Steven Carr

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is writing to Christians who doubt the resurrection from the dead.

Why had they become Christians? Hadn't they heard the stories of Jesus's resurrection, or the stories of the resurrection of Lazarus?

Mageth

Speculating, but it's possible that at least some of the believers in Corinth were embracing Christian Gnostic beliefs; some Christian Gnostics, for example, did not believe in a physical resurrection. Compare 2 Timothy 2:16-18. Hymenaeus and Philetus were Gnostic teachers.

The footnotes on this site attempt to explain some of the reasons for 1 Cor. 15.

And see here for footnotes on the 2 Timothy reference.

Amaleq13

Paul seems to be differentiating between the resurrection of Christ and the general resurrection expected to accompany the End Times. Paul repeatedly describes Christ's resurrection as the "firstfruits" which suggests the End was near and the rest of the "fruits" (i.e. general resurrection) would soon follow.

The Corinthians may have been denying that the resurrection of Christ was a sign of The End coming soon or they may have been denying the notion of the general resurrection, itself.

Steven Carr

I'm not sure I follow your point. What sort of differentiation do you mean? Surely the Corinthians would already know that the resurrection of Jesus had happened before everybody else was resurrected.



Or they may have been denying that Jesus was raised, on the grounds that nobody is raised from the dead.

As Paul stresses that Jesus was resurrected, he can hardly have been speaking to people who accepted that Jesus was resurrected, and merely denied that it was a sign of the end.

People who knew the Gospel stories would hardly have needed to ask with what sort of body people are raised.

the_quark

There is a theory - about which I am not an expert and cannot defend claims in any way; I provide my best recollection of it here for your entertainment.

The theory is that Jesus wasn't a historical figure, crucified, or not. The idea is that the "Jesus Myth" dates back to prior to 0 AD, and that, in the original versions, Jesus wasn't a literal man. As this story evolved, eventually, into the current biblical story of a literal man who was literally killed and raised from the dead, you then had some sects which were "Christian" and only believed some portions of the modern Christian myth. These needed to be converted to the latest version, and that's what you see in that letter.

I want to make it clear that I am not a Bible History scholar and will make no effort to defend this position, as I have no facts at hand to defend it.

TQ

Amaleq13

I agree but there appears to be a differentiation implied between the resurrection of Christ and that of anybody else. Within the context of a mythical Jesus (e.g. Doherty) the basis for that differentiation seems obvious. Within the context of an historical Jesus, however, it isn't so obvious. Perhaps they considered the raising of Jesus to be unique to him because of the Son/Messiah aspect. Perhaps it is only a denial that the resurrection of Christ signalled the beginning of The End. The latter would seem to be consistent with the beliefs of the Christians who produced the Gospel of Thomas, for example. They seem to have opposed eschatalogical beliefs in assocation with beliefs in Christ.

Paul doesn't seems to assume that they did believe in the resurrection of Christ. I think his argument would be significantly different if he thought they were denying the resurrection of Christ. We would expect him to focus on the Scripture in which he believed this information was revealed, for example.

He seems to assume they did believe that Christ was resurrected and expects them to accept resurrection, in general, on this basis.

I agree but there is no good reason to assume the Gospel stories existed at the time.

Steven Carr

If they didn't believe in the resurrection of Christ, why did they become Christians.

Amaleq13

Sorry. The "doesn't" doesn't belong in that sentence.

It should have read:

Paul seems to assume that they did believe in the resurrection of Christ.

Toto

Is this a trick question?

Does Paul ever use the term Christian - to refer to himself or to others?

1 Corinthians starts:

church of God = ?

If we can identify the Church of God as early Christianity, it is not clear that the basis of this church was the same as the Nicene creed-defined later Christianity. It presumably contained gnostics or proto-gnostics or those for whom Jesus was a spiritual entity, or maybe even those who only knew the Baptism of John, or perhaps other members of a Jewish sect that decided to be the Church of God.

Vorkosigan

Yes, that was Ellegaard's point, that the language that these groups used to refer to each other was different for Paul. He called them "the Elect" or the "Church of God" and thus the early groups may not map onto the later ones. The early beliefs of those Churches must have been in considerable flux, with many schisms and splits, and rival missionary groups criss-crossing each other, before Orthodoxy destroyed its rivals.

In any case, Steve's question is excellent. Whether you regard it as "Christian" or "Church of God" the question remains that Paul obviously considered them part of his movement, and they considered themselves part of his movement, yet they did not share that most important of beliefs. When I read Paul I get the sense of someone working with established churches that were ancestral to his belief, and he is working to change their thinking over to his system, just as the Arians worked in Catholic Churches, or Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses proselytize among modern Christians.