Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
10-28-2008, 12:38 PM | #1 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
|
On the authenticity of 1 Cor. 15
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. |
10-28-2008, 01:04 PM | #2 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Ben. |
||||
10-28-2008, 02:30 PM | #3 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
10-29-2008, 06:44 AM | #4 | |||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Going back to this line from your OP...: Quote:
All this leaves us with two remaining points from your OP. First: Quote:
Second: Quote:
Ben. |
|||||||
10-29-2008, 11:04 AM | #5 | |||||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
|
Quote:
Quote:
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 Quote:
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. Quote:
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) |
|||||
10-29-2008, 11:15 AM | #6 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ben. |
|||||
10-29-2008, 02:34 PM | #7 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
...not sure what the relevance is... Quote:
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. |
|||
10-30-2008, 06:00 AM | #8 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Your comment is true of Colossians and Ephesians, but not of 1 Corinthians 15. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ben. |
|||||
10-30-2008, 07:30 AM | #9 | ||||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
10-30-2008, 07:56 AM | #10 | ||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|