avi

Thank you Vivisector.
I do not quarrel with your assertion about the majority opinion. Yes, most folks would agree with the notion that Paul here, in 1Corinthians 15: 1-6 is referring, as Stephan and Doug pointed out, to old testament prophecy.

I just find that explanation facile, and frankly, contradictory to the text itself.

I am not working with preconceived ideas here (that is one, obviously tiny, advantage to approaching this issue utterly clueless, as I am.)

Your explanation appears, to me, at least, to focus on the historical time line of the elaboration of the epistles, with respect to that of the gospels, yet, I do not know that timeline, therefore, I am ignoring it.

I am asking a simple question, it is not a trick question. How can we accept the notion that "according to the scriptures" refers to the writings of the old testament, when Paul then cites "Cephas" and "the twelve"?

The question has nothing to do with what Catholics believe, or what Samaritans believe, or what Jews believe, etc....

My question is probably too childish. How can one NOT relate the text of 1 Corinthians 15: 1-6 to the new testament? What is there about the text of those six phrases that eliminates the four gospels as sources of information for the writer we call Paul?

As far as I am concerned, the text there stands alone, i.e. it does not matter what Marcion wrote, or Irenaeus, or Polycarp, or anyone else.

I claim, until someone comes along to explain why my interpretation is wrong, that 1 Corinthians 15: 1-6 proves, convincingly, that Paul here is fully cognizant of the four gospels, else, the text of these six passages is meaningless. It cannot refer, in my opinion, to the ancient prophecies rather than the four gospels, because of the words "Cephas" and "the twelve".

avi

stephan huller

Spin,

You're are probably more correct because my theorizing has gaps in it that can't be corroborated. They should continue to teach what you have to say in schools because we need to have some starting point to make sense of the Christian interpretation of scripture. Nevertheless your correctness is really limited only to the Catholic interpretation of the text (and likely those Church Fathers who were wholly indebted to Irenaeus). While we don't know for certain what the Marcionites believed or how they interpreted every scripture, it is important to put an asterix beside the interpretations which have widespread attestation (i.e. to say 'this may be true for Catholic sources' but the Marcionites who are older seemed to have said x, y and z).

To be honest Christianity has no influence on my life in anyway shape or form so I can live with the ambiguity. I think the study of the heresies should be approached in the manner in which Jewish teachers reveal kabbalah. Essential but reserved for those who first know the 'rules.' That was probably the approach of the later Alexandrian tradition (i.e. Clement and Origen). I do think that pure Marcionitism was the original tradition of Alexandria. Again no proof. It is almost solely based on my assumption that the so-called 'Letter to Alexandrians' in the Marcionite canon (cf. Muratorian canon) was the Marcionite title of the Epistle to the Corinthians. Again little more than interesting speculation.

I think Marcus Vinzent's book arguing for Marcionite primacy is going to be a game changer. I hope it will lead to that little asterix being placed beside EVERY interpretation of scripture. But with that said it is important to remember what is considered authoritative in the Catholic tradition (which is what you do so well). It's all about tradition and traditions of exegesis (or at least it should be).

As a side note and a parallel I would hope that all Jewish discussions about the תרי"ג מצוות‎ would have an asterix beside them saying something to the effect 'the oldest Jewish and Samaritan traditions only hold the ten utterances came from heaven." But that ain't going to happen. Still it is essential to make sense of where Christianity emerged in the picture.

Iskander

The catholic interpretation is good and relevant,

Velocity????
PS :I understand now the reason for the long exchanges that take place here

Iskander

The catholic interpretation says Paul is referring to tradition.

Your question has been answered

stephan huller

I agree but you have to do it with the Samaritan tradition because of their emphasis that Mark is a numerological equivalent of Moses (= 345). They obvious took an interest in this stuff (and still do. I was just talking to a Samaritan last night). Since they did we have to as well.

avi

How does this message of yours explain the answer solicited in the OP?
a. please elaborate the "catholic" interpretation;
b. please address the OP, by indicating your opinion.

When did ai grafai first refer to the four gospels?

How can one not accept the idea that in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-6 Paul demonstrates knowledge of the storyline elaborated in the four gospels, (RATHER THAN the idea that Paul is here simply relating, as Stephan pointed out, the passover murder of JC in terms of old testament prophecy,) in view of the words "Cephas" and "the twelve"?

avi

stephan huller

And just to tie up the loose ends with respect to the Samaritan etymology of the name Mark and take it back to Marcion.

Although Mark is a personal name in Latin and Greek, an Aramaic-speaker would have taken it as a TITLE if it had been useful to do so. The Samaritan Targum definitely translates Sh-L-M as maroq or mirroq, this definitely doesn’t mean that the Samaritans would have expected to use either of these two specific forms as a name or a title. These two forms are only the infinitives of the root M-R-Q, and the form marqa would have been felt as the ABSTRACT NOUN from the same root.

As for speakers of what is attested in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, and Jewish and Samaritan speakers of Hebrew, they would have felt the form marqa to be the abstract noun from the root M-R-Q meaning in legal usage “signed, sealed, and delivered”. None of the extant Jewish Targums use this word in this place, but the LXX has a translation that looks like the equivalent, which means there was probably once a Jewish Targum with this form.

Besides, how else can you explain why it is that the massively important figure Mårqe is not known to us by his Hebrew or Aramaic personal name? So” John Mark” would be a personal name followed by a title. As for the importance of the name John (Yohanan “the Lord is gracious”) here is a plausible route back to the Torah.

Note the words “Grace and Truth” right at the start of John’s Gospel, and note that what is meant is that the insight once limited to Moses will be accessible to everyone, the reference being to Exodus 34: 6 IN ITS CONTEXT. The words “Grace upon Grace”don’t mean, as the Evangelicals think, “lots and lots of grace”. They mean Grace on top of Grace or Grace in addition to Grace, i.e the universal awareness of grace going beyond the awareness once limited to Moses. This is what the Greek preposition plainly means, as Francis Moloney has pointed out in his commentary on John.

This makes me wonder just how much Sprachgefühl for Greek most N.T. scholars have. (You can see why I despair when N.T. scholars show their ignorance of the depths of the Torah, or the fact that the N.T. makes no sense without the Torah). I would guess that when Samaritan tradition stresses the numerical equivalence of Mårqe and Mûshi (Moses) it makes a reference to this interpretation or connotation, but with the original significance forgotten.

To this end it is worth noting that the etymology seems to be known to Ephrem (perhaps through his contact with Aramaic speaking Marcionites in Edessa). Kronholm (Motifs from Genesis 1-11 in the genuine hymns of Ephrem the Syrian with particular reference to the influence of Jewish exegetical tradition, LiberLäromedel/Gleerup, 1978) notices an interesting play on words in Ephrem's refutation of Marcion. He writes that according to Ephrem:

Marcion is entirely a child and servant of the Evil One (eg CH 1.9 - 18; XXXII,2). Playing on the name of Marcion, Ephrem remarks that the Evil One 'polished Marcion intensely' (lmrqywn [MSS AE mrqywn] mrq 'sgy, CH 2, 1 - 4]

The full citation in Ephrem is "Marcion he polished so much as to make him rusty. He scoured him to the point of blunting his mind with blasphemy." The play on words is between Marqion and maroq "to polish, to finish, to perfect."

I would never have seen any of this if it were not for my teacher Ruaridh Boid of Monash University. So a shout out should go to him.

Iskander

The catholic answer says that the word translated as scriptures is used as in the Jewish tradition. Your question is an interesting historical question but it has nothing to do with 1Cor 15:3

spin

Seriously, how do you know it's good and relevant?

Ah, another chink in your education. You need to have seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail

I doubt that.

Vivisector

Hi again, Avi. I understand what you're saying here, but I think it's relevant nonetheless. Conventional wisdom is that 1 Cor was written ca. 55 CE, whereas Mark was written ca. 70 CE. Furthermore, Mark is very widely considered to have been the first of the canonical gospels. Thus, provided any dating errors are small enough to avoid Mark writing before Paul, the dates alone argue against Paul having one or more gospels in mind.

I don't see an indication that Paul considers the appearances to Cephas and the 12 to have been "according to the scriptures," since he doesn't append this phrase to his recounting of the appearances. I interpret the passage as a statement of Paul's belief that Jesus's death and resurrection were "according to the scriptures," but not anything dealing with Cephas or the 12.

I believe it would be quite the undertaking to prove, within the very narrow and isolated context of these three or so verses alone, that they were not derived from written gospels.


I can only suggest that the larger context argues convincingly (to me) against your interpretation. If you search and can find no additional Pauline references to scripture that just as strongly support your case (Paul knew the canonical gospels), then that would seem not to be helpful to your argument.

Cheers,

V.