Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ficino · 03-08-2013, 04:21 AM

I apologize if this topic has already been hashed out to death; if so, I'll be grateful for links to threads where it has been discussed. Is there any consensus among NON-seminary academics about whether Paul's words at the beginning of I Corinthians 15 ("I handed on to you what I received...") preserve the language of a creed from the 30s C.E., and are not original words of Paul? I note that Paul uses the same παρέδωκα... παρέλαβον... ότι combination in I Cor. 11:23, but there he adds "from the Lord," as though he traces his account of the Last Supper to direct revelation from Christ and not to oral tradition from disciples who were in the movement earlier than he. So why should we think that his words in I Cor 15 represent a "creed" that he picked up from Cephas and/or other supposed eyewitnesses of the empty tomb?

aa5874 · 03-08-2013, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

I apologize if this topic has already been hashed out to death; if so, I'll be grateful for links to threads where it has been discussed. Is there any consensus among NON-seminary academics about whether Paul's words at the beginning of I Corinthians 15 ("I handed on to you what I received...") preserve the language of a creed from the 30s C.E., and are not original words of Paul? I note that Paul uses the same παρέδωκα... παρέλαβον... ότι combination in I Cor. 11:23, but there he adds "from the Lord," as though he traces his account of the Last Supper to direct revelation from Christ and not to oral tradition from disciples who were in the movement earlier than he. So why should we think that his words in I Cor 15 represent a "creed" that he picked up from Cephas and/or other supposed eyewitnesses of the empty tomb?

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Pauline writings were composed in the 1st century and No evidence at all that there was a creed since the 30s CE.

In fact, All the Pauline letters to Churches are without corroboration, without attestation in the very Canon and some have already been deduced to have multiple authors.

Essentially, the Pauline writings were unknown by the early authors of the Jesus story and up to at least 180 CE.

And further, the character called Cephas/Peter in the Pauline letters did NOT ever exist so could NOT have been an eyewitness of any event.

Ken Brown · 03-08-2013, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

I apologize if this topic has already been hashed out to death; if so, I'll be grateful for links to threads where it has been discussed. Is there any consensus among NON-seminary academics about whether Paul's words at the beginning of I Corinthians 15 ("I handed on to you what I received...") preserve the language of a creed from the 30s C.E., and are not original words of Paul? I note that Paul uses the same παρέδωκα... παρέλαβον... ότι combination in I Cor. 11:23, but there he adds "from the Lord," as though he traces his account of the Last Supper to direct revelation from Christ and not to oral tradition from disciples who were in the movement earlier than he. So why should we think that his words in I Cor 15 represent a "creed" that he picked up from Cephas and/or other supposed eyewitnesses of the empty tomb?

Hi ficino, the Gospel that Paul first received was not passed on to him by any of the other Apostles, for he went to Peter, James, and John to verify that he had the same Gospel as they did (Gal 2:2, 9). In fact Paul states that he received the Gospel from NO man (Gal 1:12), but through revelation as one born out of "due" time (1 Cor 15:8). Hope this helps. KB

ficino · 03-08-2013, 05:55 AM

Thanks for your comments, aa5874, though I don't have background at present for evaluating your assertions. @Ken: I agree that the picture of a Paul receiving his gospel from earlier leaders of the movement conflicts with Paul's claims in Galatians. I don't read I Cor 15:8, however, as you do, i.e. I don't see the writer there claiming that the gospel came to him through revelation - only that Christ appeared to him last, as to one born out of due time.

Ken Brown · 03-08-2013, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Thanks for your comments, aa5874, though I don't have background at present for evaluating your assertions. @Ken: I agree that the picture of a Paul receiving his gospel from earlier leaders of the movement conflicts with Paul's claims in Galatians. I don't read I Cor 15:8, however, as you do, i.e. I don't see the writer there claiming that the gospel came to him through revelation - only that Christ appeared to him last, as to one born out of due time.

Hi ficino, the "revelation" is mentioned in Gal 1:12, and it is in reference to the appearing to him of 1 Cor 15:8 that the revelation occurred. Hope this helps. KB

aa5874 · 03-08-2013, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Thanks for your comments, aa5874, though I don't have background at present for evaluating your assertions. @Ken: I agree that the picture of a Paul receiving his gospel from earlier leaders of the movement conflicts with Paul's claims in Galatians. I don't read I Cor 15:8, however, as you do, i.e. I don't see the writer there claiming that the gospel came to him through revelation - only that Christ appeared to him last, as to one born out of due time.

You must try and get time to evaluate the evidence or else you will not resolve anything.

You must first understand that the Pauline letters are WITHOUT attestation in the very Canon of the Church.

It is completely unacceptable to accept the words of Paul as evidence without corroboration especially when his claims about the resurrected Jesus are questionable and have NO historical value.

It is NOT even plausible that Paul could have received any historical information from the dead and even worse from the resurrected.

DCHindley · 03-08-2013, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

Is there any consensus among NON-seminary academics about whether Paul's words at the beginning of I Corinthians 15 ("I handed on to you what I received...") preserve the language of a creed from the 30s C.E., and are not original words of Paul? I note that Paul uses the same παρέδωκα... παρέλαβον... ότι combination in I Cor. 11:23, but there he adds "from the Lord," as though he traces his account of the Last Supper to direct revelation from Christ and not to oral tradition from disciples who were in the movement earlier than he. So why should we think that his words in I Cor 15 represent a "creed" that he picked up from Cephas and/or other supposed eyewitnesses of the empty tomb?

Yes, verses 23-26 do appear to represent a creed. Whether it was originated by Jesus or not is not so clear.

For a long while (early 1990s) my personal opinion has been that the Pauline letters contain two distinct strata.

The part of 1 Cor 11:20-34 that I believe is the original letter says:

1 Cor 11:20 When you meet together, it is not (the) LORD’s supper that you eat [οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν]. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. 23 - 29 [...]. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by (the) Lord [[τοῦ] κυρίου], we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another--34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home--lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

You will note that this does not seem to have any creedal function at all, other than to describe a periodic common meal similar to those practiced by innumerable private associations among common persons (e.g., free artisans & merchants, household and working slaves, representing several classes and income levels who pay weekly dues and seek sponsorship from rich patrons). These common meals, usually monthly, frequently included a banquet meal and fair amount of drinking of wine.

The meal the author ("Paul") describes seems to be one of this sort, where the members who arrive first are eating/drinking up without waiting for the poorer members whose work obligations delay their arrival, leaving them picked-over food and the cheaper leftover wine. (See Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (or via: amazon.co.uk), ed. John S. Kloppenborg & Stephen G. Wilson).

In vs 20, the English word "LORD" is capitalized because the Greek word "Kurios" in this passage is anarthrous (no definite article, "the" in English). This suggests a circumlocution for YHWH. In vs 32 there is a definite article in the Majority text but not in some of the earlier codices, causing the editors of the NA27 to bracket the definite article as a doubtful reading, and so probably also refers to YHWH. Note the eschatological implication: YHWH will judge the members of the association, presumably on the last day, along with all mankind, and will then condemn those who don't measure up. There is no Jesus here.

Now look at these passages which I ascribe to a later redactor:

1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord [ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου] what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus [ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς] on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." (Compare 11:24b-25 with Mt 26:26-29; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:14-20) 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death [τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου] until he comes.

Verses 23-26 above are definitely cultic in orientation. It is true that many private associations were dedicated to this or that god, with those called mystery cults having closed rites of initiation and worship.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord [τοῦ κυρίου] in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord [τοῦ κυρίου]. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Verses 27-29 have Kurios take a definite article. The author of these passages is clearly talking about "the Lord Jesus." These appear to me to be the redactor's attempt to integrate his liturgy into a text about common meals.

Each selection of passages seems to be self contained in themselves. In other words, they represent independent narrative passages, the former being practical advice about everyday matters that might subject the participants to God's judgement, and the latter being cultic liturgy.

What I noted is that these two "threads" are intertwined (the interleaving is even more complicated in other passages, the ones under discussion are conveniently confined to verse units). I explain this in my feeble mind as an original text that is being commented upon. Perhaps they were marginal notes that became incorporated in the original letter, or were added intentionally by a redactor. At any rate, these two "strata" appear to have developed independently, and then the Lord Jesus strata were integrated with the other matter at a later time. That does not preclude the possibility that the Lord Jesus strata goes back to a historical Jesus, but I think it more likely represents a later development in reaction to disappointment by earlier followers when the Jewish Revolt (66-74 CE) failed miserably.

DCH

spin · 03-08-2013, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The part of 1 Cor 11:20-34 that I believe is the original letter says:

1 Cor 11:20 When you meet together, it is not (the) LORD’s supper that you eat [οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν]. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. 23 - 29 [...]. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by (the) Lord [[τοῦ] κυρίου], we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another--34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home--lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

You will note that this does not seem to have any creedal function at all, other than to describe a periodic common meal similar to those practiced by innumerable private associations among common persons (e.g., free artisans & merchants, household and working slaves, representing several classes and income levels who pay weekly dues and seek sponsorship from rich patrons). These common meals, usually monthly, frequently included a banquet meal and fair amount of drinking of wine.

The meal the author ("Paul") describes seems to be one of this sort, where the members who arrive first are eating/drinking up without waiting for the poorer members whose work obligations delay their arrival, leaving them picked-over food and the cheaper leftover wine. (See Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (or via: amazon.co.uk), ed. John S. Kloppenborg & Stephen G. Wilson).

In vs 20, the English word "LORD" is capitalized because the Greek word "Kurios" in this passage is anarthrous (no definite article, "the" in English). This suggests a circumlocution for YHWH. In vs 32 there is a definite article in the Majority text but not in some of the earlier codices, causing the editors of the NA27 to bracket the definite article as a doubtful reading, and so probably also refers to YHWH. Note the eschatological implication: YHWH will judge the members of the association, presumably on the last day, along with all mankind, and will then condemn those who don't measure up. There is no Jesus here.

Now look at these passages which I ascribe to a later redactor:

1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord [ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου] what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus [ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς] on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." (Compare 11:24b-25 with Mt 26:26-29; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:14-20) 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death [τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου] until he comes.

Verses 23-26 above are definitely cultic in orientation. It is true that many private associations were dedicated to this or that god, with those called mystery cults having closed rites of initiation and worship.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord [τοῦ κυρίου] in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord [τοῦ κυρίου]. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Verses 27-29 have Kurios take a definite article. The author of these passages is clearly talking about "the Lord Jesus." These appear to me to be the redactor's attempt to integrate his liturgy into a text about common meals.

Hey Dave, I think you've chopped too much. Verse 27 hooks the last supper into the context.

Let's go back to vv.21-22.

[T2]21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.[/T2]
Paul is criticizing the Corinthians for first in, first served gluttony, stressing eating and drinking twice here, which is immediately picked up in v.28. Instead of filling one's hunger and making others miss out, one has to examine oneself before eating and drinking, "29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body (one's own body) eats and drinks judgment upon himself." It is implicit whose body it is if v.28 follows from v.22 without the last supper confusion. With the insertion of vv.23-27 a later scribe, apparently also confused, felt the necessity to qualify "body" in v.29, ie "the body of the lord".

Remove vv.23-27 and I think Paul's original thought is better served. Examine yourself, discern your body: if you are hungry eat at home. But people aren't. "30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged." This judging ourselves in v.31 refers back to the examining (from δοκιμαζω which implies judgment) of oneself (28), and the discerning (from διακρινω which also implies judgment) of the body (29). These two verses are Paul's instructions, what the Corinthians should be doing.

[T2]1 Cor 11:20 When you meet together, it is not (the) LORD’s supper that you eat [οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν]. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. 23 - 27 [...]. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by (the) Lord [[τοῦ] κυρίου], we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another--34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home--lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.[/T2]

aa5874 · 03-08-2013, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Yes, verses 23-26 do appear to represent a creed. Whether it was originated by Jesus or not is not so clear.

For a long while (early 1990s) my personal opinion has been that the Pauline letters contain two distinct strata.

The part of 1 Cor 11:20-34 that I believe is the original letter says:

1 Cor 11:20 When you meet together, it is not (the) LORD’s supper that you eat [οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν]. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. 23 - 29 [...]. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by (the) Lord [[τοῦ] κυρίου], we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another--34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home--lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

You will note that this does not seem to have any creedal function at all, other than to describe a periodic common meal similar to those practiced by innumerable private associations among common persons (e.g., free artisans & merchants, household and working slaves, representing several classes and income levels who pay weekly dues and seek sponsorship from rich patrons). These common meals, usually monthly, frequently included a banquet meal and fair amount of drinking of wine.

The meal the author ("Paul") describes seems to be one of this sort, where the members who arrive first are eating/drinking up without waiting for the poorer members whose work obligations delay their arrival, leaving them picked-over food and the cheaper leftover wine. (See Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (or via: amazon.co.uk), ed. John S. Kloppenborg & Stephen G. Wilson).

In vs 20, the English word "LORD" is capitalized because the Greek word "Kurios" in this passage is anarthrous (no definite article, "the" in English). This suggests a circumlocution for YHWH. In vs 32 there is a definite article in the Majority text but not in some of the earlier codices, causing the editors of the NA27 to bracket the definite article as a doubtful reading, and so probably also refers to YHWH. Note the eschatological implication: YHWH will judge the members of the association, presumably on the last day, along with all mankind, and will then condemn those who don't measure up. There is no Jesus here.

Now look at these passages which I ascribe to a later redactor:

1 Cor 11:23 For I received from the Lord [ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου] what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus [ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς] on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." (Compare 11:24b-25 with Mt 26:26-29; Mk 14:22-25; Lk 22:14-20) 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death [τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυρίου] until he comes.

Verses 23-26 above are definitely cultic in orientation. It is true that many private associations were dedicated to this or that god, with those called mystery cults having closed rites of initiation and worship.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord [τοῦ κυρίου] in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord [τοῦ κυρίου]. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Verses 27-29 have Kurios take a definite article. The author of these passages is clearly talking about "the Lord Jesus." These appear to me to be the redactor's attempt to integrate his liturgy into a text about common meals.

Each selection of passages seems to be self contained in themselves. In other words, they represent independent narrative passages, the former being practical advice about everyday matters that might subject the participants to God's judgement, and the latter being cultic liturgy.

What I noted is that these two "threads" are intertwined (the interleaving is even more complicated in other passages, the ones under discussion are conveniently confined to verse units). I explain this in my feeble mind as an original text that is being commented upon. Perhaps they were marginal notes that became incorporated in the original letter, or were added intentionally by a redactor. At any rate, these two "strata" appear to have developed independently, and then the Lord Jesus strata were integrated with the other matter at a later time. That does not preclude the possibility that the Lord Jesus strata goes back to a historical Jesus, but I think it more likely represents a later development in reaction to disappointment by earlier followers when the Jewish Revolt (66-74 CE) failed miserably.

DCH

We know EXACTLY where 1 Cor.11.23-25 was derived. It could NOT have come from the dead or the resurrected.

It was derived precisely from gLuke 22.19-20

Luke 22

Quote:

19And he took bread, and gave thanks , and brake it, and gave unto them, saying , This ismy body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.20Likewise also the cup after supper , saying , This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Origen's Commentary on Matthew

Quote:

... Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first............ third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles....

The very Church writers admitted Paul knew gLuke.

Toto · 03-08-2013, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

I apologize if this topic has already been hashed out to death; if so, I'll be grateful for links to threads where it has been discussed. Is there any consensus among NON-seminary academics about whether Paul's words at the beginning of I Corinthians 15 ("I handed on to you what I received...") preserve the language of a creed from the 30s C.E., and are not original words of Paul? I note that Paul uses the same παρέδωκα... παρέλαβον... ότι combination in I Cor. 11:23, but there he adds "from the Lord," as though he traces his account of the Last Supper to direct revelation from Christ and not to oral tradition from disciples who were in the movement earlier than he. So why should we think that his words in I Cor 15 represent a "creed" that he picked up from Cephas and/or other supposed eyewitnesses of the empty tomb?

Hello ficino -

You may be aware of Robert Price's essay Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation.

There is some discussion on other threads here that would lead you to believe that interpolations in Paul are a very touchy subject. There is no clear line between seminary and non-seminary academics. The general approach is to reject the very idea of interpolations in Paul unless there is overwhelming textual evidence.

You might want to read William O Walker's Interpolations in the Pauline Epistles (or via: amazon.co.uk) (see the archived thread here.) Walker does not discuss this particular passage as an interpolation, but you can read about his general principles and see how he has to walk on eggshells to even discuss this question.

I do not know of any other academics who have addressed the issue. I don't think you can talk of a meaningful consensus without some sort of vigorous discussion or some agreement on the criteria for judging whether a passage is an interpolation or not.

03-08-2013, 04:21 AM	#1
ficino Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New York Posts: 252	Early creed in I Corinthians 15? I apologize if this topic has already been hashed out to death; if so, I'll be grateful for links to threads where it has been discussed. Is there any consensus among NON-seminary academics about whether Paul's words at the beginning of I Corinthians 15 ("I handed on to you what I received...") preserve the language of a creed from the 30s C.E., and are not original words of Paul? I note that Paul uses the same παρέδωκα... παρέλαβον... ότι combination in I Cor. 11:23, but there he adds "from the Lord," as though he traces his account of the Last Supper to direct revelation from Christ and not to oral tradition from disciples who were in the movement earlier than he. So why should we think that his words in I Cor 15 represent a "creed" that he picked up from Cephas and/or other supposed eyewitnesses of the empty tomb?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-08-2013, 05:55 AM	#4
ficino Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New York Posts: 252	Thanks for your comments, aa5874, though I don't have background at present for evaluating your assertions. @Ken: I agree that the picture of a Paul receiving his gospel from earlier leaders of the movement conflicts with Paul's claims in Galatians. I don't read I Cor 15:8, however, as you do, i.e. I don't see the writer there claiming that the gospel came to him through revelation - only that Christ appeared to him last, as to one born out of due time.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.