spamandham

His contention still stands. I simply disagree with his conclusion that vs. 11 is the end of the interpolation.

Inside 15.29, baptism for the dead is discussed, indicating (as in 2 Maccabees you referenced), that baptism itself was a precondition for salvation.

But elsewhere, Paul indicates baptism is a spiritual commitment, not a ritual.

1 Cor. 10:1-4
For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink

1 Cor. 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

1 Cor 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Gal. 3:26-28
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Rom. 6:4
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.


Surrogate baptism is incompatible with what Paul states elsewhere in regard to baptism. Is it possible that Paul was simply letting those zany Corinthians odd practices slide? Sure, but that isn't the simpler explanation in my mind. Paul has no qualms in general with correcting improper theology and practices, so the simpler explanation is someone else wrote this.

Ben C Smith

I have completely lost the thread here; I do not know anymore where you agree with Price and where you disagree with him. On the one hand, Price has no trouble with the rabbinical terminology (Paul even uses it elsewhere), but, on the other hand, you call this terminology an anachronism. On the one hand, Price sees a conflict between this passage and Galatians, but, on the other hand, you see none. Yet you say that his contention still stands. I do not know which contention you are referring to.

I do not think this follows, either for 1 Corinthians 15.29 or for 2 Maccabees 12.43-45.

And I think that this is a false dichotomy.

But this would lead into a much bigger discussion (Pauline baptism, its precedents, its intended effects, et cetera) than I have time for. Sorry.

I do not think Paul is here condoning not being baptized; I think he is saying that he does not care who does the baptizing (himself, Cephas, Apollos, whoever). In other passages he seems to assume that all believers have been baptized (1 Corinthians 12.13). This would be an unsafe assumption if baptism were deemed optional.

On the other hand, I doubt very much Paul would mind, say, the thief on the cross being justified without being baptized; circumstances were prevailing. This seems to have been the attitude the church fathers took, too; baptism was regarded as essential... but there were divine exceptions.

I disagree.

Yes (though this is not my preferred option). It is possible. These baptisms would give his argument much needed ammunition (especially in light of 2 Maccabees 12.43-45, which makes exactly the same point, namely that deeds for the dead are useless without the expectation of resurrection). First prove your point; then do the finetuning.

It is also possible that baptism for the dead was not Corinthian church practice at all, but rather was practiced by Jewish-Christian groups whom the Corinthians respected. (Recall that this verse is entirely in third person, and its very wording implies that such baptism is not universally practiced: Those who are baptized for the dead....)

Ben.

spamandham

I'm not making myself clear at all apparently. Where I agree with Price, is that 3 conflicts with Galatians. In particular, the idea that the creed was handed to Paul via rabbinical tradition directly opposes Paul's claims in Galations. This is sufficient evidence of interpolation to me.

Where I disagree with Price, is that I don't see a solid reason to end the interpolation at vs. 11. The creed, to me, sets up the rest of 1 Cor. 15 and flows with it. If 3-11 is an interpolation, it makes more sense to me that vss. 12-58 are part of that same interpolation.

Without going into what baptism meant to Paul, I don't think it's fair to lump him in with the attitude of the church fathers. From what I see in Paul's discussions of baptism, the thief on the cross (assuming Paul was even aware of that story) would have been baptized, in the same sense that the Israelites were...

1 Cor. 10:1-4
For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink.

Outside 1 Cor. 15, I don't see anything to indicate that baptism was some kind of ritual to Paul. It's a spiritual commitment, that might or might not have typically been associated with a ritual. Since a ritual is not necessary (as indicated in directly above), a ritual surrogate baptism for the dead doesn't fit.

Many things are possible, but I'm interested in the simplest (aka most probable) explanation. For Paul (or the author of 1 cor 15) to go off on baptism for the dead, if neither he nor his audience engaged in it, doesn't make a lot of sense.

Ben C Smith

This was not at all clear to me the first time through. It sounded as if you did not see the relevance of Galatians for determining any interpolation into 1 Corinthians 15. Thanks for clearing this up.

I think discussions on the term gospel in Galatians have cleared this matter up nicely.

In Corinthians, Paul is happy to side with all those apostles who came before him; they preached a gospel of resurrection, and so does he; it is the Corinthians who are odd men out.

In Galatians, Paul no longer has the rest of the Christian world behind him. His gospel, the gospel to the gentiles, came from no man.

If what he received from the Jerusalem group was death and resurrection, and what he received from personal revelation was death, resurrection, and gentiles, all is cleared up.

I am not lumping him in with the church fathers; I am giving what I think was his view on baptism, based solely on his own texts, and saying that this construction in turn is supported in the church fathers.

The thief on the cross was in the wilderness, following the rock around?

I do not understand the distinction. Baptism today, for example, in a liturgical church is both a spiritual commitment and a ritual.

What I am saying is that this single verse is obscure; the commentaries recognize this; it is bad business to base too much on one sentence of uncertain application.

Ben.

spamandham

I'm not sure what discussions regarding 'gospel' in Galatians you're referring to, but the idea that he's referring to only the death and resurrection aspect of his gospel to the Corinthians seems very speculative in light of his directly pointing out that both Jews and Greeks were called in 1 Cor 1:22-24.

Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

??? I assume this is an attempt at humor?

The distinction is, that baptism is an internal commitment, as proven by...

1 Cor. 10:1-4
For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink.

Here, Paul considers the Israelites baptized into Moses (the phrase baptized to/into is repeated multiple times by Paul in regard to baptism), as a result of them sharing the common spiritual experience, not as a result of some ritual.

Paul is flatly not referring to a ritual of baptism here. To the extent Paul engaged in a ritual of baptism as an outward sign, he obviously did not consider the ritual essential at least for those who could not engage in it - such as the ancient Jews or in this case, the dead. Since the ritual is not essential to salvation at least for those who can not engage in it, baptism for the dead makes no sense.

I think we're at an impasse on this one.

Recall I'm not starting with the presumption that the text is genuine. I do not require a lot of evidence to point to a different author.

From that perspective, this obscurity favors multiple authors. I don't think it's a matter of making too much of it.

Knowing as I'm sure you do, the degree of pseudepigraphical writings attributed to Paul, what then is the basis for an 'innocent until proven guilty' approach?

Ben C Smith

I am saying that the gospel being referred to in 1 Corinthians 15 is the gospel preached by his predecessors, and that means death and resurrection. Resurrection is the theme of the entire chapter; it is not unexpected that resurrection appearances are the theme of this particular instantiation of the gospel. (Meanwhile, gentile inclusion is the theme of the entire Galatian epistle; it is not unexpected that gentiles are the theme of that particular instantiation of the gospel. Refer, for example, to 3.8.)

Paul received the following gospel, in nuce, from his predecessors:

Jesus died (was crucified) for our sins.
Jesus was resurrected and appeared to many.

Paul virtually had to have known this much about the sect he was persecuting. Why persecute them if you do not even know enough about them to tell whether they agree with you or not?

But then he had an epiphany of some kind; the gospel that he received went something like this (again in nuce):

I, Jesus died (was crucified) for your sins, and for the sins of the gentiles.
Jesus was resurrected and appeared to many, including you now, so that you can go preach to the gentiles.

Under this scenario, which of the following constitutes preaching the gospel?

1. Jesus died for your sins.
2. Jesus was crucified.
3. Jesus rose again.
4. The gentiles may have their sins forgiven.

Answer: All of them.

When Paul says he preaches Christ crucified, he does not mean he does not preach gentile inclusion, and he does not mean he does not preach the resurrection. He preaches it all.

When Paul says that he received his gospel from no man, he does not mean that no other man preaches or ever has preached that gospel; he means that no other man stood as mediator between God and him; he means that God himself revealed it to him personally, and his purpose in affirming this is to protect his unique twist, gentile inclusion, from criticism.

[ETA: The above is written as an attempt to show how 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians fit together conceptually; it is not circular; it is attacking the notion that these texts disagree, and therefore references both texts.]

I am trying to figure out in what sense you think the thief on the cross was baptized.

I do not take any of the early going in 1 Corinthians 10 as applying to Jews in general; it applies to the generation in the wilderness. And his use of baptism for their experience with the cloud is obviously midrashic, not literalistic.

So you are saying that you do not even think Paul used water in his baptism of converts?

The usually identified pseudo-Pauline epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians — wrongly in my opinion — 3 Corinthians, Laodiceans) are whole texts. The grounds for identifying interpolations cannot be based on entire pseudepigraphical epistles.

There are widely suspected interpolations into Paul, but these are evidenced at least a little bit in the manuscript tradition.

Marcion may be a profitable avenue to pursue, but the Marcionite 1 Corinthians apparently contained at least parts of chapter 15.

Walker enunciates principles for identifying interpolations without manuscript evidence, but you have not called on them as yet.

Ben.

Rick Sumner

For this to be functional, or at least more plausible, don't we have to buck convention and put Galatians chronologically later than Corinthians?

I haven't spent enough effort researching dating the Pauline's to know how tenable such a position would be.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spamandham

Are you saying that vs. 1-2, which refer to the gospel Paul taught, is not what he's referring to in vs. 3?

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.

I agree that resurrection is the theme of the present chapter, but I don't agree that Paul is only refering to gentile inclusion in Galatians. He goes out of his way to make it clear he had not spoken to the Jerusalem sect for several years after his revelation.

Gal. 1:15-17
But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

Now, as to what Paul means by 'gospel' in Galatians.

Gal. 1 11-12
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

...and in Gal. 2:7
On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews.

If you are right that 11-12 is referring to the message of gentile salvation, then this means Peter is off preaching gentile salvation to the Jews. That's not impossible, but the better interpretation is that both Paul and Peter are preaching the gospel of Jesus resurrection; Paul to the gentiles, and Peter to the Jews.

If that's the case, then 11-12 refers to the gospel of Jesus. Paul's claim then then no man taught it to him contradicts 1 Cor. 15.

I agree he must have known it, but he goes out of his way to claim it came to him from revelation nonetheless. The creed in 1 Cor. 15 demonstrates that it was believed Christ's death and resurrection were in accordance with the scriptures. If that was widely believed at the time of Paul (regardless of whether or not 1 Cor 15 is authentic), then the claim that Paul had arrived at it on his own through revelation would be plausible.

What did 'gospel' mean to Paul?

Rom. 1:1-5
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit[a] of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God[b] by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

...the gospel is that Jesus was the son of God as demonstrated by his resurrection. Paul and others received authority to teach this gospel to gentiles.

Rom 1:8-10
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. God, whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God's will the way may be opened for me to come to you.

...again, the gospel is about the Son. No mention of a gentile mission being part of the gospel.

Rom 1:16-17
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

...and again, the gospel saves Jew and Gentile alike. The message of salvation of the gentiles is part of the gospel taught to Jews and Gentiles? A strained reading at best.

Rom. 15:15-16
I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

...again. Paul claims special privilege to be a minister of the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles, but not that the Gentile ministry is part of the gospel he's teaching them.

Rom. 15:19
by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ.

...it's the gospel of Christ, yet again. Nothing about a gentile mission being part of the gospel.

1 Cor. 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

...the gospel here refers to the power of the cross, not a gentile mission

2 Cor 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

...the gospel is about the glory of Christ. Consistent with the rest of these.

...and one that sort of supports what you're saying...

Gal 3:8
The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."

But even here, it's the result of faith in the gospel that results in the blessing, the gospel is not the message of the blessing of all nations.


-not an exhaustive list, but enough I think.

Paul is indeed claiming authority to teach the gospel to the Gentiles, and it's true that Paul believes that Gentiles can be saved by the gospel. But the gospel is not "jesus stuff + gentile salvation", it's just "jesus stuff". Paul's gospel is that Jesus is the son of god as demonstrated by his resurrection. Paul believes that gospel to have saving power, and Paul believes he is authorized to preach that gospel to Gentiles, and that in doing so, Gentiles can also be saved. Gentile salvation is a result of the gospel, not part of it!

...in the sense of spiritual commitment, the same sense used in 1 Cor. 10. But I don't want to dwell on the theif, because it's a hypothetical. We don't know that Paul was familiar with that story.

I'm not claiming it appliues to *all* Jews, I'm saying it applies to *those* Jews. Paul is using 'baptism' in the sense of a spiritual experience in that case. This is a case where Paul refers to baptism in a sense where it is not reasonable to presume he's referring to a ritual. Therefor, to Paul, baptism was first about the spiritual experience, and only secondly involving a ritual (if at all. outside 1 Cor. 15, it isn't clear a ritual was involved ).

If it's stated that he did, I've overlooked it and don't recall it.

Ben C Smith

I do not think so. Why?

Ben.

Rick Sumner

It just seems unlikely to me that Paul would arrive at a gospel that is uniquely his, and then switch back to being one of the many.

Though I suppose the circumstances might demand he do so regardless of the chronological order--if everybody is saying the same thing, he should probably point that out whether "his" gospel has been formed yet or not.

Regards,
Rick Sumner