jakejonesiv

I did not see a link to Robert Price's article, Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation

For another discussion, see Robert Price's review of Gary R. Habermas’s “The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus”

Do not miss TRADITION ODER INTERPOLATION?
ANTIMARCIONITISCHE INTERPOLATIONEN IN 1 KOR 15, 1-11 by Hermann Detering,

Jake Jones IV

Solo

What do you think Paul's "core" beliefs about resurrection were ? I can't for the world of me find anything else in Paul that would indicate the event meant to him Jesus rose from his grave on the third day.

I do not agree and the reason is what I stated above. All the learned readers I know see the 3-11 as a unit which is not Pauline in language and imagery. It belongs to the church. The question then is: did Paul use this church tradition to edify his Corinthian flock or was it inserted later by someone else than Paul as a credal manifest.

You are misconstruing what I said: there is a difference between saying

a) "I had a revelation and this is how it squares with the scriptures", and

b) "What I delivered to you was the scripture"

Can you see it ?

Precisely my point.

You are free to believe it. For me, however, it seems kind of obvious that since Paul was getting the direct from the Lord, substituting some church message for his own would have been underselling his credentials. And the passage noticeably shortchanges Paul on the credentials as he understood them.

Jiri

Gamera

I have an objection to this kind of analysis. Essentiallly the premise is contradictions in texts are evidence of redaction. The corrolary would be that texts by a single author, not subject to redaction, have no contradictions.

I think the corrolary disproves the premise. As postmodern analysis has shown ALL texts of any intellectual or social complexity have fundamental contradictions. And that's because all text have an agenda, and agendas work through absolutists claims in a world that is anything but absolutist.

But you don't have to be a postmodern philosophy to see the problems with this premise. Empirically, texts that we know are by a single author, modern texts we can ask the author about, are also filled with contradictions. So the premise is wrong: contradictions in texts are not per se evidence of redaction.

To approach this a different way, this type of analysis assumes that a text has one meaning. When it discerns a contradition, it is faced with two meanings, which it therefore posits as evidence of a redaction. But that's not how meaning works. Instead of assuming a contradiction is evidence of some extraneous meaning, it is much more fruitful in my opinion to take the text as is, and to assume the meaning resides in the apparent contradiction. Reconciling is too strong a word, but incorporating the apparent contradiction into the meaning seems to me to be the task of hermeneutics, which is short circuited by treating every contradiction as something other than the meaning.

jakejonesiv

Outside of 1 Cor. 15:1-11, in the Pauline epistles where did Jesus make a public appearance to anybody? In fact, aside from this interpolation and Paul's presumed vision in 1 Cor. 9:1, you can't find where anyone had ever seen Jesus. Wow, only two questionable passages in the entire Pauline corpus where anyone was ever alleged to see Jesus, whether alive, after resurrection, or in a vision. Talk about silences. No one was said to see Jesus in his alleged life, and you can barely find it after the begged for resurrection. This sticks out like a sore thumb.:down:


IMHO, Pauline Christianity originally had no resurrection apart from the ascension. None of this lolly-gagging around on earth waiting for someone to see him.

Philippians chapter 2 contains no separate resurrection of Jesus. It
has death, interpolated on a cross, and exaltation.

Philippians 2
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself, and
became obedient to the point of death, [even the death of the cross].
9 Therefore God has also highly exalted him, and given him a name
which is above every name:

Rising from the dead means rising to heaven as in Romans 8:34. "It is
Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the
right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us."

The deutero-Pauline passage of Ephesians 4:8-10 describes a descent
to the lowest parts of the earth and a subsequent ascension above the
highest heavens.

We find the Pauline author of 1st Corinthians 15 negating a physical
resurrection. The resurrection is celestial and spirtual as opposed
to terrestrial and natural. http://tinyurl.com/b6yqx . We find
the "astral immortality" of Daniel 12:3.

The idea of Jesus' physical resurrection is an outgrowth of Mark's
allegorical tale of the empty tomb. The other evangelists apparently
did not realize that the tomb was empty for a reason; the
resurrection and ascension were for Mark the same event. No eating
of fish, no trouncing about with open wounds, just the simple "He
has risen; He is not here;" Mark 16:6. He has gone forward into the
metaphorical Galilee whence he came. Mark 16:7. According to Mark, if you want to see jesus again, you have to follow after him. He is not coming back. Mark's fictive account has leveraged the language of Enoch, he was not found because God took him up. Gen. 5:24, Hebrews 11:25.

All of the "public appearances" (to use N.T. Wright's language) of
the resurrected Jesus, including the interpolation into 1 Corinthians
15, stem from the reluctance of later writers to accept au_GMark's
stark ending of his gospel.

Jake Jones IV

Gamera

I don't know about this. Paul's sermon to the Athenians suggest that Jesus did lollygag enough for there to be witnesses, since Paul's whole point is that the resurrection is evidence of God's approaching judgement:

Acts 17:31 - because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead."

Admittedly this isn't an epistle, but it sure sounds Pauline.

DramaQ

That a redemptive god figure underwent an ordeal of suffering, dying, and subsequent rising as some way of assisting mankind.

I was not looking for evidence of actual earth-bound ideology in his language. I think he saw or expressed those cosmic events in earthly (or parallel earthly) terms.

However, after more digging I find that you are right. v 3-4 is too close the details found in later doctrine.

It doesn't change the fact that cutting it entirely makes for an awkward segue into v 12. Perhaps there was some original Pauline language that was more generic here.

I can see it here, now. Looking back, I can not find where you stated it quite so clearly.

Now that I fully understand you, I don't agree. These letters are from a man who has come into a pre-existing church or cult. He's not preaching into a vacuum that had no prior doctrine or scriptural material.

Even if he preached that his words were god's and therefore "scripture", it would not mean he would ignore exiting scripture (which was, after all, also supposed to be god's word.) Your 1) and 2) above are not mutually exclusive.

This assumes he saw the OT as "church message". Do you have evidence that shows Paul believed the OT was "man's words" and not god's?

V 6-11 certainly does. And I agree it looks bogus. V 3-4 do not.

I don't think we're in that much disagreement about this. But it's been enlightening.

DQ

jakejonesiv

Hi DQ,

I find that moving from 1 Cor 15:1-2 directly to 1 Cor. 15:12 makes for a very smooth segue.


Presenting it is concise form:

"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. If it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised."

All that stuff about Jesus appearing to half a thousand people is totally out of context here. It is Paul's preaching that establishes the resurrection. Period. Preached, preached, preached!

The author really beats us over the head with it: "if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you." It doesn't matter a whit whatever someone else says or saw. Only Paul's word counts. This is congruent with the statements in Galatians.

Notice how "otherwise you have believed in vain" is mirrored on the other side of the interpolation with "then not even Christ has been raised."

No, verses 3-11 definitely do not belong here. They originated somewhere else, and were inserted by an enterprising post-Pauline redactor.

Jake Jones IV

DramaQ

Hi Jake,

Let me reiterate:

I AGREE that all that nonsense about appearing to the others and Paul's position in the hierarchy is added later.

All I have said is that it seems like there should be SOME clearer segue between V TWO (2) and TWELVE (12).

V 12 does NOT have a smooth segue. It jumps in with "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead" which comes out of nowhere.

It would make perfect sense for Paul to have just reiterate WHAT "has been preached" (ie, that Christ died and was raised) somewhere between V 2 and 12.

Perhaps not the exact wording as found in 3 and 4, but some more generic equivalent.

This is, after all, what he preached and believed, isn't it? Maybe not with the "three days" detail. Maybe not with the "buried" detail. I admit it could have been revised later to fit doctrine. And of course all the rest of that junk from 4 on added in.

But by allowing that something very LIKE v 3 and 4 should have been there, it would explain why those bits are quoted elsewhere early on, and the rest of it is still an interpolation.

DQ

Rick Sumner

I'm not sure that whether or not it flows nicely or not without it has much weight. One could find dozens of places that are coherent with verses removed. That doesn't mean it's interpolated. It means that people sometimes wrote things that are superfluous, incidental, asides and so on. That's not something to hinge such a position on.

A better case could be made from the rather marked difference between Paul's use of "gospel" here, and his use everywhere else. This is the only instance where "gospel" seems to refer to the same thing as later Christian "gospels."

Though I don't think that could be sustained either, firstly, because it's not as different as it might appear at first blush, and secondly, because it seems likely that it is either repeating or rephrasing an existing confession. Further, Paul is here addressing a much different concern that in Galatia or Rome. Most notably, the concern is one of the authenticity of the resurrection, not the soteriology born from that. Thus, while his use of "gospel" might be different here, it's not surprisingly so.

Here's what some commentators have had to say about 1Cor 15:

The words “of first importance” most likely point to the quintessence of the gospel which Paul preached. That is, while Paul’s preaching and teaching touched upon many themes, not all of these themes were of equal weight and centrality to his saving message. Though the imagery has shifted, this concept is the same as that which he employed with architectural metaphors earlier in this letter. In 1 Cor 3 the apostle affirmed that the teaching ministry of others was based upon the one and only foundation stone, namely Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:10–12). The entire structure of the church is important, but of first importance is the foundation stone, Jesus Christ.

Naturally there are many facets of God’s work in Christ that Paul both preached and taught about, but he wants here, in 15:3–5, to emphasize the centrality of four of these major points. In the Greek text each of these is introduced by the term “that” (ὅτι, hoti). The first theological doctrine in the cluster of things of “first importance” is the death of Jesus. There are two aspects of this death which are especially important to Paul’s gospel: the vicarious nature (“for our,” ὑπὲρ ἡμω̂ν, hyper hemōn) of Jesus’ atoning death and the scriptural attestation to this (“according to the Scriptures,” κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, kata tas graphas).

Neither of these is surprising in light of what has already been encountered within 1 Corinthians. The statement that, “Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7) patently reveals the Pauline use of blood-sacrifice language with reference to Christ’s death and its vicarious benefit for believers. With the apostle’s abiding conviction that the (Old Testament) Scriptures are “for us” (see notes on 1 Cor 10:11ff), it would be astounding had he not known and made use of scriptural attestation to the death of Jesus.

Richard Oster, 1 Corinthians (or via: amazon.co.uk), (, The College Press NIV commentary Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub. Co., 1995), 1 Co 15:4.

The καὶ … καὶ … καὶ … is a climax, and in English a repetition of the substantive gives the effect better than a repetition of the conjunction. Stanley follows Theodoret in making γνωρίζω = ἀναμιμνήσκω, ‘I remind you,’ with which Chrysostom seems to agree. They had forgotten their own belief, so he has to call their attention to it. But γνωρίζω is simply ‘I make known,’ notum facio (Vulg.), and is often used in the N.T. of preaching the Gospel. There is a gentle reproach in the word. He has to begin again and teach them an elementary fact, which they had already accepted. He can claim themselves as witnesses to its truth and efficacy. In the Pauline Epp. both γν. ὑμῖν (12:3; Gal. 1:2; 2 Cor. 8:1) and εὐαγγ�*λιον εὐαγγελίζομαι (9:18; Gal. 1:2: 2 Cor. 11:7) are peculiar to this group. The latter is an attractive expression, emphasizing the goodness and gladness of the message; but the repetition cannot well be reproduced in English: see above. The verses here are badly divided.

Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (or via: amazon.co.uk), (Series title also at head of t.-p.; New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1911), 331.

Having begun by grounding his opening section in the cross of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 1:18–25), Paul now concludes his application of theological truths to practical problems by dealing in 1 Corinthians 15:1–58 with the surety and nature of the future resurrection in view of the resurrection of Christ. Paul first calls attention in 1 Corinthians 15:1–5 to the death and resurrection of Christ as the center point of the gospel, which Paul had received as the common tradition of the church and then passed on to the Corinthians as the basis of their salvation. This is the earliest account we have of the contours of the early Christian message and its historical evidence. Paul then supplements this evidence with the recital of Christ’s further resurrection appearances. He concludes with his own experience of the resurrected Christ and its consequences for his life as the “least of the apostles” (1 Cor 15:9–11).

Gerald F. Hawthorne et al., Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (or via: amazon.co.uk), ( Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 167.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Solo

Agreed. But my original point was not as much that the transition is not smooth but that the section does not cross-reference with the rest of the chapter. Beside the issue you noted, that the meaning of "gospel" elsewhere in 15 coincides with what Paul habitually means when deploying the term, there are still the other issues: Paul asserts that Christ did "in fact" rise in 20, with the first of those who have fallen asleep attesting to that. This does not contradict flat out 5-7 but it certainly makes the latter (weak) attestation look odd. Worse comes with the next verse: The theological basis of the resurrection spelled out in 21-22 rests (solely) on the Pauline formula of the second Adam (from the Hebrew 'adamah' for 'earth', 'ground') by whom God reconciled the original sin and overrulled death. This is most decidedly a non-scriptural scenario, and therefore the references in 3-4 cannot mean LXX by "scriptures". The ensuing expose in 23-57 owes nothing to scriptures known in Paul's time. The passage not just ignores, but clashes with, 3-4 in duplicating the effort.

....meaning what ? If Paul uses "gospel" consistently as a synonym for "his" teaching, and there is an instance here when the reference means later scriptures, the difference is quite substantial.

whose "confession" ? The whole 1 Cr 15 is devoted to arguing with resurrectional concepts of either Jesus followers led by Cephas, or Apollo (or if you interpret the "Christ party" as reference to a faction by some unknown leader of a mysterious sect of hyper-Pauline gnostics).

Now whose idea was it, by scriptures known to us, that the kingdom was "within" and you can enter into it "violently", apparently, while you were alive ?

How does that belief square with 1 Cor 15:50 ?

Thanks for your input, Rick

Jiri