hjalti

This is strange. In Gal 1 he even stresses that there is only one gospel, the one he's preaching (and like spin points out he doesn't call it "my gospel"). And in 1Cor 15 he's also talking about the gospel that he preached. He sure seems to be talking about the same thing, and in order to harmonize this you have to invent two gospels. Sorry, doesn't work.

SLD

He was my primary source, but I understand Earl Doherty as well made the same argument in his book.

Of course, a lot on these boards take the tack as well as you can see.


SLD

Toto

Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation by Robert M Price (also here and here in more readable formats.)

Price notes that many commentators (he calls them "orthodox apologists") have ruled out the possibility of interpolations, however likely they might seem. Most of the opposition to his article seems to have come from outright apologists (tektonics and friends.)

JoeWallack

Not theirs to reason why
Only theirs to do or die.
Into I Corinthians 15:3-11
wrote the 500.


JW:
spin has previously made an argument that the offending verse, 1 Corinthians 15:3-11:

is not original based on Language 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 -- encore:

JW:
In addition to spin's language arguments I'm going to add here an argument based on Theme. Paul is infamous for associating "crucifixion" + "Jesus". I argue that Paul may have been the first to do so:

Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

What is reMarkable about 15:3-11 is that in what reads like an official policy statement, Paul makes no mention of Jesus being crucified! I've already noted in my related Thread that this means that in addition to our having no first-hand witness that Jesus was crucified, we also have no second hand witness.

15:3-11 reminds me of one of those koined speeches from Acts, specifically Acts 5:

JW:
Parallels as follows:

1) Peter is set aside.

2) Authority from God.

3) Jesus resurrected.

4) No mention of crucifixion.

5) Sacrificial death.

6) Group witnessing.

7) Numbers (400/500).

The purpose of Acts is to reconcile Paul to Peter. Paul normally has a theme that his authority is superior to others. His claimed authority is God and his implication is that others have claimed authority of men. Acts though tries to make Paul's authority equal to Peter's. Where Paul shows competition, Acts shows cooperation. 15:3-11 has the theme of Acts, Paul is trying to make himself equal with Peter.

We have Provenance here in that Acts is clearly late 2nd century and this is the setting for orthodox Christianity to claim that Paul coordinated with supposed historical witness. We see exactly the same thing with the Forged ending of "Mark" at this time. Converting a Gospel based on Revelation to Historical witness. The double advantage for the orthodox here is that they are taking the star player for the Gnostics, Paul, and putting him on the orthodox team. The same strategy today as the Yankees not only signing a top free agent but specifically targeting a top free agent of their competition, the Red Sox. Word.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

SLD

Great Post, Joe! Fascinating deconstruction of the passage. I also noted something else odd - according to this passage there would have to have been 14 disciples as Judas was already dead. It does smack bizarrely.

Cheers and keep up the good analysis!

SLD

aa5874

But, when Acts of the Apostles is examined, the author obliterates Peter. From Acts 15.11 to Acts 28. 31, the last chapter and verse, Peter is no more.

And it is after Peter was obliterated that the author of Acts began to travel and preach ALL over the Roman Empire with Saul/Paul from ACTS 16 -ACTS 28.

Peter had evaporated into thin air.

The adventures of the author of Luke, Paul and company took over all of the remaining 13 chapters of Acts.

Acts 16:10 - The theme appears to be that PAUL's gospel was Superior or more significant to Peter's and that the author of Luke was an EYEWITNESS to PAUL.

spin

spin

spamandham

This topic has been beaten to death here, but personally, I think all of 1 Cor 15 is inauthentic, not just 3-11. It seems to me that 3-11 are consistent with the rest of 1 Cor 15, so that if 3-11 are inauthentic, so is the rest.

3-11 introduces revolutionary ideas not found anywhere else in Paul's authentic letters. But so does the rest of 1 Cor 15. Baptism for the dead? What the fuck is that, Paul, and why do you not mention it anywhere else if it gets under your skin so much?

It seems to me that the creed is anachronistic. Such a creed only becomes necessary once a cult begins to have diverging subcults. This smacks of part of a catholicising movement - which is mid/late 2nd century. Of course, if we reject the WTF argument based on Acts that is usually used to date Paul's letters, then this lies within the range of possible dates. Regardless, there is no reason for Paul to include such a creed in a real letter to the Corinthians, since they would already be familiar with it if it existed. A later writer seems clearly to be using the authority of Paul to spread this creed.

There is some debate as to what exactly Paul's gospel was. I have seen it argued that his gospel was salvation for the uncircumcised gentiles. If that's true, then there is no conflict between 1 Cor. 15 and Galatians 1. Personally, I don't buy that. It seems clear to me from numerous passages that Paul's gospel is salvation via the cross, and that Paul's gentile mission is just that - a mission, not a gospel.

aa5874

It is most amusing to see that when there is evidence to indicate that the Pauline writings were late, that is after the Gospels, that the evidence is assumed to "planted" or interpolated.

This is like a defense team arguing that all evidence that indicate guilt of their client was planted.

1 Corinthians 15 is a clear indication that the Pauline writing is late. The Pauline writer shows that he was aware of the resurrection story.

Now, the the authors of the Synoptics appear to be unaware of the Pauline 500 story where he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state so one Synoptic author claimed it was rumored that the disciples stole the body and the author of gJohn claimed that the apostles did not even know that Jesus was to be raised from the dead.

Now, if the Pauline writer had already preached all over the Roman Empire and in the churches that he and over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state then the stolen body story in gMatthew supposedly written decades later would have not made any sense. See Matthew 28.11-15.

But, the author gMatthew, writing perhaps after the Fall of the Temple, would claim that up to the time he was writing that the Jews were spreading the rumor that the soldiers stole the body of Jesus.

And Justin Martyr writing in the middle of the 2nd century, perhaps 80 years after the Jesus story, would also write that the Jews were spreading the rumor that the soldiers stole the body.

Justin Martyr did not write about the Pauline 500 just the stolen body story.

It is more likely and makes chronological sense that the Pauline 500 story was after gMatthew's stolen body story.

Consider gMark, this author also seems completely unaware of the Pauline 500, this author made the women who visit the burial site run away trembling and amazed.

It is more likely and makes more chronological sense that the Pauline 500 story, 1 Cor. 15.6, was after Mark 16.6.

Examine gLuke which is deduced to be the last written Synoptic, again this author did not use the Pauline 500 story. The Lucan Jesus even miraculously changed his appearance so that people would not recognise him.

Now, why would the unknown authors of the Synoptics copy one another or copy one source and completely ignore the Pauline 500 story preached for decades before them?

It is very likely that 1 Corinthians 15.6 was not written before the Gospels. And it must be noted that the Church writers placed the Pauline writer after gLuke was written.

There is no other source for the history of the Pauline writer but the Church writers and the NT and this is Eusebius in "Church History" 3.4.8

We know or it can be deduced that the Church writers were trying to erroneously place the dating of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pastorals, and the general Epistles earlier than they should have so why should they have placed the Pauline writings to the Churches in their correct time zone?

It must be or most likely that the entire canonical NT was erroneously placed before the Fall of the Temple to present a bogus history of the Church.

hjalti

For those who are interested, Hermann Detering on http://www.radikalkritik.de wrote an article in which he tries to reconstruct the Marcionite version of these verses and argues that the Marcionite version is original. It's in german and I can't find it on radikalkritik now, but I've got a pdf-copy if anyone is interested.