gurugeorge

This seems to be the most important definite statement of early Christian belief. Particularly, in Corinthians 15:3-4 we find:

There's a delicious ambiguity here, it's almost like a Necker Cube.

Flip it one way (and take it for granted that he's talking about a historical Christ), and it looks as if he's talking about a historical Jesus who recently lived, who happened to have done everything "by the book" (i.e. his doings had been predicted in Scripture).

But flip it the other way and read the lines as they stand and it looks as if Paul is talking about a Christ revealed in Scripture - i.e. he's saying something like: "(contrary to what you might think, the Messiah isn't someone who's going to come and save us all and bring military victory, no, actually) Scripture tells us that the Messiah has already been and died for our sins and was raised on the third day."

Is there any reason not to take the second reading as the genuine one? There would be, if it was elsewhere mentioned in this important passage that this Messiah Paul is talking about was also someone who was known as a human being to anybody else he's talking about. That would be the essential link that would make the first reading more probably correct.

But search through the rest of that credo, and you will find nothing at all that even hints at such a thing.

Immediately after that bit we have a series of "seeings" of this Messiah to Cephas and a bunch of others. But as I've posted in the Cephas thread recently, the Greek word for "seeing" here is (apparently) one that's consistently used in a theophanic sense in the Septuagint - so the meaning is neither physical nor necessarily even visionary, but more "high concept": it means that the Messiah "made himself manifest" to Cephas and the others.

How? Paul has just told us: in the scriptures.

I'm going to shuffle the words around a bit. I'm wondering if someone who has Greek could tell me if this would be a legitimate way of translating the above or not?

i.e., as Steven Carr says:

So there's no tie, no connection whatsoever, between Cephas, the other apostles, and a Messiah in any human sense, nothing to suggest the Messiah these people are talking about having recently been alive and known in any fleshly, human way, to any of them, prior to, or contemporaneous with, their understanding of him as having been the Messiah.

All of a sudden, they just see that the Messiah has lived and done his work, but they see that fact as revealed in scripture - or rather, the Messiah has revealed himself to them in scripture as having already been around and done his stuff.

This Messiah is just as mythical as the traditional Messiah, only he's been put in the past instead of the future. I think it's really as simple as that, that's what the very first Christians believed.

aa5874

I know of no scriptures in the OT that clearly states that a Messiah will be crucified for the sins of the Jews and Gentiles, thereby eliminating the sacrificial system for the atonement of sins that was laid down by the God of Moses.

I know of no scriptures in the OT that cleary states that the Messiah will be resurrected after three days. In fact, the scriptures which claimed that the Christ would be raised in three days after death is found in the NT, from the authors of Matthew and Luke, but using the Christ, as it were, to predict his own resurrection.

Even the author of gJohn could not find any scripture for the resurrection when he wrote, after the burial of this so-called Messiah, in John 20.9, "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead."

These are the words of the so-called Messiah, according to Matthew 12.40, "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Did Jesus reveal to Paul, while sitting on the right hand of God in heaven, the scripture of Matthew 12.40?

And it is interesting to note that the author of Mark did not appear to have found any scripture to support the resurrection. gMark does not put any words into the so-called Messiah's mouth claiming that he would resurrect like Jonas.

gurugeorge

Ah but the thing is, it doesn't have to be "clear". The Messiah revealed himself to these guys in scripture, his death and resurrection "appeared" to them in scripture; and that could mean any number of things when you consider it as theophany. It could be some combination of gematria and qabalah-like analysis (anachronistic terms, I know, but I think some Jews were doing that sort of deep playing around with texts even then).

In fact, where Paul elsewhere states, rather mysteriously (in Galatians I think) "you, before whose eyes Christ was revealed as crucified", that could refer to initiation into the "true interpretation" of scripture. It could refer to his clueing people in on how to read scripture so that the death and resurrection of the Messiah could be "seen", so they'd stop expecting Him to come, realise he'd already been, died for their sins, and had resurrected, winning a great spiritual victory "sub rosa".

Doug Shaver

That's because nothing of the sort is clearly stated. In order to know that that is what the scriptures really mean, you have to have had a revelation, like Paul claimed to have had. If you haven't had the revelation yourself, then you just have to trust Paul.

Malachi151

I'm almost inclined to believe that the passage in question is a really bad later interpolation, and "according to the scriptures" is referring to the Gospels.

In order for that to be the case it would have to be a total butchery of the text, but I don't think that is very unreasonable.

It could be either a really bad intentional late insertion, or the phrase "according to the scriptures" alone could be later accidental interpolations from notes.

aa5874

And perhaps it could be that the word "Paul" is an interpolation in the "Pauline" Epistles. Nothing can be ruled in or out.

PhilosopherJay

Hi gurugeorge,

Here's my take on it.

This passage talks of the Christ being "buried." Since Jesus was never buried, we may take it as likely that the passage is not referring to the passion narrative. Besides, one would expect Paul to remind his audience that Jesus of Nazareth died and rose on the third day in fulfillment of this prophesy, if that was the point he wanted to make. The argument should be: The Prophets predicted the Messiah would do X. Jesus did X. Therefore, the Jesus was the Messiah. The argument is not in this form and it is hard to imagine that the argument would be so well known at this point, before any written gospels, that the writer could leave out the minor proposition and conclusion and have the readers get it.

Likewise, it is more likely that the passion narrative was later changed to match the third day rising referred to in this passage. The passion narrative gives no reason for Mary delaying her trip to the tomb for a day, which suggests that in the original narrative Mary visited as soon as possible -- early the next morning after the crucifixion.

Tertullian around 206 refers the passage to a passage in Hosea.

Anti Marcion IV 4:43 J. Winjgaards very astutely points out that this passage in Hosea is formulaic and convenantal (Death and Resurrection in Covenantal Context (Hos. VI 2)
J. Wijngaards Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 17, Fasc. 2. (Apr., 1967), pp. 226-239.):


Winjgaard suggests that the passage in Hosea refers to the death of the nation of Israel and the hope/promise that Yahweh will bring Israel back to life as part of a new covenant he will make with her.

Assuming Tertullian and Winjgaards are correct, the striking question that occurs in looking in the passage in Paul, is: "How did the death and resurrection of Israel" get transformed into the "death and resurrection of the Christ."

My hypothesis would be that the subjugation of the Jews to Rome forced a strange transposition in certain zealous Jews views of Israel and the Christ. The Jews were looking for a Christ (king/Messenger from God) to save them from the Romans. Their instrument for predicting the future was reading the scriptures. However, the scriptures really weren't about the Messiah, they were mainly about Israel. Still, if one really wants a revelation, one can ignor the obvious reading and imagine that God was putting in a secret message that only the specially chosen ones could see. One can take it that this is simply the methodology of the Pauline community.

The "Third Day" reference is the real puzzler. Does it refer to simply the idea of "a short amount of time," as, perhaps, originally intended in Hosea, or is it related to dying and rising Gods like Adonis, Tammuz and Isis who rise in three days? I would suggest that the primary reference is to the concept of a short amount of time, but the writer would have been aware of these other heroes and would not have been adverse to having people understand that Yahweh had the same powers as these other Gods.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spin

The third day indication is definitely post-Marcan. Mark cites three days and three nights, then shows Jesus was buried at the beginning of the sabbath in Jewish counting to have disappeared by Sunday before light, a total of a day and a half. The later gospels using Mark "corrected" the "after three days" to "on the third day", still wrong but more arguable. Paul didn't write from a post-Marcan perspective.


spin

Malachi151

"The Twelve" is also certainly post-Markan.

spin

I'd guess so, but certainly the clear separation between the twelve and the apostles is uniquely Lucan, so it is also post-Marcan. Along with a few others I've mentioned elsewhere, but am too rushed to find them now...


spin