spin

We've had a lot of discussion in the past over 1 Cor 15:3-11 or, more restrictedly, 15:2-8. I have always worked under the understanding that this is a questionable passage, now here I'll say it is an interpolation. (Now lots of people get uppity because there is no Greek manuscript evidence for an interpolation here, but such an argument in itself works on the unstated assumptions that although there were lots of interference with the biblical texts during the era represented in the manuscript tradition, there wasn't any before then. I hope we can all agree that that is simply another argument based on silence.)

The original form of the passage I think is as follows:

1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. [..] 12 But if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. [..] 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

The interpolation is straightforward in that it implies no change to the surrounding text.

But why should I consider that 15:3-11 is an interpolation? I'll consider here only verses 15:3-8, for once they go 9-11 can't stand by themselves. Here is an annotated presentation of the data.

1. according to the scriptures: Paul is fond of citing his sources when dealing with Hebrew bible material. The only place he instead uses this generic phrase, a creedal favorite, in all his writings is here, twice.
2. on the third day: the earliest gospel traces use the phrase "after three days" (see presentation in recent thread), so "on the third day" should be seen as later christian tradition.
3. Cephas: this figure is placed separately from the twelve and is privileged in such placement, suggesting a time when Cephas/Peter had a special position in the christian tradition.
4. the twelve: this is not the tradition that has come down to us for there were only eleven according to the gospel accounts at the time, so it wasn't part of the earliest tradition.
5. five hundred brethren: not part of the earliest tradition and not known by the gospels as they didn't take up such a phenomenal appearance.
6. some have fallen asleep: obviously post-Pauline coming to terms with the non-arrival of the eschaton. (Related to 15:18.)
7. James: this figure, not included among the twelve, reflects another non-gospel tradition which if known at the time of Paul, didn't survive into the gospel era.
8. the apostles: a group separate from the twelve and another non-gospel tradition
9. He appeared also to me: this is a sudden shift from resurrection appearances apparently to Paul's vision

There are two types of information here, dating issues and information problems. The dating issues are all transparent: 1) the ascendancy of Cephas/Peter, 2) the post-Marcan "on this day" and 3) those fallen asleep being the post-Pauline acknowledgment that the eschaton hadn't come. The non-gospel nature of the appearance to the whopping 500 makes the passage it is in clearly questionable.

If you have more issues that reflect on this passage feel free to add them. Mine is not meant as an exhaustive list, but one based on the simplest to present. (I could for example mention the creedal nature of the passage which suggests a post-Pauline organized religion... or the fact that if Paul knew about all these post-resurrection sightings, there would be no need to argue his case in 15:12ff.)

ETA: "according to the Scriptures" can be related to Romans 16:26, which mentions the generic "scriptures of the prophets", though this is another passage long thought to be an interpolation by Lightfoot, Renan, Hort et al.

Let swords be drawn.


spin

gurugeorge

"Now I make known to you" what, in your reading?

spin

He explains it in the negative. Christ died and was raised so that those who have faith (in him) will have a way out of sin and death.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
It's not just an argument based on silence. We have extant second century quotes from Fathers that don't agree to any extant text. We also have a license from Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons") to kill unorthodox writings of Paul as he claims that Paul sometimes gets carried away with the spirit and writes too fast resulting in transposed words. We also have the common sense observation that after Christianity gains control is when the significant extant manuscripts start. We have the "refutations" of the critics of Christianity but we don't have the criticism. Ad Nazorean.

Along these lyons we have indirect textual support for the assertion of this Thread. The orthodox confess to us that Marcion was something of an expert on Paul. The first to compile his letters. We also know that Marcion avoided the orthodox Forged letters of Paul. Marcion was honest compared to the orthodox in that he realized that the Christian Bible god could not be reconciled with the Jewish Bible. Therefore, his Paul would not have had "according to the Scripture".



Joseph

Ben C Smith

I am not sure I want to cross swords here and now on this topic, but I would like some clarification one point:

When you say at the time, what do you mean? Surely you think any authentic Paul would predate the gospels, right? So what do you do with the argument that the twelve are original, while the eleven are the later (gospel) development?

Ben.

spin

Sorry, yes, I guess "at the time" is a little confusing.

Had the "twelve" been part of the tradition at this early stage, it is hard to understand how the gospel tradition of eleven could have developed. If one supports the notion that there are authentic orally transmitted traditions in 1 Cor 15:3-11, then one negates the veracity of the gospel tradition eleven.

However, if this were more an orthodoxy edit then creedal notions rather than veracity can be understood. As you know creeds are meant to help people know what to believe, rather than to get into complexities such as veracity. The creedal nature of the passage is overwhelming.


spin

spin

If 3-11 were veracious, what would be your response to this question of yours?


spin

the_cave

On the contrary, it's easy: the character of Judas Iscariot was invented maybe.

Yes...that's true. So you uphold the veracity of the gospel tradition eleven?

It's hard for me to understand a creed that had no intended veracity.

If this were just an orthodox creedal edit, how could it be reconciled with the equally orthodox gospel tradition, present in canonical Matthew and Luke (and in the Longer Ending to Mark), that Jesus only appeared to eleven disciples? (Interesting that this may be linked to a Q tradition, with the Longer Ending to Mark as an assimilation.)

Now, I think there may have been a gospel tradition that didn't name the Eleven, rather than the Twelve--we see a glimpse of it in Jn 20, where Thomas is named as one of the Twelve. So I'm not saying the 1 Corinthians passage is authentic--but it doesn't know the tradition of the Eleven, hence it had no contact with the Q-Mt-Lk tradition, suggesting that even if it isn't authentic Paul, then it came fairly early in the tradition (contemporary perhaps with the earliest layers of gMark and gJohn.)

spin

This is Hyam Maccoby's opinion as well. So the betrayal tradition was not around to supply the responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus, yet post-resurrection stories were? Mark has the betrayal and no post-resurrection stories, so one should think that the betrayal came earlier.

I don't need to.

Belief subverts veracity. You believe who you trust and those who you trust reflect what you believe.

When something is added in long enough after the writing, the context may not be as important as the addition.

There is no appearance to the twelve though. It may be that the comment referred to Thomas being a member of the original twelve without having any relevance on the current discussion.

When the redactor of Luke who moved the hometown story prior to the introduction of Capernaum, it didn't seem to bother him that he was putting a secondary reference to Capernaum before the village was introduced. Changes can be careless of certain issues. Chronology may not have been important to the person responsible for the interpolation: there was a twelve before Jesus died and a twelve after he ascended. Hey, whoops, not from the death to the ascension. The redactor wins some and loses some.


spin

spamandham

I have argued here before (and still do), that the interpolation begins in vs. 1, and ends with vs. 58. Why does Paul need to tell them that he taught them this before? Is it really a reminder, or is it a later writer inserting an anachronism into the pen of Paul? I believe the latter, and the Reader's Digest version is that 1 Cor. 15, on whole, contains several ideas found no-where else in the Pauline corpus.

People such as Price have argued that vs. 3 is inconsistent with Paul's other claims that his gospel was revealed, and thus conclude an interpolation, which he has seen as ending in vs. 11. However, I say that if you read the rest of the chapter, it flows with the ideas of 3-11. This might argue that 3-11 are genuine if not for the fact that all of chapter 15 is so different from the rest of Paul's writings, and it so conveniently supports all the ideas of a later catholicising movement. I think an unbiased interpretation sees the whole chapter as a later insert.

As the nail in the cros..., er um, coffin, let's consider how 1 Cor would flow if 1 Cor 15 were removed altogether.

Chapter 14 discusses ideas like what they should do to properly speak in tongues, and to properly worship. Chapter 16 continues this theme of proper behavior. But what of chapter 15? Smack dab in the middle we have an inexplicable discussion of basic doctrines that certainly needed no explanation.

Look at the flow if we remove chapter 15 altogether:

(end of chapter 14)
Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

(start of chapter 16)
Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.

Contrast this when chapter 15 is inserted:

(end of chapter 14)
Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

(start of 15)
Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

(end of 15)
Therefore, my dear brothers, 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.

(start of 16)
Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.

In the first scenario, we have a seemless flow of commands about what to do from Paul to the Corinthians. In the 2nd scenario, we have that flow interrupted by a reminder of what his gospel is and to stand firm in it (including the bizarre stuff about baptism for the dead).

If there were no modern Christians, I think there would be universal agreement among scholars that chapter 15 is a later insert entirely, not just in part.