Vivisector

Paul should always rank high among history's more creative interpreters of Jewish scripture. I simply question whether that's what happened in this case, as a result of my inability to identify a scripture that would suffice for Paul's purposes and even after creative interpretation similar to the examples you provided.

Besides, even in the examples you cite, Paul quotes the scriptures, which we can verify even today. In this case, Paul doesn't quote the scripture, and we can't find an obvious (or perhaps even a very good) fit today.

Cheers,

V.

aa5874

The rising of heavenly bodies appears to predated the gospel stories.
This is Philo, from a fragment of Chrysippus of Eurippides in " A treatise concerning the World", chapter XI:

Based on this passage, once Jesus was regarded as an heavenly being, then he was required to return to heaven after his supposed death.

gstafleu

OK, so what would your suggestion be for the scriptures that are at the base of "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"? (It doesn't matter here if "according to the Scriptures" means that Christ was following the script or that this is where Paul got the idea, we still need the scriptures.)

Gerard Stafleu

gurugeorge

But in this case, the main subject isn't Paul, it's Paul's predecessors, the Jerusalem crowd - Paul's creativity gives us some idea of how whacky these things can get. But we have no idea what sorts of interpretation Cephas, etc., indulged in.

Only we do know that they must have had some kind of interpretation - whether we're talking in an HJ or AJ scenario, if the Paul text isn't an interpolation, something is meant by "according to scripture".

(And, my hobby horse - there's no reason to make this an HJ scenario because there's no connection between any of the Jerusalem people and some human being Messiah - it's just that the Messiah "appeared" to them, there's no hint of him being known by them as a human being before then. This tends to make the very nubby origin of the thing AJ/MJ, simply a revised idea of the Messiah, a Messiah as mythical as the ordinary one, only projected in the past instead of projected in the future.)

Ben C Smith

The messiah died for our sins... in accordance with Isaiah 53.4-5.

The messiah was raised on the third day... in accordance with Hosea 6.2 (the third day) and Isaiah 26.19; Ezekiel 37.5-6; Daniel 12.2-3 (resurrection in general). (And I have already mentioned how what happens to Israel happens to the messiah; see Matthew 2.15, for instance, which takes a prooftext about Israel from Hosea 11.1 and applies it to Jesus.)

Ben.

gstafleu

Not wanting to be seen as one who just asks questions without offering at least an avenue to pursue, let me here quote some other (than the OT) scripture which depicts a scene rather similar to to the Jesus passion (from Inana's descent to the nether world):

Nincubura then toddles off to Enki, who helps resurrect Inanna.

I will here manfully forgo the temptation to point out that, after performing her "dance" of the seven veils, Inanna is convicted by a bunch of judges, much like the combination of the Sanhedrin and Pilate, and dies without her clothes on, much like Jesus on the cross (Luke: "And they divided His garments and cast lots." You have to take the clothes off before you can divide them). Rather I'll just point out that here too the resurrection takes place after three days. Not surprising, as three days is the period during which the new moon, after dying at the end of its monthly cycle, stays invisible in the "underworld," only to be resurrected as a crescent on or after (depending on how acute your vision is) the third day.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

Sure. We use the clearer cases to elucidate the less clear.

(Incidentally, I do not think that it was Paul himself in this case being creative; I think this section came to him pretty much already formed. But scriptural creativity is not limited to Paul; Matthew, for example, is probably even more creative. Creativity is a standard feature of early Christian prooftexting, virtually across the board.)

Hosea 6.2 is obvious. The LXX has εν τη ημερα τη τριτη αναστησομεθα (in the day, the third one, we shall be resurrected). 1 Corinthians 15.4 has εγηγερται τη ημερα τη τριτη (he was raised on the day, the third one). Just as Matthew 2.15 took Israel in Hosea 11.1 and changed it to the messiah, Paul here takes Israel (we) in Hosea 6.2 and changes it to the messiah.

(The interchangeability for Paul of raising and resurrection is established; see 1 Corinthians 15.12.)

Ben.

Vivisector

That's a good point, obviously. I simply haven't arrived at a solid set of conclusions about what the Jerusalem crowd believed, let alone how they arrived at their beliefs. Some beliefs we can infer from Paul, but others seem more difficult. More specifically, it's not an ironclad fact (at least in my mind) that Paul found the Jerusalem group in possession of a fully-developed and scripturally-supported Christology of the type he advocates.

This seems to assume that the Jerusalem group had a high Christology, and I don't know if this can be demonstrated. I think it's more likely that Paul's Christology was of a higher variety, possibly due to his own study/reflection/revelation, contact with others (Hellenists?), or both. I also don't want to discount the possibility of a gloss/interpolation, though I'm mindful of the risk of this being a lazy solution to the issue.

Cheers,

V.

Vivisector

Out of curiosity, where do you think Paul might have gotten it from?

As to the remainder, thanks - certainly worthy of thought, which I'll give it on my drive to the airport.

Cheers,

V.

gurugeorge

But we're told by Paul what they believed in this very credo, because this very credo is something he says he has "received" (paralambon I think the Greek word is) in a sense that's tied in with the idea of it being "passed down from people", not from the sense of revelation he uses elsewhere when he talks about his own "twist" on the thing (its universalisability, its spreadability to the Gentiles without the necessity for winkie-cutting, etc.)

(This is indeed part of the very discussion that's been raging between spin and Amaleq13 elsewhere, and I must admit I side with Amaleq13 on it - if you take the passage as genuine and have no good external reason to doubt it, which I don't, apart from the "Paul persecuted them before" bit, but that's another story.)