|
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Iceland
Posts: 761
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
|
If you guys are interested here's an English summary of an article written by Hermann Detering which I found on www.radikalkritik.de, but I can't find it now (but I do have a pdf copy if anyone is interested, and knows German  )
Quote:
ENGLISH SUMMARY OF :
H.DETERING, "TRADITION ODER INTERPOLATION? -
ANTIMARCIONITISCHE INTERPOLATIONEN IN
1 KOR 15, 1-11"
BY KLAUS SCHILLING
This essay especially addresses Gerd Luedemann’s book: Die Auferstehung
Jesu. Historie – Erfahrung – Theologie, 1994.
Vs. 3-5 of the chapter are frequently seen by conservative NT scholars as a
quotation of pre-paulinic tradition. Here it is shown that understanding the
passage as post-marcionite, antimarcionite interpolation makes more overall
sense.
According to Luedemann, Paul alludes to a piece of oral earliest christian
tradition in an appeal to the community of Corinth who seems to have
forgotten about it since the foundation of the church.
Conservative NT scholars tend to be fascinated by the earliness of christian
traditions, as they see a close link from there to the historical Jesus and his
disciples in Galilee and Jerusalem 2000 years ago. This explains all the hype
about 'pre-paulinic quotations' in the epistles, which increased especially at the
same speed as the reliability of the Gospels as documewnts from the life time
of the apostles decreased.
Luedemann had abandoned the Gospel account of the resurrection, and in
compensation saw a reliable source for it in the epistles which is not blatantly
overloaded by mytholegomena.
But the hypothesis that vs. 3-5 are actually pre-paulinic hasn't been
substantiated ever.
As in many other peculiar passages of the epistles of Paul, we have to
distinguish between two alternatives
- quotation of pre-paulinic tradition
- post-paulinic interpolation
One needs criteria to distinguish the both of them. Detering sees two main
criteria: while both interpolation and quotation show stylistic deviations, there
are bold differences w.r.t. content and context:
- quotations are performed in order to support the frame context,
interpolations are used in order to override the original context. if
contradictory concepts arise without plausible connecting comments
that's a safe sign for posterior interpolation.
- late interpolations often refer to knowledge that the original author may
not have had to his avail.
For the passage in question, already van Manen and Pobert Price objected to
the quotation hypothesis of traditional NT scholars.
Though there are no preserved manuscripts of First Corinthians which lack
15:3-5, the implicitely known version of Marcion does. It may rarely be seen
as accidental that Marcion's lacks more or less those passages that Price had
to dismiss as secondary.
This again strengthens the hypothesis of the independence of Marcion's
apostolicon from canonical epistles.
Following the road of the reconstruction of Galatians and its explanations,
Detering now reconstructs and discusses the (in)dependence of the Marcionite
recensions w.r.t. the canonical version.
The ancient secondary texts used for reconstruction are from Tertullian,
Adamantios and Epiphanius.
vs. 15:1 and 2 don't differ. Alas, 15:3-10 in Marcion's boil down to stating that
Paul taught Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection on the third day. What is
ommitted are the testimonies of the resurrection, starting with Peter, then the
12, then 500 indescript brethren, then James, then the other apostles, ands last
and least Paul himself. It also stresses the mercy of God, and Paul's immense
efforts, more than those of the Jerusalem guild, necessary for becoming an
apostle. Paulus canonicus also admits having received the message he
preaches for a third side, most likely implying Peter or the 12 Jerusalem
apostles.
vs. 11 in Marcion's states that that's the way the apostles teach, and that the
believers obtain faith. Paulus canonicus adds a 'whether me or them'
The allusion to the reception of the revelation from third hand is missing also
in some variant readings of First Cor. in the patristic era. Tertullian e.g. did
not seem to know it, thus can't report them to be missing in Marcion's. The
Adamantian dialogue is the main source for reporting their absence in
Marcion's. Harnack fables that some patrists deviated from the true Paulinics
and followed here inadvertently Marcion's corrupted version, for lack of better
knowledge.
Robert Price figured that it is strange that Paul, who generally expressively
stresses his own independance from other revelations, would admit here to
have received the fundamental record of christian doctrine from others.
Though most scholars are aware of that inner dissonance, they try to
rationalise it away with ad-hoc arguments, using e.g. Galatians 1:18 and
following, which, as shown earlier, is of course also an alien to the paulinic
corpus, interpolated for tying Paul to the dogmatic tradition of Petrinic
pontificacy. This is evidently also the intention of the interpolation in 15:3.
The alternative hypothesis would be , that Marcion or other heretics cancelled
out the phrase, but that's not likely due to the general arrogance of Paul
towards the 12.
Paulus canonicus reveals in the passage the judeochristian notion of the Lord
sacrificing himself as a scapecoat for the sake of the sins of (jewish) man
being forgiven. This is in contrast to the notion of ransom used by Marcion,
where the good god tries to loosen humanity from the curse of the law. The
Paulinics in general tends to the ransom version, e.g. in 6:20. 15:4 states that
the resurrection is according to scripture. It is nowhere near clear, which
passage of the Tanakh is alluded to. Isaiah 53 is a candidate, but that's vague
and speculative. It appears much more likely that the allusion to an unnamed
passage of the Tanakh is interpolated for the sole purpose of stealing Paul
from the heretics who, like Marcion, stressed the novelty
of the christian message as opposed to Tanakh tradition.
15:5-10, which lists the testimonies of the risen Lord, is missing out
completely in Marcion's. This has been disputed by Harnack with ad-hoc
arguments.
Now since 15:12 Paul tries to give rational reasons for the resurrection. But
why are they still necessary after a long list of testimonies? This shows that
the testimonies are added later on for dogmatic purposes. Also the order of the
witnesses is suspicious. Voelter and Harnack see in the insertion of James an
attempt of reconciliation with the ebionite community, making at the same
time clear that Peter and the twelve are the absolute authorities of Christian
faith. Detering sees several stages of interpolation: an early catholic that
subdues Paul to Peter, and a later catholic one that reconciles with the
Ebionites. Van Manen noted that Paul seems to look back to his active
apostolic times, which conflicts with the main tendency of the epistles, where
Paul seems to be in the midst of his missionary activities. The 500 witnesses
mentioned in the passage are not parallelled in the Gospels. The Gospels
could not have ignored them if they were at the core of earliest Christian
tradition. In order to find parallels, besides the many witnesses of the
=pentecostal= scene in the Acta Apostolorum, one has to move forward to
remote deuterocanonical apochrypha like the Acta Pilati, as noted by Price.
The A.P. mentions 500 soldiers guarding the Lord's tomb, plus 500 witnesses
of the resurrection. It's most likely that the roman soldiers are an earlier
tradition than the 500 brethren. The lack of older parallels than the Acta Pilati
hinsts strongly towards a late (postpaulinic) tradition anyways.
A stumbling block in exegetic literature is the mention of Paul as =the= failed
birth (ektroma). The most reasonable parallel is found in Valentinian
aionology, where Sophia, last and least of the Aions, is said to have a failed
birth, and getting cast out of the Pleroma along with the kid. The usage of the
def. article in this context makes no sense unless with reference to an already
known tradition of a 'cosmic abortion' or a similar outstanding event of a
failed birth, be it real or mythological. The pleroma consisted of 12 aions, akin
to the 12 disciples of the Gospels. The author of the passage is thus most
likely familiar with the Valentinian tradition, or an earlier tradition that was
also source of the Valentinian mythology. The allusion is made in a satirical
manner. The interpolation of the passage is thus wholly motivated by
dogmatic reasons to polemise against the Paul-based heresies esp. of Marcion,
establishing the Petrinic office as the absolute faith authority, by making him
the primary witness of resurrection. The main motive was the establishment of
the resurrection as a historical fact, and not as a metaphysical allegory as
supposed by the heretics, esp. Marcion. The self-denigration of Paul as the last
and least of the apostles, including 'ektromos', hints to the hands of a redactor
polemising the Paul-worshipping heresies of Marcion et al.
The first part of 15:11 , missing in Marcion's , is easily seen as pointing out
the identity of Paul's and Peter's Gospel teachings, and, in virtue of the
previously established history, the dependence on Peter: There's no other
doctrine preached by any apostle besides the one approved by the Petrinic
pontificate! In Adv. Haer III,13:1 Irenaios states this message as an absolute
dogma, alluding to the testimonies of the resurrection thus pointing sharply to
the circle around Irenaios as the source of the interpolation.
We must conclude that First Cor. 15 is most likely dependant on several post-
paulinic traditions, and mostly inserted for reasons of catholic dogmatics
which appeared in catholic circles in refutation of heretics like Marcion. Thus
it may not be seen as a gate to earliest traditions of Christian faith, let alone
report actual events of the early thirdies of first century Jerusalem.
|
|
04-07-2010, 12:16 PM
