Gamera

In 1 Cor 15 Paul sets forth the gospel that was preached to the Corinthians, and in doing so several times states that parts of the narrative were "according to scripture": kata tas graphas.

What scripture was he refering to? He appears not to be alluding to purported prophesies about the messiah in the Hebrew scriptures but rather texts that were known to him and his audience, unless kata tas graphas has some unusual sense (my NT Greek isn't that good).

Does the grammar of the phrase encompass a semantic field with something like the meaning "as set forth or foretold in (Old Testament) scriptures," or must he be refering to contemporary texts about Jesus' life, as the context seems to support? And if the latter, what texts?

Toto

I think it is generally accepted that references to "the scriptures" are references to the Hebrew scriptures, and that early Christians read the Hebrew scriptures in their own creative way to learn about the Savior.

If anyone has any contrary information, I would be interested.

Malachi151

Perhaps he was referring to The Book of Enoch, or Wisdom of Solomon?

Gamera

Verse 4 says that Jesus was "buried, that he was raised on the third day" in accordance with the scripture. The usual commentaries refer to various Psalms and other OT texts as prefiguring this, but only in the most general sense. I haven't seen any reference to an alleged messianic prophesy as to the three days. But Paul mentions it as if the text refers to three days, not some general OT prophesy.

Now it could be Paul is using the known detail of three days as a subset of the alleged general messianic resurrection prophesy. But it seems a bit odd. So I'm wondering if that turns on the semantic field of "kata". Is the normal meaning something like, "as it says in the texts" or is it more "following what was set forth (prophetically) in the texts.

Seems to me that the latter meaning is necessary for the texts refered to to be Hebrew Scriptures. Does kata encompass that meaning?

pharoah

Hosea 6:2 is usually used by apologists as prophecying a third day resurrection. Did Paul have this in mind? Who knows?

It seems to me that it's highly unlikely that Paul was referring to Christian scripture here. For one thing it weakens his argument. It's much more persuasive to argue that Jesus life and death is the fulfillment of prophecy than it is to argue that you should believe because a contemporary text makes the claim that he died and rose again. It also seems to go against Paul's claim that he received the gospel directly from Jesus and not from men.

Ben C Smith

I do not think the answer to your question lies in the preposition, Gamera.

The preposition κατα would simply mean according to or in accordance with. The phrase κατα την γραφην appears in the LXX in Deuteronomy 10.4; 1 Chronicles 15.15; 2 Chronicles 30.5; 35.4; 1 Esdras 1.4; and Ezra 6.18; and in the NT it appears in James 2.8. In all these instances, AFAICT, the writing referred to is pretty specific, and can be found quite precisely in prior texts.

But of course in all those expressions the term scripture is singular, which might well be taken to imply a particular spot in a particular text. The expression (twice) in Paul is κατα τας γραφας, with the plural scriptures.

The plural can refer to a precise text (Matthew 21.42), but does not have to. In Matthew 22.29 = Mark 12.24 Jesus tells the Sadducees that they do not understand the scriptures (plural) concerning the resurrection. What scriptures? The only scripture he quotes, Exodus 3.6, can only with immense difficulty be pressed into service for the resurrection. Even the wording used to introduce this quotation indicates that it was not necessarily the precise scripture he had in mind when he insulted the Sadducees. Rather, he was playing a familiar game with the Exodus 3.6 quote; how many references to the resurrection can one find in the Pentateuch (which to all appearances utterly lacks any mention of resurrection)? This game became quite common among the Jewish sects, and the Talmud has many examples of its various permutations. It stands to reason that when Jesus insulted the Sadducees he had in mind the whole of the scriptural witness, or at least a broad selection of passages from it, as evidence of the resurrection from the dead.

Similarly, in Matthew 26.56 = Mark 14.49 Jesus says that his arrest is fulfilling the scriptures. Which ones exactly? He does not say. Rather, it is probably the combined weight of many scriptures that he has in mind (the usual suffering servant stuff, perhaps, along with Daniel 9.26 and other texts). Refer also to Luke 24.27, 32, 45 for this generalized reference to the (unspecified) scriptures being fulfilled.

Romans 1.2 continues this theme. The gospel of God was foretold in the scriptures, he says. We can suppose that Paul will list a few of them in the rest of this quotation-heavy epistle, but there is no single OT verse that foretells anything known as the gospel of God.

As for specific candidates for 1 Corinthians 15.3-4, the dying for sins plausibly derives from Isaiah 53.5 and other texts, and the being raised on the third day plausibly derives from Hosea 6.2. This kind of OT foreshadowing is not very convincing to most of us moderns, of course, but what can we do about it?

Ben.

ETA: I see my post crossed with that of pharoah. I think he is correct to highlight Hosea 6.2, of course, even if he himself does not think so.

gstafleu

"Scriptures" is a pretty good latinization of "γραφας", which means "writings." But in English "scriptures" carries the connotation of holy writings. Did γραφας have that connotation in Paul's day?

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

I agree about the Christian scripture, but not about scripture in general. Paul keeps saying how he got his insights via revelation. Where did this revelation come from? Perhaps from reading the γραφας? If so, how sure are we these γραφας need to be officially recognized Jewish γραφας, if there was such a thing at that time? [Edit: there was of course the LXX, so there were "official" scriptures at the time.]

Gerard Stafleu

John Kesler

John Day, in chapter four of Yahweh And The Gods And Goddesses of Canaan (or via: amazon.co.uk), develops the case that the resurrection imagery in Hosea, which speaks of the "resurrection" of Israel, was borrowed from the image of Baal's death and resurrection. (The reference to "on the third day," Day believes, is simply a poetic way of saying "after a short while," and he thinks that Luke 13:32-33 provides an example of this use.) Hosea, in turn, according to Day, influenced Isaiah 26:19, which influenced Daniel 12, a passage which definitely speaks of individual resurrection. Day makes a compelling argument, and if he is correct, then the Israelite doctrine of bodily resurrection goes back to the Canaanites via a series of reinterpretations, similar to what NT authors do with OT passages.

Loomis

That seems like an excellent book. I’m gonna have to break down and buy a copy.