Solo

A mini-mystery of 2 Corinthians 10:14: does Paul say or hint he was the first one who preached Christ at Corinth ? Evidently, the English translators do not agree on the effect of the verb φθανω (in the active aorist εφθασαμεν). Some, like NASB and RSV, read the verb as indicating that Paul preceeded other apostles to Corinth, others (NIV, ASV, Darby) follow KJV in restricting the form as meaning 'in preaching the gospel Christ I did come as far as you' (ergo, I am not overextending my authority over you).

I hope people realize the importance of this. If Paul truly wants to claim he preceeded other apostles in coming to Corinth, then of course 'the Christ party' in 1 Cr 1:1 is a rhetorical vehicle, an ideal state of unity Paul strove for. There are other interesting implications of Paul's introducing Jesus Christ to Corinth.

Anyone here knows any text commentary that may shed light on this ? Thanks in advance.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

It is not chronologically plausible that those who wrote about the activities of Jesus after his RESURRECTION and ASCENSION predated those who wrote about his conception, birth, miracles, crucifixion and death.

The Pauline writers claimed on many times that Jesus died and was raised from the dead it must be expected that his audience already KNEW or believed Jesus lived before he died.

The Pauline writers have settled the matter. The FAITH was preached before the Pauline writers became PREACHERS of the same FAITH.

Ga 1:23 - By the words of the Pauline writers it cannot be shown that they were the first to preach the FAITH anywhere.

Iskander

This book will answer your question.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (or via: amazon.co.uk), Augmented Third Edition, New Revised Standard Version by Oxford University Press - 5 April 2007

Solo

Correct.

If Paul wrote that passage - it has been disputed on grounds that Tertullian's version of the Galatians does not know about about the "first visit" to Jerusalem - it would still have to be shown that "faith" in Jesus the Christ (a la Paul), in fact is the "faith" in Jesus, the Nazarene holy man and martyr of the last days. Paul (if it is Paul) says it is. But the Galatians show also that Paul believes he, and he alone, possesses "the gospel" and the God-given revelation about Jesus.

Jiri

aa5874

If you don't really know what Paul wrote, when he wrote it and what he meant then your arguments are baseless.

Did Paul write 2 Corinthians 10.14? When did Paul write that verse and what does he mean by the "gospel of Christ"? Was not the "gospel of Christ" preached BEFORE Paul was converted?

There is no source apologetic, non-apologetic or the very writers themselves that can show that "Paul" was the first to know about Jesus or preach about Jesus.

The fiction story of Saul/Paul is CAST in Stone. You cannot re-write the story. It is CLEAR.

Saul/Paul the author of ALL the Pauline Epistles was converted by a bright light when Jesus spoke to him after the very Jesus was RAISED from the dead and had ascended to heaven.

You simply cannot attempt to make stuff up now. The story has been written. Why don't you simply accept it as fiction and move on.

The Pauline writers have fundamentally corroborated the fiction in Acts.

Paul claimed he was the last to see Jesus why do you think he was the first when he saw Jesus after he was supposed to be dead?

Did not the first bishop of Rome the apostle Peter follow Jesus while he was on earth and did not "Paul" write about Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days in Jerusalem? See Galatians 1.18-19.

The Pauline writings do not say Paul was the first to know Christ or the gospel of Christ.

Galatians 2.7 Peter got his gospel from Jesus when he was supposedly on earth and Paul got his gospel from Jesus after he was RAISED from the dead and ascended to heaven.

Peter knew and PREACHED the gospel BEFORE Paul in their fiction novels.

It cannot be shown that "Paul" preached to anybody first when he was not the first to preach the gospel of Christ in their own story books.

maryhelena

The NT storyline is first the gospel Jesus and then Paul' conversion and his job of preaching to the gentiles.

Working the other way around - first the writing of Paul (as, seemingly, it is his letters that are the earliest christian documents re dating) then the traditional storyline is put into question.

So, not being able, because of the dating of the early documents, to read the gospel storyline into Paul - one also has to put Q aside. One cannot read any of the supposed Q communities into Paul.

Paul says there were others prior to his time - that he was late to the party. Consequently, what the belief system was of those who preceded Paul - the gospel storyline is not going to tell us, it is no use. Whatever it was, Paul is going to change its focus and direction. Paul gets his good news from no man. Transformation is what Paul is after not toeing the party line. Personally, I'm beginning to think it was more a case of 'Paul' being within the party already - and became it's heretic - became the one to insist that his 'vision' was the only way forward. Thus, he 'persecuted' the old ideas and got into conflict with the 'pillars'.

The storyline re Paul being converted and then going all out to cause havoc with insisting on his 'vision' is not really such a plausible scenario. Newcomers don't usually seek to overturn the applecart! 'Paul' is late to the party - 'Paul' is late to the NT party which has the gospel storyline preceding him! (can also be late in years as well ie possibly older men than he were running the show while he was growing up - born into it sort of thing...)

Eventually, Paul's 'vision' won out - laying the groundwork for the gospel Jesus storyboard.

Thus:
1. early groups/communities believing XYZ
2. a heretic within that group has a vision ABC
3. conflict
4. vision ABC wins out (XYZ mostly gets sidelined....)
5. new dispensation with new ABCYZ charter - the mythological gospel Jesus storyboard with it's follow on 'Paul' storyline.
6. thus the 'end', the new ABCYZ charter, becomes the new 'beginning'.
7. in time this new ABCYZ charter, the pseudo-historical origin story of the new 'beginning', becomes viewed as historical fact instead of theological/spiritual 'truth'.

"Was Paul the first one preaching Christ in Corinth ?".
Who knows - and methinks it's not going to be some translation of the Greek words that is going to provide the answer! Ambiguity seems to be par for the course re the whole NT storyline...

maryhelena

aa5874 - you are very good at showing up how illogical it is to try and resolve the 'mystery' of the NT storyline by quoting or trying to interpret that storyline with it's own words! If we are using those "story books", as our template for researching the early origins of christianity, we will continue to go around in circles - one interpretation after the other. The major concern is not what words are within the pages of that NT storyline - the major concern is what history could possibly have led to the creation of that storyline. All we see in the NT is an interpretation, a prophetic evaluation, a theological/spiritual spin, of that historical time period.

Unfortunately, the history of that time period is not easily established - due to the 'helping hand' provided by the writing of Josephus. It is Josephus we should be after - rather than forever spinning around with the carousel of NT interpretations. And if we disregard the NT storyline re 'Paul' being an immediate, chronological, follow on to the Jesus storyline - then the 'Paul' story can be very much later - making 'Paul' into a contemporary of Josephus - or whoever it is that is writing under that name...

andrewcriddle

This isn't I'm afraid a comment on 2 Corinthians 10:14; but on the general point of Paul being the first Christian preacher at Corinth, the discussion of the relation of Paul's ministry to that of Apollos in 1 Corinthians 3 (I planted Apollos watered) seems to be a claim that Paul was preaching first, or at least before Apollos came to Corinth.

Andrew Criddle

Solo

Thanks, maryhelena but I have really no interest in the Q speculations. Paul deals with Jesus missions which originate in Jerusalem.

There definitely was a group (or groups) preaching some kind of Jesus before Paul. Paul says he was opposed to them and 'persecuted' them. What changed his mind was what he believed was a revelation about the object of the idolatrous cult. He ignored the Jerusalem James assembly and by the looks of it tried to create parallel organizations of "saints". He then had another revelation to join up with the James' apostolic group, went to Jerusalem but was given cold shoulder by the inner core of the assembly and referred to the "so-called" pillars. (who it is painfully clear from the Galatians that Cephas, John and James (the Zebedee James) were not leaders in Jerusalem). They demanded that Paul collect money for James the Just' saints, evidently as a condition of Paul's acceptance. We don't know what happened. The idea that Paul became a bona fide member the church and shared with it its theology and liturgy, is introduced in Acts and through some interpolations into Paul's genuine letters. Paul, IMO does not say that at all.

What is your evidence that the 'gospel storyline' preceded Paul, maryhelena ? For that matter what is the evidence that anyone else used the word 'gospel' in Paul's time the way he used it ?

I believe something similar except I don't think of Paul as a 'heretic' in the James' church. Paul does not have a 'storyline' and I am not sure about that the YZ in the synthesis. Mark creates a storyline out of Paul's sayings, maxims and paradoxes. Mark evidently weaves in the apocalyptic "son of man" into Paul to make Paul's Jesus more "authentic" to the Petrine followers from who Mark demands capitulation to Paul's cross: "...to those outside everything is in parables (i.e. the whole gospel is an allegory) so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may ineed hear but not understand, lest they should turn again (i.e. repent) and be forgiven" (Mk 4.11). Note that this speech is made not to the Twelve but those who were "with Jesus and the Twelve" and it is made when Jesus is alone (!!!), ie. to the faithful intimately. From this expose of the function of parables by Mark, I have come to believe that there were no traditional parables by Jesus. They are a rhetorical technique put into the mouth of Jesus by the NT authors and Thomas. As I said, I am not so sure about the rest of the YZ.

Should I take that as an offer of spiritual guidance ?

Best,
Jiri

maryhelena

No 'evidence' - I was referring to the NT storyline - a storyline which has the gospel story, chronologically, prior to Paul' conversion. I'm quite happy to put the whole Jesus storyline in Paul' hands.....

If the dating of Paul' written letters is pre the dating of the gospels - I'm fine with that. Actually, either way, gospels pre or post Paul, it seems to be rather a case of which came first the chicken or the egg. It's the Jesus storyline that is relevant - not the dating of any piece of it...

As Steve Mason has pointed out - the 'gospel', the good news according to Paul is unique to Paul' take on things.
Sure, Mark is creating a storyline out of Paul' story/vision etc. It's the pre-Paul scenario that is more important for trying to fathom the early history of christian origins. It's the YZ that needs to be settled before we play interpretative games with the follow on gospel, Mark, storyline from Paul...

No way - spiritual 'guidance' is not my interest at all