Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-08-2013, 08:58 AM

The OP asked about a consensus of non-seminary scholars.

Please note that aa5874's ideas are not part of any consensus.

aa5874 · 03-08-2013, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hello ficino -

You may be aware of Robert Price's essay Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation.

There is some discussion on other threads here that would lead you to believe that interpolations in Paul are a very touchy subject. There is no clear line between seminary and non-seminary academics. The general approach is to reject the very idea of interpolations in Paul unless there is overwhelming textual evidence.

You might want to read William O Walker's Interpolations in the Pauline Epistles (or via: amazon.co.uk) (see the archived thread here.) Walker does not discuss this particular passage as an interpolation, but you can read about his general principles and see how he has to walk on eggshells to even discuss this question.

I do not know of any other academics who have addressed the issue. I don't think you can talk of a meaningful consensus without some sort of vigorous discussion or some agreement on the criteria for judging whether a passage is an interpolation or not.

Consensus without a shred of evidence is worthless. There was no need to interpolate Pauline writings that were ALREADY Late.

Church writings do presently state Paul knew gLuke. See Origen's Commentary on Matthew and Eusebius' Church History 6.25.

That is a physical fact.

It is also a physical fact that ONLY Canonised gLuke contains the phrase this do in remembrance of me and there is evidence that an apologetic writer used the a similar phrase without ever mentioning Paul.

Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho

Quote:

...Now it is evident, that in this prophecy[allusion is made] to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks...

DCHindley · 03-08-2013, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Hey Dave, I think you've chopped too much.

Verse 27 hooks the last supper into the context.

Let's go back to vv.21-22.

[T2]21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.[/T2]

Paul is criticizing the Corinthians for first in, first served gluttony, stressing eating and drinking twice here, which is immediately picked up in v.28. Instead of filling one's hunger and making others miss out, one has to examine oneself before eating and drinking,

"29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body (one's own body) eats and drinks judgment upon himself." It is implicit whose body it is if v.28 follows from v.22 without the last supper confusion. With the insertion of vv.23-27 a later scribe, apparently also confused, felt the necessity to qualify "body" in v.29, ie "the body of the lord".

Remove vv.23-27 and I think Paul's original thought is better served. Examine yourself, discern your body: if you are hungry eat at home. But people aren't. "

30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged." This judging ourselves in v.31 refers back to the examining (from δοκιμαζω which implies judgment) of oneself (28), and the discerning (from διακρινω which also implies judgment) of the body (29). These two verses are Paul's instructions, what the Corinthians should be doing.

[T2]1 Cor 11:20 When you meet together, it is not (the) LORD’s supper that you eat [οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν].
21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk.
22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
23 - 27 [...].
28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged by (the) Lord [[τοῦ] κυρίου], we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another--
34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home--lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.[/T2]

Let me see if I got you correctly here. Is your position something like this?

jakejonesiv · 03-08-2013, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

I apologize if this topic has already been hashed out to death; if so, I'll be grateful for links to threads where it has been discussed. Is there any consensus among NON-seminary academics about whether Paul's words at the beginning of I Corinthians 15 ("I handed on to you what I received...") preserve the language of a creed from the 30s C.E., and are not original words of Paul? I note that Paul uses the same παρέδωκα... παρέλαβον... ότι combination in I Cor. 11:23, but there he adds "from the Lord," as though he traces his account of the Last Supper to direct revelation from Christ and not to oral tradition from disciples who were in the movement earlier than he. So why should we think that his words in I Cor 15 represent a "creed" that he picked up from Cephas and/or other supposed eyewitnesses of the empty tomb?

Hi ficino,

Please see this link:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=441

Here is the Marcioite version of 1 Corinthians 15:1-11.

Quote:

15:1 Γκςνίγς δὲ ὑι῔κ, ἀδεθθμί, ηὸ εὐαββέθζμκ ὃ εὐδββεθζζάιδκ ὑι῔κ, 129
Now I make known to you, brothers, the Gospel which I preached to you,
ὃ ηαὶ πανεθάαεηε, ἐκ ᾧ ηαὶ ἑζηήηαηε,
which you received, in which you also have stood,

15:2 δζ᾽ μὖ ηαὶ ζῴγεζεε, ηίκζ θόβῳ εὐδββεθζζάιδκ ὑι῔κ εἰ ηαηέπεηε, ἐηηὸξ εἰ ιὴ εἰηῆ ἐπζζηεύζαηε.
if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless in vain you believed.

15:3 πανέδςηα βὰν ὑι῔κ ἐκ πνώημζξ, 130 ὅηζ Χνζζηὸξ ἀπέεακεκ ὑπὲν η῵κ ἁιανηζ῵κ ἡι῵κ
For I handed on to you, in the very first things, that Christ died for our sins,

15:4 ηαὶ ὅηζ ἐηάθδ, ηαὶ ὅηζ ἐβήβενηαζ ηῆ ἡιένᾳ ηῆ ηνίηῃ, 131
and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day,

15:11 εἴηε μὗκ ἐβὼ εἴηε ἐηε῔κμζ, μὕηςξ ηδνύζζμιεκ ηαὶ μὕηςξ ἐπζζηεύζαηε.
Therefore whether I or they, so we preach and so you believe.

Marcionite 1 Corinthians Interliner
Reconstruction

by Stuart G. Waugh 18 February, 2013

Jake Jones IV

Toto · 03-08-2013, 08:22 PM

Here's a link to that whole thread:

The case for interpolation in 1 Cor 15 - I think there are more.

stephan huller · 03-08-2013, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Here is the Marcioite version of 1 Corinthians 15:1-11

Really? You think that's the Marcionite text? I am not so sure. Here's something odd. I don't think Clement ever actually cites from this chapter. Here are all the allusions according to biblindex (bold):

Quote:

1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.

2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.

6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.

14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.

16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.

17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.

19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.

22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

27 For he “has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.

28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

29 Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?

30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour?

31 I face death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord.

32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

33 Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.”

34 Come back to a sober and upright life and stop sinning. There are some who know nothing of God—I say this to your shame.

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?”

36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body.

39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.

41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;

43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;

44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.

48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven.

49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.

50 I declare to you, brothers, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—

52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

53 For the corruptible must clothe itself with the incorruptible, and the mortal with immortality.

54 When the corruptible has been clothed with the incorruption, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

55 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”

56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58 Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

I can provide you with all the specific details, but I think there is something strange about the fact that Clement might NEVER have cited from the fifteenth chapter. If it is a creed, it's a Catholic creed. It has nothing to do with the Marcionite or any earlier tradition.

stephan huller · 03-08-2013, 09:51 PM

I have begun to seriously wonder whether the Marcionite gospel would have looked 'centonized' because the Catholics severed and mixed up the original order of the letters and spread them around to newly invented texts (like the gospel). Look at Clement's citation of what we would call "1 Corinthians 15:50":

Quote:

And the apostle says, "For ye are not any longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit." And again he says, "Though in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh. For flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." [Stromata 2 125 § 6]

Romans 8, 9; 2 Corinthians 10, 3; 1 Corinthians 15, 50

The other reference to 1 Corinthians 15, 50 in the Stromata:

Quote:

Well? Does not the Savior heal body and soul alike from passions? It could not be, if the flesh were at enmity with the soul, that he would have put up fortifications against the soul in the soul’s own territory by strengthening flesh, the enemy, with health. "Brothers, I tell you that flesh and blood are not able to inherit the kingdom of God; the perishable will never inherit imperishability." For sin, being perishable, cannot enjoy fellowship with imperishability (that is righteousness). "Are you such fools?" he asks. "You have made a start with the Spirit. Are you now going to reach perfection through the flesh? [Stromata 3 104 § 5]

1 Corinthians 15,50; Galatians 3, 3

The linking of 1 Corinthians 15, 50 and 2 Corinthians chapter 10 is also found in Methodius:

Quote:

Let us not then, O my soul, let us not give in to the Evil One; but putting on the whole armour of God, which is our protection, let us have the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel (of peace). Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith you shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which is the Word of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of Christ, 2 Corinthians 10:5 for we wrestle not against flesh and blood; for that which I do, I allow not; for what I would, that do I not: but what I hate, that do I. [Discourse Resurrection 3]

spin · 03-08-2013, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Let me see if I got you correctly here. Is your position something like this?

Structurally, you've got where I'm at, but I don't seem to have expressed some things clearly enough.

1. 'With the insertion of vv.23-27 a later scribe, apparently also confused (by the text after the insertion), felt the necessity to qualify "body" in v.29, ie "the body of the lord".' (Parenthesis added for clarity.)

The insertion was already there when a later scribe felt it necessary to add the qualification "of the lord" into v.29. See Aland, NTG, p.460, for the addition. This qualification is used by many modern translations, despite its secondary nature. They also seem to be confused about what Paul was actually saying.

It was a two step process: one scribe inserted vv.23-27 and a later scribe felt it necessary to qualify "body" erroneously to point to the body of the lord, insuring a misunderstanding of the text.

2. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged." This judging ourselves in v.31 refers back to the examining (from δοκιμαζω which implies judgment) of oneself (28), and the discerning (from διακρινω which also implies judgment) of the body (29). These two verses are Paul's instructions, what the Corinthians should be doing.

"These two verses" were referring to v.28 and v.29. My comment though was slightly inaccurate as it was only v.28 which contains the instruction, ". Verses 29-32 elaborate the implications of the notion in v.28.

I should stress that the RSV should make v.28 clearer:

[T2]28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup.[/T2]

The eating is consequent on the examining (ουτως gives the "consequent" idea). He spells it out in v.34: "If you are hungry, eat at home". The meal is not about bodily needs. If you find upon examination that you are hungry, you aren't partaking of the lordly meal in the spirit.

Verse 28 is the crux of Paul's discourse in vv.20-34a. When the Corinthians come together it is not really to eat the lordly meal. But if they examine themselves, they can come together in fellowship and eat.

I hope this makes my understanding clearer.

stephan huller · 03-08-2013, 11:10 PM

Compare earlier in Stromata 2:

Quote:

"We must therefore put on the panoply of God, that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil; since the weapons of our war fire are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds, casting down reasonings, and every lofty thing which exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity unto the obedience of Christ," says the divine apostle. There is need of a man who shall use in a praiseworthy and discriminating manner the things from which passions take their rise, as riches and poverty, honour and dishonour, health and sickness, life and death, toil and pleasure. For, in order that we may treat things, that are different, indifferently, there is need of a great difference in us, as having been previously afflicted with much feebleness, and in the distortion of a bad training and nurture ignorantly indulged ourselves. The simple word, then, of our philosophy declares the passions to be impressions on the soul that is soft and yielding, and, as it were, the signatures of the spiritual powers with whom we have to struggle. For it is the business, in my opinion, of the malificent powers to endeavour to produce somewhat of their own constitution in everything, so as to overcome and make their own those who have renounced them. And it follows, as might be expected, that some are worsted; but in the case of those who engage in the contest with more athletic energy, the powers mentioned above, after carrying on the conflict in all forms, and advancing even as far as the crown wading in gore, decline the battle, and admire the victors. [Stromata 2 109 § 2 - 110 § 1]

2 Corinthians 10, 4, 5; Ephesians 6, 11, 12

Steven Carr · 03-08-2013, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

So why should we think that his words in I Cor 15 represent a "creed" that he picked up from Cephas and/or other supposed eyewitnesses of the empty tomb?

Has any New Religious Movement ever produced a creed so early in its life?

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

03-08-2013, 08:58 AM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The OP asked about a consensus of non-seminary scholars. Please note that aa5874's ideas are not part of any consensus.

03-08-2013, 08:22 PM	#15
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Here's a link to that whole thread: The case for interpolation in 1 Cor 15 - I think there are more.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.