spin

First, if 15:3-11 had been there, there would not have been a need for the logic of what starts in 15:12. Paul is trying to convince his readers about the necessity of christ's death and resurrection. If there'd been these nice post-resurrection witnesses, the need to convince wouldn't be there.

The logic of 15:12-19 is to me typically Pauline in its style.

Your discourse problem doesn't seem convincing to me: I see no great connection between the end of ch.14 and the start of ch.16. What you intimate is that Paul isn't allowed to change the topic -- though he does so frequently.


spin

spin

Which get called "harmonized" quotes.

I tend to shy away from claims of "common sense" in analyses of the distant past. Notions of common sense change with time. And what seems common sense to you today, may not fit the reality of the time.

...Jewish Bible... god.

This certainly seems reasonable to me, for scripture to him would be the Hebrew bible. But would the Paul of those works considered mainly his have had the same reasoning?


spin

aa5874

What we have here is not an interpolation but an indication that the letter was written after the Jesus stories.

The church writers place Paul after the Jesus stories, the author of Acts place Paul after the ascension of Jesus and the letter writer called Paul placed himself after Jesus ascended to heaven.

In almost all the letters, the writer claimed that Jesus was crucified, died and was resurrected.

In order to show that 1 Cor 15.3-11 is an interpolation it must be shown that the letter writer could not have seen or heard information about Jesus at the time of writing the letter.

Now, the time of writing of the letter to the Corinthians is uncertain, there is no external corroborative source for the writer.

The claim that the words "according to the scriptures" are likely to be interpolations is very weak, since it would mean that anywhere a writer introduces some new phrase into his work then all new phrases are likely to be interpolations.

1 Cor 15.3-11 is considered an interpolation, if the letter writer is assumed to be early 1st century, but there is no hard evidence to verify such assumption. So the claim of interpolation is really an assumption based on another assumption.

spamandham

You are extracting a portion of the text and arguing that it flows better without it therefor the extracted portion is an interpolation, but when I do the exact same thing you find it unconvincing because Paul has ADHD?

The argument that all of chapter 15 is inauthentic is not based soley on the discontinuity it introduces between chapters 14 and 16. Chapter 15 is suspicious for several other reasons as well. The complete case is summarized as:

1. The introduction has Paul claiming to be reminding his readers of what he taught them. This is suspicious because it's the tact you would expect a later writer to use to have Paul speak his words.

2. The words then spoken in 3-11 are in fact out of character for the rest of Paul's writings, but not out of character for chapter 15

3. 3-8 appear to be a creed, which is anachronistic

4. Vs. 8 has Jesus appearing last to Paul, as part of the same set of teachings that were supposedly handed down to Paul.

5. All the discussion about resurrection bodies in Chapter 15 is totally out of character with the rest of Paul's writings

6. In Chapter 15, Jesus is referred to as the firstfruits, because he is the first to be resurrected. This is unharmonious with Paul's other usages of the expression (Rom. 8:23 and Romans 11:16), where it refers to the body of believers not the body of Jesus.

7. What the hell is all that business about baptism for the dead!?

8. The eschatology discussions in 24-28 and 50-52 are out of place in comparison to the rest of Paul's writings.

9. 1 Cor. 14 flows right into chapter 16. 15 interrupts that flow.

Individually, none of these might be compelling, but as I group, I believe they are.

spamandham

That's possible, but Paul does regularly draw upon the Jewish scriptures to make various points throughout his letters, so if what you are saying is true, it has wide spread ramifications.

The idea of the death and resurrection of the messiah as well as general resurrection can indeed be found in the Jewish scriptures, so this isn't Paul referring to his own writings as scripture. The death is depicted in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, and the resurrection idea comes form Isaiah 26:19, Job 19:25-26, and Daniel 12:2. (Psalm 22, when read by first/second century Jews, would obviously describe a crucifixion,and so it formed the basis of the crucifixion in the Gospels). So if we do allow Paul to reference Jewish scriptures, then the claim that Jesus' death and resurrection are in accordance with them rings true.

Ben C Smith

The explanation I have been toying with recently runs as follows:

1. The tradition of the twelve is spread; none of them is imagined as a betrayer. (We find this concept in 1 Corinthians 15, in the Ascension of Isaiah, and in the apocalypse of John.)
2. Separately, the tradition of Judas (or a betrayer of some kind) is spread; but he is not imagined to be one of the twelve; he is one of the other followers.
3. The traditions merge when someone assumes (perhaps under the influence of Psalm 41.9) that the betrayer had to be one of the twelve; hence the eleven.

The persistence of the twelve in the tradition indicates to me that the twelve may well be earlier than the eleven.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Why are they called that? If they do not agree with any extant text, what are they being harmonized with?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

You know, I think I will cross swords with you on this one... sort of. I actually think a decent case for interpolation can be made here. I cannot say that it convinces me (yet), but it is stronger here than for a lot of the other interpolations I have seen proposed (including a number of yours ).

So let me do 4 things here:

1. Help tighten up the case for an interpolation theory by giving it textual support.
2. Bring one extra objection against any interpolation theory that I have not seen adequately addressed.
3. Dispute most of your specific arguments as weak, inconclusive, or even pointed in the other direction.
4. Confirm at least one of your arguments as a good one.

Fair enough?

This is where I would like to help tighten up your theory. I think, with some slight modifications, you can get textual support for it. Detering points the way; his reconstruction of the Marcionite text runs as follows (parts of verses 3-4 and verse 11):

For I delivered to you at the first that Christ died and was buried and was raised again on the third day. So we preach and so you believed.

I am not finished with my study on this text as reflecting Marcion, but the parts I have checked so far have panned out.

Notice how we now have the content of the gospel announcement, answering to the I make known to you in verse 1, but the content corresponds completely to what we have from Paul elsewhere, with one exception, to wit, the third day.

Fortunately, I think your arguments on the third day are among your weakest in the set. I think after three days and on the third day simply meant the same thing to the Semitic mind; each part of a day was counted as a whole day, so that after three days could be and was after part of day one, all of day two, and part of day three. Since this seems to have been a Semitic peculiarity, it makes sense that Paul, writing to gentiles, might use the more Hellenistic way of expressing the time period while Mark, preserving all that Aramaic and Hebrew flavor in his gospel, might use the more Semitic way.

In short, following the Marcionite text gives you both (A) early textual support for the interpolation and (B) the actual content of the Pauline gospel (with the emphasis on the resurrection part of it for the rest of the chapter), and all you have to do is to give up the notion that one way of expressing the three days is more primitive than the other. Alternately, you could possibly argue that Marcion himself added the on the third day part. But I would have to see the argument (based hopefully at least on the Marcionite gospel, which I have not looked into with regard to the three days) before giving an opinion on how strong it is.

It is true that this exact phrase does not appear elsewhere in Paul, but he does elsewhere refer to the scripture(s) alone, without filling out the exact reference or quotation (Galatians 3.22; Romans 1.2). Besides, if he is summarizing previous preaching as he explicitly says, he would not need to give the references; presumably he already gave them in person.

Or suggesting a time when Cephas had a special position in the Jerusalem church. See Galatians 1-2. This part of the statement, right down to calling him Cephas, seems to me to fit in perfectly with the rest of Paul.

Besides, you have a methodological problem here, I think. In other arguments you see notions not surviving into the gospel era as a stroke against authenticity; in this case, the notion does survive into the gospel era (with a special appearance to Peter promised in Mark and mentioned in Luke, yet you still use it as an argument against authenticity.

Overall, arguments based on which ideas survived and which did not are precarious.

As I mentioned in another post, I think the twelve may be the more primitive tradition.

This is a good argument. It is weird that such a tradition would be dropped, but not weird that it might be added. Perhaps you could see if you agree with Detering that there is (or may be) a connection with the 500 soldiers in the Acts of Pilate.

This one I just do not get. At all. So some of the original brethren have died in the 2 decades or so since the events? But most of them are still alive? This agrees with other statements Paul makes about the eschaton, which is expected so soon that some or most will still be alive when it happens.

The figure of James did survive into the gospel era, and well beyond. That he is not present in the gospels as a church leader simply means that he was not a leader at that time; but he certainly was later on.

All of the nongospel traditions you identify are puzzling to me. We have plenty of evidence for apostles and the twelve not being coterminous groups, some of it even from one of the gospels (Luke 10).

If the passage is genuine, he has simply added his own name to the end of the list, along with an explanation that is lacking for the others on the real list.

I am not sure how we would determine whether compiling a list of appearances is necessarily post-Pauline.

His case is not for the resurrection of Jesus; he assumes the Corinthians believe in that much and uses it in a reductio ad absurdum argument. The issue at stake is the general resurrection.

I think Romans 16.26 is an interpolation, too, and that is why I did not list it above. But there is still Romans 1.2.


Here is where I find a possible glitch in any interpolation hypothesis, whether yours or that of Detering.

In 1 Corinthians 15.1-2 Paul speaks of the gospel he preached, using the first person singular (I). But in verses 14-15 (and in verse 11 in the Detering reconstruction) he uses the first person plural (we). Now, I have no problem with the we referring either to Paul alone (in an epistolary sense) or to Paul and Sosthenes (see 1.1); nor do I even have an insurmountable problem with Paul switching from singular to plural. But it does seem awfully convenient that the alleged interpolation just happens to fill out the we so nicely, exactly along the lines of the canonical verse 11.

Ben.

spin

Well, you know how the Diatessaron is harmonized and the gospel materials used by Justin are harmonized and these latter are our first gospel-like citations...


spin

spin

You don't seem to be addressing the issue I was dealing with and that is the fact that the gospel tradition moves from "after three days" (as seen in Mark and Q) to "on the third day". I don't get into the apologetics around how they have the same or different meanings, but into the fact that "after three days" was the earlier tradition. Dealing with text development we don't like improvements that go A > B > A. That simply isn't convincing. The form in the passage represents the latter form. That's simple and difficult to overcome, yet involves no apologetics comfort zones.

Gal 3:22, really dealing with torah observance, is not relevant here. Rom 1:2 tells us that the gospel of god was promised beforehand: it is not confirming specific events, as is the case in 1 Cor 15.

This idea contradicts Gal 1:11f, which tells us where Paul received his gospel and it wasn't received from other people.

I'm not talking about a Jerusalem church here, but some more organized or established religion.

All the gospels are adamant that it was one or more women first to see the risen Jesus. Putting Cephas at the beginning smacks of polemic. There would be no point in later inventing a first visit by women if a visit by Cephas/Peter was already in the tradition. It's a species of lectio difficilior.

Mark makes Peter look like a dolt. That's different from giving him pre-eminence, putting him at the head of a chain that has Paul at the other end and separate from the twelve. The list is literary while being propagandistic.

That's a little too simplistic a representation of the issues.

That's not the issue, but while you're here which is the more veracious tradition? (Well, that's not the issue either, but it'll titillate the fundie. )

Of course the twelve is more primitive than the eleven -- the eleven presupposes the twelve. But again all the gospels agree that it was one of the twelve who betrayed Jesus. If the twelve here were part of the original tradition regarding post-resurrection traditions, then the most logical approach would have been to have had a 12b set up to take over when Judas took the leap. That way, you preserve the twelve. Once traditions are set, believers are so creative within the limits of the dogma. You've seen the whackiness of modern believers who feel compelled to defend the veracity of the word against reason and science. If the twelve at the resurrection were part of the tradition there is no reason not to maintain them.

I'll think about this one some more because of 1 Thes 4:13.

It's like we have two gangs, a Cephas gang and a James gang ( ). This James was part of the b-team.

Interesting, isn't it? Neither Matthew nor Mark knows nothing about the b-team. It should be clear that we are dealing in Luke with variations of the same tradition one from Mark and one from Q, though the Lucan writer didn't recognize the fact. This is clearly a post-Marcan manifestation. Your reaction is puzzling to me.

It is not a resurrection appearance at all. If the list were kosher, Paul would have been aware of the shift from flesh-and-blood to vision.

Umm, a creed is not just a list.

That's what 15:12ff is all about and much of it wouldn't have been necessary had 15:3-11 already been in the text.

Aren't the "we", Paul, Apollos and Cephas who have appeared frequently in this letter? He talks about their proselytizing throughout the letter.


spin