archibald

Paul's gospel does not include the resurrection.

You sure?

dog-on

Are you sure I said that???

archibald

error

archibald

No. :redface:

Ok. So ............

TedM

Yes, I am leaning toward the idea that some of the 'block' was interpolated but not all of it. Not because I'm trying to hang on to something though. At this point it appears to me that there is reason to believe the following:

1. Paul described his original gospel of resurrection (fits better with verses 1-2 and 12)
2. It included appearances/visions of others (since belief in Jesus' resurrection was pre-Paul, and fits better with references after verse 11))
3. It well may have not included all of the list of witnesses given.
4. It well may not have included the harsher language toward Paul.
5. It likely did include something about Paul's own witness.
6. It likely included the language regarding his working harder than the others.

Ted

archibald

Doesn't sound unreasonable. I'm not saying I'm leaning in favour of it, but it's certainly a possibility. As far as I can see.

TedM

Yes, I understand but what would have been more analogous is this: "Let me remind you of the gospel which I preached, which you believed and held fast to, of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But if he be preached as resurrected, and you believe it, why do some of your say there is no resurrection?"

To stop at 'the gospel' and then to discuss the peripheral ideas of holding fast to the faith, etc.. and THEN introduce the subject without first mentioning the aspect of the resurrection is less satisfactory. The passive implication of the resurrection is less satisfactory than a direct mention of it. I would think experts of Paul would say that he is so repetitive on subjects that it would be unlike him to dodge the main issue of resurrection--which of course he would reference by way of the preaching of the resurrection of Christ.

You mentioned the 'smell test' earlier. I think that applies here:

While the Corinthians weren't questioning whether Jesus had been resurrected, Paul believes such questioning was not far off which is why is says, in essence, that if man can't be resurrected then Jesus could not have been resurrected. And he points out that their belief in Christ's resurrection is the very foundation of their faith. It wouldn't pass the 'smell test' for him to not say something in defense of Jesus' resurrection--ie to not address WHY they believed in the first place since it was that belief that was being threatened.

archibald

You don't even need to speculate as much as that. 'He could easily have said it' is enough. One surely can't chop out text just because one reads the frame of mind Paul was in, or his supposed inclinations to elaborate or not elaborate at the time? Anyhows, the case was made on grounds of conflict.

And the fact that some people seemed not to notice something so blindingly obvious, or persisted in denying it, is not reassuring.

dog-on

In fact, Paul does introduce the aspect of the resurrection in v. 12, but the resurrection is not, itself, the gospel.

archibald

It may also be worth mentioning that the methodology we are using here seems to be limited to only one or two criteria, at most. Mainly 'plausible motivation', though even that does not seem to explain chopping the whole block.

As I understand it, there are no strong linguistic clues for interpolation, for example, or textual evidence, of from manuscripts.

It is surely preferable, before claiming interpolations with confidence, to satisfy more than this?