MCalavera

I fail to see the logical connection between your points.

spin

Here is the passage before the interpolation:

1 Now I would remind you, brethren, of the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain. 12 But if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

This, as is, is a coherent argument. In the first two verses Paul is making his Corinthians remember the gospel he proclaimed to them, because they will be saved by it unless the belief is in vain. He has set up the discourse he will elaborate on in the following verses, churning over the possibility of belief in vain. This is a prelude to the argument later in the chapter where he develops the theme of resurrection and what it means. Here, however, in the passage ending at v.19 he has to get over the possibility of the belief in vain.

He argues that "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless" and again "If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, (ie without resurrection) we are of all men most to be pitied." The necessity of resurrection is labored because it is logically necessary to the Pauline religion.

As has been discussed in the thread, the use of "receive" (παραλαμβανω) is significant. As can be seen in v.1 the notion is clear of someone receiving something of value from someone of significance. Paul gives the gospel and the Corinthians receive it, as a master to pupils. This is the same for the Galatians, who receive the gospel from Paul, Gal 1:9, and for the Thessalonians, 1 Th 2:13.

But let's look at what comes between v.2 and v.12:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

1. This separates the topic set up in vv.1-2 from the Pauline discussion, a discussion on the necessity of the resurrection. However, if vv.3-8 were genuine, there would be no need to argue the necessity of the resurrection, for there have been such marvelous witnesses to it--not just Cephas and James, but to all the apostles and better yet to 500 people! Bang goes the rhetorical need for arguing the logical necessity of the gospel. Who needs logical anythings when you have hundreds of witnesses? These verses are fishy.

2. And further on the smell, according to Gal 1:12 Paul did not receive the gospel from human beings, but from revelation, yet the passage implies that he received, as from his master, the creedal information which follows concerning the various appearances. This is not part of god's revelation of Jesus. He did not receive it from the master above him.

3. And another dead give away, Paul tells in Gal 1:15 that god "had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace". His birth is special, yet 1 Cor 15:8 talks of his being "untimely born", though in fact it means "miscarried/aborted" (see LXX Job 3:16). Either god set him apart at birth or his birth was, umm, "untimely", not both.

Touting himself as "the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle" is certainly going to make his Corinthian believers think that he is a trustworthy master.

There is a conflict between the content of vv.3-11 and the rest of the text and the Pauline corpus that suggests that these verses were not written by Paul. Who would want to belittle Paul? I mean other than those who want to be sure of Peter's supremacy in the church and put Paul in his place? Who would want to lift the game from Paul's logical necessity of resurrection to gospel standard resurrection appearances? I mean other than people who knew of the physical resurrection from the gospels?

We could also look at the problems with the claimed 500 and various other clangers among the appearances, but there is sufficient evidence in the three issues I point out above to think that vv.3-11 is an interpolation.

Solo

Why do you think he needed to be manipulative in that that particular instance, given that everywhere else he considers his revelations at least equal to those of other apostles, if indeed not the superior and exclusive (Gal 5:10) ?

Best,
Jiri

maryhelena

Very nice, spin - what would we do without you.

Now, I'll throw out an idea................

These interpolations or contradiction in the Pauline story could indicate that we are not dealing with a historical 'Paul', but, as with the gospel JC, dealing with a composite, figurative or symbolic, figure. In other words; a pre-gospel 'Paul' - which does not mean that 'Paul' does not know a story about JC - - we have the Toldoth Yeshu and its Yeshu birth story set around 90 b.c. We have a post-gospel 'Paul' who is aware of those 500 who witnessed the resurrection of JC. We thus have an early 'Paul' who gets his gospel from no man - vision etc. And we have a later 'Paul' who is the last of the apostles. We have a 'Paul' set aside from his mother's womb and a 'Paul' who is untimely born.

Looks very much as though 'Paul' is not a historical figure at all - but rather that the 'Paul' story is reflecting a fusing, a combining, of two separate traditions involving historical figures relevant to the development of the christian story.

Yes, one can leave it as just interpolations - designed for some ulterior Catholic motive - or one could let the interpolations tell their own story - two separate traditions that indicate a composite figure of 'Paul'.....

footnote

my recent post re the Toldoth Yeshu.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....75#post6907675

Solo

Further, the idea of Paul writing he was "unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" is definitely out of character also. This is a later church view of him, written into the legend of Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus, and into 1 Timothy 1:13 though I formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted him; but I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief. Paul himself however had no qualms about his former persecution of the Church (Gal 1:13-14, Phl 3:5-6); on the contrary he saw it as a mark of character, righteous service and zeal for his Judaic traditions.

There are couple of other items to note: Paul asserts that Christ did "in fact" (nuni) rise in 1 Cr 15:20, as a fulfilled promise to those brethern who died recently (i.e. before parousia). This does not contradict verses 5-7 flat out, but it certainly makes the attestation - to be taken with Paul on faith - look odd, compared to the confident teaching which Paul volunteers to transmit for the church in the disputed passage. Also, the theological basis of the resurrection spelled out in 21-22 rests solely on a home-baked formula of a second Adam by whom God reconciled the fall of man and overruled death. Again, it would have made no sense for Paul - the least of the apostles - to advance his own theoretical framework for Christ's resurrection if that resurrection was vouched for by mass sightings of Jesus which he dutifully reported earlier.

Best,
Jiri

TedM

Hi spin,

I have long been interested in this topic, though have not yet pursued it. See my thoughts below..

Verses 1-2 are only a very brief introduction that says: "I remind you of the gospel I preached, that your faith won't be in vain."

For such an important topic--the very essence of Paul's gospel of resurrection, something seems amiss because Paul does not describe his gospel here--the gospel of the resurrection! He doesn't remind them of anything concrete--he doesn't even say "I remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead"

Since Paul is about to address the necessity of the resurrection, it would seem most odd for him to not set the stage upfront by reminding them of what he actually DID preach to them at the beginning. Your alleged pre-interpolation passage seems somewhat of an incoherent argument from that standpoint: His introduction of the gospel is nothing more than an allusion to it--with no further information.

In addition, notice the phrase "But if Christ is preached". Why doesn't Paul say "But if I preached Christ", if he is referencing HIS gospel only? He appears to be tying back to a previous reference of more than one person that preached a risen Christ.

BOTH of these issues are solved when one includes verses 3-11: 3-11 gives a background regarding HOW the Corinthians first received the gospel of resurrection that Paul preached to them and needs to defend. In that background it also references a tradition which would logically have resulted in others preaching a gospel of resurrection--thus making the phrase 'But if Christ is preached' more understandable in context.

With regard to those two issues I submit that the alleged interpolation provides an improvement in the coherency of the passage overall.

Despite being told of Christ's resurrection some Corinthians were doubting that normal dead humans could be resurrected (perhaps doubting that it would be in their same bodies). Presumably they did believe Christ was resurrected.

Paul is saying that the answer to the question they had about the resurrection of humans is found in the resurrection of Christ: He references preaching that Christ had been resurrected (tying in to vs 3-11) and then concludes that those who are questioning human resurrection would logically have to conclude that the testimony of himself and others was all in vain, and a LIE.

Notice the phrases OUR preaching is in vain, WE are even found, WE TESTIFIED. Your version only speaks of PAUL's preaching. It would make more sense for him to say I TESTIFIED and MY preaching is vain, and I am found to be a false witness. But he didn't.

Note too that he had referenced the labor of himself and others in verse 10

All of who? Without 3-11 it would not be clear at all! Each of those phrases refer back to the gospel of multiple persons, and not just Paul. Verses 12-15, his introduction to the issue they were squabbling over, appears to tie in with verses 3-11 better than if those verses were not there as they appear to refer back to several details found in them.


I agree with those who say Gal 1:12 is used too liberally. In this same book Paul references the gospel of others--Apollos and Cephas (presumably the same Cephas mentioned in 15:5), AND Paul is approving of their gospels:


CH1:
Ch3Paul saw himself as a 'fellow worker' with apostles such as Cephas.
It's time to put to rest this notion that Paul's gospel differed from others of his day--including Cephas/Peter--with respect to the resurrection of Jesus. It's a nonsense claim It would make MORE sense for Paul to preach also about the experiences of others who came before him regarding Jesus' resurrection than just his own. It makes sense that the WE, and OUR references above include other apostles such as Apollos and Cephas that he named earlier in the epistle.



It appears that the argument here is that inconsistency by Paul is evidence that 1 Cor 15:8 is an interpolation. I don't see any inconsistency: in one case he is saying God pre-ordained him for a mission (Galations). In the other he is implying that he 'saw/was revealed' the resurrected Jesus at a time later than the others--'last of all' as he states. Being pre-ordained for something does not restrict the time in which that something is revealed. IMO this is not a 'dead give away' because there is no inconsistency.



Paul explains this comment -- This is a reasonable explanation. Paul mentions this persecution in the early Galations, and shows an awareness of the implications of his past. It is only reasonable that that some would disqualify Paul as an apostle on that basis. Paul shows earlier an awareness of his shaky standing:

Paul knows he is on the fringe of apostleship:

CH 9:
YET, this is followed by:

He says -- in this alleged interpolated passage -- that he labored more than all of them. That sounds very Pauline to me. In addition, the very last sentence is consistent with the desire for Paul to see himself as working in tandem with fellow co-workers in the Lord, which he states plainly earlier in the epistle. (see below)



A few more points to consider:

Paul testified elsewhere in the same epistle that both he and others, called apostles, had seen Jesus:

Ch 11
The verses 3-11 are completely consistent with this earlier testimony, and one would assume that Paul delivered his account of this to the Corinthians early on. It is reasonable too to assume that since Paul had fellow workers in the Lord--including Cephas and Apollos--he would have had no reservations about including their testimony to bolster his gospel message of the resurrection:

In addition, the entire book of Corinthians is devoted to Paul addressing various quarrels and issues that had arisen among the Corinthians--some having to do with apostleship and whether Apollos or Cephas were more deserving than Paul, and others having to do with various teachings they had received previously. Paul references prior teachings/traditions a couple of times:


CH 11
Verse 3 is entirely consistent with the earlier references to prior teachings and traditions:

Again here Paul doesn't say WHO or WHERE or HOW he received these traditions--just that he received them.



TO SUMMARIZE:

1. 3-11 more reasonably describes Paul's gospel of resurrection than just an allusion to a gospel without mentioning resurrection.

2. 3-11 more reasonably explains the phrase 'But if Christ is preached' in the verse 12.

3. 3-11 more reasonably explains 4 different references to others having preached the gospel or resurrection to them.

4. 3-11 addresses the claim that Christ was resurrected. There is no clear sign that the Corinthians were questioning that--so there was no need to say 'hey we saw it'.

5. 3-11 references testimony and 'labor' and 'witnesses', which were addressed after verse 11.

6. The objection on the grounds that Paul's resurrection of the gospel was the only one does not square with other references in the epistle, including one of Cephas.

7. Paul elsewhere implies that other apostles had seen Jesus too.

8. 3-11 are not inconsistent with reality--Paul's history reasonably makes him a questionable apostle, yet Paul says he labored more than all of them, and the concluding sentence is consistent with other references in the epistle.

9. Paul references traditions and prior teachings elsewhere in a consistent manner--not revealing the source.


Considering all of the above, I would have to conclude that the objections raised here have satisfactory answers and those answers even reveal that verses 3-11 are MORE APPROPRIATE to the both the immediate context and the context of the entire epistle than if they were not there originally, and at least on these basis are more likely to be original to the text than not.




Ted

spin

This is a misrepresentation of the text in that it leaves out very important ideas. The text is about being reminded of the gospel through which one is saved by perseverance--unless the belief is vain. This notion of belief in vain is set up here and worked through in vv.12-19 by examining notions of Paul's gospel concerning resurrection and interrupted by vv.3-11.

He's already proclaimed the gospel. Here he is looking at some of the details.

He looks at implications of the resurrection in vv.12-19.

There is nothing here other than an assertion whose validity seems groundless to me.

He sets out his topic in vv.1-2, dealing with aspects of his gospel, the significance of being saved.

You are just trying to make something out of a passive aimed at dealing with the implications of the action rather than the superfluous agent of the action.

The only issues you displayed are ones of your own making. An assertion and an apparently unjustifiable, limiting view of the use of the passive.

You can understand that I see no reason for you to have got to this point, based on assertion and error.

His topic is the difficulties regarding resurrection and the apparent ambivalence of his audience to the notion of resurrection to such an extent that they seem to doubt the notion. It is this that he is trying to work through.

Yep, that's right. The intervening stuff interrupts the discourse.

OK

On vv.12-13:
On v.14:
You'll note that 1 Corinthians is ostensibly written by two people, Paul and Sosthenes. He also talks throughout 1 Cor about Apollos and Cephas. When he uses "we" there are simple candidates already there to fill the pronoun. He uses "we" frequently through the text, so there is nothing in it here to use as a platform into vv.3-11.

Whatever you are trying to say doesn't seem to have been made clear, probably because of the lack of basis of your lead up work.

Gal 1:12 was cited for a specific linguistic purpose to show hoe the verb παραλαμβανω is used by Paul about himself and how inappropriate it is in 1 Cor 15:3.

(Will you never learn??)

Perhaps if the text had said what you translate it to have said, then you might have a case, but you are ignoring what is actually said. I cited where the word εκτρωμα is used elsewhere (LXX Job 3:16). Deal with what the language actually says not what you want it to say. Either he had been set apart by god at birth or he was not, either he came along at the right time as being set apart at birth suggests or he did not. Either his birth was highly questionable, like an abortion, or it was not. Of course, I know a christian will explain this away by closing one eye and moving the text to such an angle that you can't see what it actually says.

And so we chase our tails. You are now going to argue from another highly contentious passage which features the Lucan last supper inserted into a text that is talking about something completely different to make your non-existent case here. So, if I go back and nail your foot to the floor over that, you'll pry the one I already have nailed free so that you can come back and say, "but Paul says in 1 Cor 15..." I have dealt with both these passages before here and instead of dealing with the issues concerning those passages one points from the first to the second or vice versa to justify the other.

What's reasonable to you equates to eisegesis to me.

Still not having processed the problem about the use of the verb here translated as "received". The significance already pointed out was basically one of master to student, receiving teaching (the verb could even include "inheritance"), a relationship that is unjustifiable when Paul uses the same verb for his own receiving from god.

It's an interpolation, TedM.

When it seems to me that you haven't shown you've understood the issues, your conclusion appears to be totally unfounded.

And your edited summary adds nothing that needs comment. It just is a more succinct encapsulation of your errors.

archibald

Assuming Paul was a real person, and indeed arguably a somewhat complicated and perhaps arguably at times confused person (who isn't? ) I think there is a tendency to expect Paul to be extremely consistent and sure in all that he says.

As such, 'finding inconsistencies' (or indeed digressions) does not strike me as the best basis, of itself, to raise anything more than a reasonable query. And this thread is already filling up with explanations based on this supposed 'Perfectly consistent Paul', with someone even suggesting that the best resolution is more than just an interpolated Paul, but a 'composite character Paul'. Hey, maybe he was a composite character AND an individual person. :]

It might also be noted that Paul strikes a humble note earlier in the same letter:

'I came to you in weakness, timid and trembling' 1 Cor 2:3

By the way, I am also of the opinion that we do not need to consider Paul as incapable of fibbing.

The 'I didn't get my gospel from any man' smells a bit like a fib, to me. :]

TedM

Ok spin, lets see if your replies hold up under scrutiny:

I left out the idea of perseverance. It is fairly irrelevant to the points raised.


Without 3-11 Paul has simply asked them to remember the gospel he preached to them. It would have been appropriate to introduce the topic spin. He didn't do that. He could have said 'I remind you of the gospel of resurrection of Jesus Christ that I preached to you--ie Christ died and was resurrected as revealed to me by God himself and corroborated by the scriptures'. That would have been more appropriate. Yet, he gives no background, no tradition, no history without 3-11. NO, it isn't necessary. Yes, it would have been more appropriate than to just jump right in and 'look at the implications' of their issue without setting the proper tone by expounding on his original teachings with regard to that resurrection.


That is not correct. The 'intervening stuff', as you put it, provides a background of the elementary teaching of the resurrection. He begins with 'For I delivered unto you'--which is an appropriate continuation of verses 1-2, and he ends with 'so we preached and so you believed'--which is appropriately followed in verse 12 with "But if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?". The passage is completely appropriate to the verses it falls between. Your objections on this basis have no validity, spin.



The most immediate context does not support you spin. The passage begins with:

Paul doesn't include Sosthenes, Apollos, or Cephas in this verse. Earlier in the book he says that he and he alone is their father in the faith:

Even the first verse of the alleged interpretation follows his first person account: It is entirely POSSIBLE that his use of WE and OUR in verses 14 and 15 are to people named earlier in the epistle but not recently, but which ones? It is more fitting that those verses are referencing the testimonies just mentioned in the same context--the people he mentions as witnesses to a risen Christ in 3-11..

The context is more supportive of Paul having mentioned specific multiple testimonies to a risen Christ than just having mentioned himself and his own gospel.



Paul's gospel included two things:
1. Jesus was resurrected
2. The resurrection enabled salvation by faith, and faith alone, for Gentiles

I maintain that Paul is referring to #2 in Galations 1:12, and not #1. If I'm right, then the wording in 1 Cor 15:3 would not be inappropriate.


I disagree with your conclusion which I've highlighted in bold. I"m not closing my eyes to anything. You are grasping at nothing here. The word εκτρωμα means 'untimely birth'. He is narrating the chronology of the resurrection appearances, placing himself last--as one born 'untimely'. It has nothing to do with his being pre-ordained by God to being called for a mission. Totally separate concepts.



And who did he get the traditions from spin? I didn't say the receiving is identical. I said that in none of these cases does Paul say who the source is, but he did receive information and passed it along to the Corinthians. To do so again in chapter 15 would not be inconsistent with that fact.


So, for me at least, your objections are easily and reasonably answered. Your biggest (seemingly) objection--ie the passage is interrupted--is IMO just not true and --again for me--the passage is actually more logical as it currently stands because it fits the immediate context as well as the overall context better than does the parsed version you have given.

Ted

archibald

Wow, the (not unenjoyable to read) vortex of speculation/interpretation which accompanies all sides of discussions on these issues never ceases to amaze me!

I will admit this however, I was wrong to imply (in a previous thread) that the claim for interpolation in this passage is spurious, because there is perhaps slightly more to the argument in favour than I had thought.

On that basis, for my own personal purposes, I am going to upgrade it to 'possibly an interplation, possibly not an interpolation', since that seems the more rationally skeptical thing to do now.

Though I am still thinking back to Price's conclusions (posted earlier) and noting that the main criteria which offer support are those of the general form 'Paul would or wouldn't say this, or that, so if the text says it, or doesn't say it.........'

So Price's final lines seem reasonable:

'......the weighing of the evidence and of the various criteria must be left to the judgment of each scholar, I venture to say that the emergent hypothesis, while it can in the nature of the case never be more than an unverifiable speculation, can claim a significant degree of plausibility as one among many options for making sense of the passage.'