paul seems to be referring to the sorts of "prophecies" that were dragged out of the Hebrew literature to reflect the messiah.

No suggestion of anything written.

And this italicized part is wishful thinking. Paul says his gospel came from a revelation given by god to him of Jesus.

An extension on wishful thinking is fantasy.

Iskander

So, you are not a catholic.

spin

Does that change evidence?