spamandham

I'm interested in arguments for/against the authentcity of 1 Cor. 15. I have come to supspect it a later insertion altogether. Here are some reasons for this suspicion:

The introduction is odd

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.

This comes across to me as "hey guys, remember that I was the one who taught you all this stuff? wink wink"

1 Cor. 15:3-11 is already under suspicion by several qualified scholars

Lot's on that here: http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

1 Cor. 15 contains ideas foreign to the rest of Paul's writings?

...could use some help here

The location is prime for a later addition

- It comes immediately before the closing chapter. It's easier to get away with tacking something onto the end

Chapter 15 contains an unusual number of references to "Christ"

I count 13/15 "Christ"s in chapter 15 that are neither preceded or followed by "Jesus". This is way out of line for 1 Cor. and Paul in general. Although Paul does occasionally use "Christ" by itself, it's the exception rather than the rule, and nowhere else in 1 Cor is that pattern so heavily repeated. This suggests to me an insertion from a different time period.

Chapter 16 ends with a reference all the way back to the 2nd sentence of introduction

Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you.

This doesn't indicate a different author obviously, but it does indicate a complete chapter rather than a hack job. So where some scholars argue for doctoring of 1 Cor. 15, I'm suspecting a complete later insertion.

Ben C Smith

Hi, Robert. Just wanted to comment on two of your observations.

I do not buy this at all. It is probably easier, I think, to add something to the very end of a text (a la gospel of Mark) than to insert it somewhere else, but chapter 15 is just that, somewhere else. It is not the end of the epistle; theoretically, it should be no more or less difficult to insert this chapter than, say, chapter 2 or chapter 8 or chapter 14.

Christ without Jesus is pretty normal for 1 Corinthians. Here are all the instances of Christ without Jesus: 1.6, 12, 13, 17 (×2), 23, 24; 2.16; 3.1, 23 (×2); 4.1, 10 (×2), 15, 17; 6.15 (×2); 7.22; 8.11, 12; 9.12, 21; 10.4, 9, 16 (×2); 11.1, 3 (×2); 12.12, 27; 15.3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 (×2).

And here are all the instances of Christ with Jesus: 1.1, 2 (×2), 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 30; 2.2; 3.11; 4.15; 6.11; 8.6; 15.31, 57; 16.24.

I do not understand this part. What are you saying?

Ben.

spamandham

It would be difficult to tack onto the very end for 1 Cor, because 1 Cor. 16 ends with his personal requests and a final greeting. You'd have to remove chapter 16 altogether to tack 15 onto the end, else it would be obvious 15 had been tacked on.

It's a combination of both the fraction of naked Christs, as well as the sheer number of Christs. Both are out of line for the rest of 1 cor.

There are a total of 50 mentions of Christ in 1 Cor. Excluding chapter 15, the fraction that are naked Christs is about 64%, whereas in chapter 15 it's 87%. A little unusual, but the absolute number of mentions is also out of line with the rest of 1 Cor. - 15 total in 1 Cor 15. The mean and standard deviation for the other chapters is 3 and 4.6.

That means chapter 15 is beyond the 2 sigma level in terms of absolute mentions of Christ, and is also a bit out of whack for the ratio of naked Christs. The combination of these, I find too suspicious to ignore.

What I'm trying to say is that someone probably did not tack something onto the beginning or end of 1 Cor. 15, because they are cohesive. Therefor, if you agree that 1 Cor. 15 is suspicious, we have some reason to suspect the whole thing, and not just part of it.

Ben C Smith

This is my point. If you have to remove stuff from the end anyway, how much stuff you remove is irrelevant.

The fact is, nobody removes anything to make your average insertion; rather, the work is recopied and insertions are made in the new copy as it is written. If you want to add something at 6.3, you stop copying your exemplar at 6.3, turn to your notes (or imagination, or marginal gloss, or some other text) and copy from them for a while, then turn back to your exemplar. Doing this at 6.3 is no different than doing it at 14.34 or 15.1 or 1.3.

The advantage comes only when adding something to the very end of a work; once you step back from the end, it makes no difference how far back you step.

And you are correct to note that the epistolary format is not conducive to adding things on at the very end.

(I assume you mean except for chapter 15.)

My numbers differ slightly, but are close enough for government work.

By these standards chapter 5 is suspect, because it mentions Christ the least number of times (only once, with 100% lacking Jesus).

But the big question here is: Why are we using chapters? Paul did not write in chapters. He did not write in verses, either, but, using them as a handy measurement of length, chapter 1 far exceeds chapter 15 in mentioning Christ; it mentions Christ some 17 times in only 31 verses (0.55 mentions per verse)! Chapter 15 mentions Christ only 15 times in 58 verses (only 0.26 mentions per verse).

Or look at chapter 4, which mentions Christ 6 times in only 21 verses. That makes 0.29 mentions per verse, quite comparable to the 0.26 mentions per verse in chapter 15. And 5 of those mentions are of Christ only (without Jesus), giving 83%, quite comparable to the 87% of chapter 15.

Chapters 13-14 combine for 53 verses and Christ is not mentioned at all. Is that suspicious?

I think you are using the wrong kind of word (a content word like Christ) and the wrong kind of unit measurement (chapter divisions, of hugely variable length and invented long after the time of writing). The problem with a content word like Christ is that if Paul happens not to be talking about Christ (as in chapters 13-14) he will not mention him much; if he happens to be talking about Christ (as in 15.12-23; notice that a full 80% of the instances in the 58 verses of chapter 15 fall into these 12 verses, which are consciously using the resurrection of Christ in a reductio ad absurdum argument), he will mention him frequently.

Thanks for explaining. You seem to be observing an inclusio, which Paul does use elsewhere in his epistles. Since I do not agree (yet?) that 1 Corinthians 15 is suspicious, this last item on your list does not impact my view.

Going back to this line from your OP...:

...do you acknowledge that, for 1 Corinthians at least, the bare Christ is, if anything, actually the rule, not the exception? There are 45 instances of Christ without Jesus and only 18 of Christ with Jesus (make that 32 and 16 if you exclude chapter 15).

All this leaves us with two remaining points from your OP. First:

Paul uses this same basic construction in 12.3. But, inasmuch as Paul appears to be making known (a more literal translation, not reminding) something which the Corinthians presumably already have heard, I grant that the introduction is a little odd. There are hundreds of such oddities in the epistles. This may be a supporting argument for interpolation, but it cannot bear much of the weight.

Second:

I do not see how this helps your thesis. If these scholars are wrong, then including their thesis on your list is futile. But, if these scholars are right, and verses 3-11 are an interpolation, then you have to argue for a double interpolation: (A) Chapter 15 was interpolated into the epistle and (B) verses 3-11 were interpolated into chapter 15 (or maybe B happened first and then A later). You are trying to argue for A, anyway, so B becomes a superfluous exercise for you so far as the shape of the original epistle is concerned.

Ben.

spamandham

...but if you can't tack it onto the end, because of personal requests others are already familiar with, it would still be easier to claim a lost page had been recovered right at the end, because it does not interrupt the flow those others may already be familiar with.

I don't think I'm making an impact with this line of argument. I'll drop it, but for posterity, here are the counts I came up with:

Chapter 1
Christ 8
Jesus Christ 6
Christ Jesus 4

Chapter 2
Christ 1
Jesus Christ 1
Christ Jesus 0

Chapter 3
Christ 3
Jesus Christ 1
Christ Jesus 0

Chapter 4
Christ 4
Jesus Christ 0
Christ Jesus 2

Chapter 5
Christ 1
Jesus Christ 0
Christ Jesus 0

Chapter 6
Christ 2
Jesus Christ 1
Christ Jesus 0

Chapter 7
Christ 1
Jesus Christ 0
Christ Jesus 0

Chapter 8
Christ 2
Jesus Christ 1
Christ Jesus 0

Chapter 9
Christ 2
Jesus Christ 1
Christ Jesus 0

Chapter 10
Christ 3
Jesus Christ 0
Christ Jesus 0

Chapter 11
Christ 3
Jesus Christ 0
Christ Jesus 0

Chapter 12
Christ 2
Jesus Christ 0
Christ Jesus 0

Chapter 13
Christ 0
Jesus Christ 0
Christ Jesus 0

Chapter 14
Christ 0
Jesus Christ 0
Christ Jesus 0

Chapter 15
Christ 13
Jesus Christ 1
Christ Jesus 1

Chapter 16
Christ 0
Jesus Christ 0
Christ Jesus 1

IMHO, it isn't legitimate to start with an "innocent until proven guilty" approach with Paul. We already know ideas were attributed to him that weren't his. Each text, and each portion of text has no more a priori liklihood of being genuine than of being a fraud. The right way to determine if it's genuine, is to see if the message is consistent with the rest of the writings, and to see if the style is also consistent.

The only smoking gun in chapter 15, is that it conatins unique ideas not found in the rest of the genuine epistles (including the rest of 1 Cor.). But for some reason, that isn't considered enough of an argument. But a solid argument can be constructed from a series of small probabilities. So every lit bit counts.

The argument for 3-11 is a bit complex. Part of the argument is based on the idea that the creed in 3-11 is out of place for the rest of the chapter, part of it is based on a rabbinical formula in vs. 3 indicating an anachronism, and part of it is based on 3-11 simply being inconsistent with Paul's overall message.

But under the assumption that all of 15 is a later assertion, I don't think 3-11 is any longer out of place. The remaining discussion about resurrection from the dead and baptism unto the dead, etc., follows from 3-11 if you do not start by trying to minimize the region of interpolation.

From the analysis by Price regarding 3-11:

The pair of words in verse 3a, "received / delivered" (paralambanein / paradidonai) is, as has often been pointed out, technical language for the handing on of rabbinical tradition.17 That Paul should have delivered the following tradition poses little problem; but that he had first been the recipient of it from earlier tradents creates, I judge, a problem insurmountable for Pauline authorship.

In regards to the remainder of chapter 15, the whole discussion about a resurrection body is consistent with the anachronistic creed, but totally foreign to the rest of the genuine epistles.

The are only a few other places in the genuine epistles wherein Paul discusses general resurrection at all - and then only in very vague terms outside 1 Cor 15.

Romans 6:5
If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

Phillipians 3:10-11
I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

1 Cor. 6:14
By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.

2 Cor. 1:9
Indeed, in our hearts we felt the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead.

2 Cor. 4:14
because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence.

In these, Paul clearly has no ideas on the general resurrection, but just hopes it somehow happens in some vague way. Yet in 1 Cor. 15, he knows exactly what it'll be like and how it'll happen.

All of 15 is out of place. It's primarily because of a tendency to make minimalist arguments, that the argument for 3-11 is not extended to the whole chapter. There is no need for a double interpolation.


(I think a good argument could be made that with 1 Cor. 15 set asside, Paul's concept of resurrection becomes something totally different; a spiritual awakening rather than life after death)

Ben C Smith

Well, as I suspected, we simply disagree on this point. I think W. O. Walker has it basically correct (in principle, even if his examples do not always seem to meet his own standards).

Of course it is not enough of an argument. You have to show, not only that certain things are not found elsewhere in the epistles, but also that those things are incompatible with things found elsewhere. Otherwise you have drafted a completely unrealistic rule that an author is not allowed to mention something only once.

I agree with this, and I even gave you one of those small probabilities in verse 1.

Do you recall why this creates an insurmountable problem for Price? (Hint: It has to do with Galatians.)

Does it matter to you that only the Corinthians seem to needed such a detailed study? These are epistles, after all, and epistles are occasional.

Ben.

spamandham

In this case, if you remove the discussion about resurrection bodies in 1 Cor. 15, I think you get a completely different view of what Paul meant by resurrection. It's not clear to me he was even talking about life after physical death asside from this one chapter. So, while the resuurection body business does not flat out contradict what Paul says elsewhere, to me, it changes how I understand the rest of his works.

But also, the business about resurrection bodies is not out of place with the creed in 3-11, as long as you do not start off by assuming some portion of chapter 15 is authentic. Under the assumption the whole chapter is inauthentic, the business about resurrection bodies can flow just fine with the anachronistic creed. This could just mean the interpolator was clever enough to find a good place to stick 3-11, but it's just as simple an explanation to assume the rest was written by that same interpolator.

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

...not sure what the relevance is...


Yes, because Paul does not seem to even know these details in Phillipians.

Phillipians 3:10-11
I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

This seems at odds with the specificity of 1 Cor. 15. In 1 Cor 15, Paul knows specific details about who will be raised in what order, and what it will be like to be raised.

There's also the business about being baptized for the dead. I've seen the argument that it means "why are you baptizing your own future dead bodies which will not rise", but this is a contrived reading. "why are people baptized for them?" indicates that those baptized are not also the ones that are dead. So we have instead what appears to be surrogate post mortem baptism. That doens't fit anywhere within Paul's theology. It makes more sense that this comes from a later time when baptism was believed to have salvic power. ...baptism for the dead so that they too can be raised.

When Paul refers to fighting the wild beasts of Ephesus, my presumption is this is a metaphor for fighting his own passions; which of course fits the context in 1 Cor. 15. But it still seems odd if this is really part of a letter he wrote for the Corinthians. Why doesn't Paul talk about fighting his passions at Corinth rather than at Ephesus? This smacks of a well known legend being pulled in.

None of these is a home run individually of course, but the arguments become more and more contrived for the presumption of authenticity.

Ben C Smith

Comments like this make me suspect you are not considering all the evidence at your disposal. Such as 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18.

Your comment is true of Colossians and Ephesians, but not of 1 Corinthians 15.

I am pleased to see you can so easily agree with me (for example) against Price (for example) that 15.3-11 fit into their present context just fine, and do not conflict with Galatians.

The somehow relates to the attaining, not to the nature of the resurrection. (Hoping to somehow make it to Washington, D. C., does not mean I have no idea what Washington D. C. is like.)

Agreed.

Paul is not necessarily claiming it as part of his theology. It may be something that others are doing but Paul is using to support his point. But see 2 Maccabees 12.43-45 for what I think is the precedent for this practice, and I see no reason why Paul might not have endorsed this kind of practice.

Ben.

spamandham

...another can of worms. Doherty believes that to be an interpolation, though I haven't looked at it enough to draw any conclusions.

As a general comment, we know it was commonplace to attribute works to Paul that he didn't write, and have good evidence of various interpolations throughout even the genuine-ish epistles. I'm trying to remain as unbiased as I can in regards to authenticity of any given text or portion thereof. Remaining unbiased does not mean starting from the presumption of authenticity and requiring compelling arguments to overcome it. It means starting from "I don't know" and accepting whichever argument is most compelling as the most likely.

In other words, if Paul uses language indicating Jesus was a human of recent history in some places, but uses language that suggests Jesus was not a man of recent history in other places, I consider multiple authors to be the simplest explanation of that without anykind of extraordinary proof.

I think you and I are not starting from the same position in that regard.

Well, we half agree anyway. There's still the issue of the rabbinical tradition anachronism, as well as a creed that seems out of place for such an early period of Christianity. On those points I'm inclined to favor Price's argument.

Elsewhere, Paul seems to know perfectly well how salvation is obtained - so I still think this is questionable.


Paul certainly doesn't seem to have any problem with it in the context of 1 Cor. 15 - tacit approval. But where else does Paul indicate baptism as having salvic power? To me, the simpler explanation is an anachronism.

Ben C Smith

He does? Do you have a link? I have never seen 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18 on a list of potential interpolations. (There is another passage in 1 Thessalonians 2 that more commonly makes such lists.)

I suspect you are right.

Then I think you are misreading Price. He has no trouble with the rabbinical formula. His point of contention is his perceived conflict with Galatians.

Nota bene: I am coming from the angle of the so-called New Perspective. Again, I think your comment about starting from the same position is apt here.

I am not adverse to Paul approving. But I cannot tell from this verse whether he does or not.

I am not sure where you are getting your salvation terminology. Baptism is death in Romans 6.4, and death is freedom from sin in 6.7. In that Maccabean passage I gave you, the act likewise atones for sin. Paul nowhere explicitly (verbally) links baptism with salvation, not even in 1 Corinthians 15.29.

What is leading you to believe that the act of baptism itself means two different things, one inside 15.29 and one outside it?

Ben.