jakejonesiv

The witness list of 1 Corinthians 15 is a post-Pauline interpolation. We see the combining and harmonizing of three separate contradictory traditions that certainly denote a period later than the traditional dating of Paul. We have Peter(Cephas) and the Twelve, then 500 brethren at once, then James and all the Apostles, and lastly Paul as an as "one born out of time" and "least of the apostles."

There is something suspicious about each item on the "witness list."
15:5 conflates Cephas with Peter, and is the only mention of the Twelve in the Pauline epistles.

15:6. The 500 brethren are mentioned nowhere in the gospels. Since this would be the most astounding alleged appearance of Jesus, we must ask ourselves if it is not more like of late origin? The answer is that it is of very late origin, posterior even to the gospels. To find the source we must look to the "Acts of Pilate." See chapters 12 forward.
15:7. Appearance to James and all the Apostles. (What? Peter and the Twelve weren't apostles??). Again, a tradition unknown in the four canonical gospels. We must look to the Gospel of the Hebrews for the source.
According to Jerome,
.
cf Gospel of Thomas, logion 12:

15:8-9. Appearance to Paul. The description of Paul as "an abortion" and the "least of the Apostles" is not humility on the part of Paul, but a post-Pauline demotion of Paul below all the other apostles. This is certainly in contradiction to the fiercely independent Paul portrayed elsewhere in the epistles.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6&version=NASB It was part of the "Subjegation campaign against St. Paul."

Then we have the catholic assertion that harmonizes all the witnesses "Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed." 15:11. This denotes a late stage of development where the sectarian controversies were being resolved by the proto-catholics in their campaign for the myth of harmonious Christian origins, with the proto-catholics themselves being the "true" origin!

Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation by Robert M. Price
and
Tradition oder Interpolation? Antimarcioniteische Interpolationen in 1 Kor 15, 1-11
by Hermann Detering

The google translation from German to English is not quite so good, but here it is:
http://tinyurl.com/1Kor15Interpolation

OK, at this point, we have established that the witness list is an interpolation. But that is hardly on the problems with the text of 1 Corinthians chapter 15.

1 Corinthians 15:3 did not in the first instance contain the phrase "what I also received".

Proponents of the Historical Jesus will point to 1 Corinthians 15:3 as evidence that Paul received information concerning Jesus from the Jerusalem apostles.
"For I delivered to you as of first of all WHAT I ALSO RECEIVED..."

They will say Paul learned this when visiting with Cephas and James on the alleged "first" trip to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:17-18).

Earl Doherty and his supporters respond with the argument that Paul received this knowledge by Revelation directly from the heavenly Jesus Christ without human intermediary. And thus the discussions continue.

But the point is moot. 1 Corinthians 15:3 did not in the first instance contain the phrase "what I also received". Here is the text Irenaeus had.

The Old Latin manuscript b 89 supports the omission of "what I also received."
Old Latin b — (Manuscript 89), 800 CE, Széchényi National Library Budapest Hungary

Marcion's reading did not have "which I also received." In addition, Marcion did not have "according to the scriptures." Here is Marcion's text from Tertullian, AM 3:8.
It is evident that Marcion and the Jews were right. There is no scripture that states Christ will die, be buried, and rise after three days. It is often asserted (Matthew 16:1; Luke 24:25-27, 32, 44-46; Acts 2:27-31; 13:29-39) but never explicitly defined. One can only with great trouble read it in the Hebrew scriptures after the fact. Christians constantly struggle with this key fact and end up begging because it is not found in Psalm 2:7; 16:8-11 or Isaiah 52:13-53:12 or Hosea 6:2. Even Jesus in the gospels is reduced to pleading for "the sign of Jonah" which is a singularly ill fit.

Aside from interpolations, there is no other evidence for Paul knowing the Twelve, or an apostolic status for Peter.

Galatians 2:7b-8 is an interpolation.
William O. Walker, Galatians 2:7b-8 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Oct. 2003, pp. 568ff.

William O. Walker Jr., "Galatians 2:8 and the Question of Paul's Authorship" JBL 123 (2004): 323-327.

The Non-Pauline Origin of The Parallelism of The Apostles Peter And Paul. Galatians 2:7-8, Ernst Barnikol http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Barnikol.pdf

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

archibald

Whoops. Thread confusion. :]

jakejonesiv

Original reading of 1 Corinthians 15:1-12
1 Corinthians 15
1 Now I am reminding you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you indeed received and in which you also stand.
2 Through it you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you first of all: that Christ died for our sins;
4 that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day.
12 But if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead?

Lying behind 1 Cor. 15:3 is a redeemer myth. 1 Corinthians 15 employees the famliar language of the Eleusinian mysteries, i.e. Demeter and Kore. The mystery of the resurrection is likened to a seed of grain that dies and then rises; the same cycle of grain that was presented in a dramatic way in the death and new life of Kore -- and by extension to the initiates of the Christian mysteries. Thus, the resurrection of Christ is the first fruits of the harvest.

Jake

spin

It is a technical word, but you need to understand the jargon, otherwise its translation becomes a matter of what Tertullian thinks gives good Latin, rather than reflecting the technical understanding that took us a long time to establish.

It doesn't even need to mean literally what the term meant in Greek. You need to know a little bit about translation which you don't.

Understandable. You've consistently shown no sign of understanding anything about basic linguistics.

Is Irenaeus any help to you in establishing a text with appearances?? How do either Irenaeus or Tertullian help you in your quest to salvage 1 Cor 15:4-11 or whatever part of it you want at the moment?

I've already partly explained the difficulties of dealing with translated languages. Translations are not Cartesian in the relations between the information in the destination language and the language of origin. That's why Tertullian isn't very much use.

You don't mind if I don't respond to your lack of knowledge in what you are trying to talk about.

As to my "pet theory", beside the possibility that a different 1 Cor 15:3 wording may have been original, what have you done to give any credence to the possibility that any of the material now in vv.3-11 was original? Where is your first recognizable evidence for the material? Irenaeus seems to be referring to two different versions of 1 Cor 15. In 3.18.3 he moves from the Marcionite version of v.3 straight to v.12, separated only by his commentary. This seems to be the form of the Marcionite version of 1 Cor, but in 3.13.1 he refers to a version with the appearances.

Early on when asked I put forward a rough notion that the interpolation may have happened between the time of Marcion and of Irenaeus. You've said absolutely nothing that makes an impact on this.

We have no knowledge of anything tangible before Paul.

You know what I think of your common sense forays into uncharted waters.

If you want to repudiate the gospel traditions as late and not of any help here with the twelve, then this must bear on any use of gospel material to understand Paul, such as brother James, Cephas = Peter, and anything else of that nature as later tradition and of no help. If you're happy to accept this, I'll be happy to accept the twelve. Otherwise, the twelve is in conflict with christian tradition.

The 500 would be a big event of such notability that it couldn't be left out of Wikipedia even. This is an albatross for you TedM, along with the abortion. You already indicated that you think there has been some modification to Paul's text here.

TedM

Hi Jake, it's good to get some fresh perspective. I'm really tired of back and forth with spin, as I'm sure he has been too..


There is nothing suspicious about Paul mentioning Cephas. He mentions him earlier in the same epistle, and he was the one Paul stayed with for 15 days a few years after his conversion. He, presumably, was one of the 3 pillars of the early church. An orthodox interpolator would have been more inclined to mention Peter instead of Cephas, in accordance with the gospels and the interpolation in Galations 2 (if it is one). So, this mention is more in favor of Paul than an interpolator.


True, but someone has to be first to mention the 'twelve'. Why not Paul? After all, if one is willing to accept that 'brothers of the Lord' was a group not mentioned previously in the literature, on what grounds can that person dismiss mention of 'the twelve'?

Second, to my knowledge we have no precedent for any mention of resurrection appearances to 'twelve' either. See my recent posts on this. Again, a later interpolator would not have been inclined to say 'twelve', because of the Judas story.

BTW, as an aside, it makes sense that Christianity did not begin with one or two or even three people. There is nothing unusual with the idea that there was a group large enough fairly early on to sustain the movement. It would not be unusual for us to have records of appearances to more than a couple of people. This is true for both HJ and MJ.


Interesting story. I would not have thought of the five hundred as being Roman soldiers..Seems a creative solution to that...Prob is that if the 500 came from this story, how does that explain the Origen reference? How early was this story? See my recent comments.


Nothing unusual here either. First, according to orthodoxy James the Just was not part of the inner circle of twelve. So, chronologically the appearances make some sense: First to the prominent disciple, then the entire inner circle, then those outside of the inner circle.

If James were not part of the inner circle of twelve, how else does one explain his rise to head of the first Christian Church? If the explanation is 'he was Jesus' brother' there goes the MJ theory out the window.

There is nothing unusual with mentioning 'all the Apostles' either. There is no more need to exclude the Twelve from also being apostles than there would be for excluding 'brothers of the Lord' from being apostles: They could be both. As mentioned above, a movement such as this likely had adherants in the hundreds at the very least. Remember that Judas the Galilean and the Egyptian prophet all had large followings. So, an appearance to those outside the inner circle -- 'all' the apostles, whether it be the seventy or some other number, is not unusual.



None of the four gospels match each other exactly on the appearances. Peter, the eleven, and other apostles are fairly consistent in the tradition. James is an anomoly. Since he was the first leader in Jerusalem it would seem that there was some reason for that. And yet, the gospels exclude him, and in Acts he suddenly 'appears' without explanation. It may well be that the gospel writers found James to be too 'Jewish'. Since James was a leader early on, and one of the criteria for being an apostle is strongly implied in 1 Cor 9 to have 'seen Jesus', it is likely that James too claimed to have 'seen Jesus'. Paul, being familiar with James, would have also been familiar with the claim. IOW, the problem James poses is for the GOSPELS and not for PAUL.

As for the Gospel of the Hebrews, one need not conclude it was the 'source' anymore than a later reflection of the early tradition which allowed James to claim the leadership position in the first place.

I tend to agree with you here (esp in light on 1 Cor 9--the same epistle), so would be willing to concede possible interpolation of the 'demotion' parts.

There is no need to go there either. Paul, says basically the same thing earlier on in the same epistle when he talks about Cephas and Apollos as fellow Christians.


I don't agree.

Same point I made above. Tertullian too. I would support the idea that 'what I also received' was a later interpolation, but note as I mention above that Irenaeus referenced the list of appearances (not by name) to people other than Paul. This shoots down the 'whole interpolation' theory. Shot to pieces.

Three days is when a person was deemed to truly be dead, so no scripture is required.

Ted

aa5874

You cannot show that the witness list in 1 Cor. 15 is an interpolation based on "traditional dating of Paul".

You NEED ACTUAL dating of some known original text of 1 Cor. 15 WITHOUT the witness list.

The extant available data does NOT allow you to make any valid claims that the witness list in the Pauline writings were interpolated.

The EARLIEST dating of the Pauline writings (P 46) by paleography is mid 2nd-3rd century.

The traditional PRESUMPTIONS that "Paul" wrote BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple cannot stand up to scrutinity.

So far, there is ZERO actual corroboration from non-apologetic sources that the Pauline writings, doctrine and Jesus was known BEFORE c 70 CE.

jakejonesiv

Hi Ted,

I will respond to your other points later. For now, lets start with 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

I think your point that "three days is when a person was deemed to truly be dead, so no scripture is required" is reasonable. So I take it that "according ot the scriptures" is likely an interpolation.

So, we are off to a good start. We have at least tacit agreement that "what I also recieved" and "according to the scriptures" are interpolations.

1 Corinthians 15
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,

Jake Jones IV

aa5874

The Pauline writer is claiming to be a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus.

1Cor 15:15 -

aa5874

You are off with a BAD START.

You MUST FIRST establish when 1 Cor 15 was written and produce either a known original text WITHOUT the supposed interpolation or a known original Pauline writing where the writer CONTRADICTED the so-called interpolation.

You cannot show that a Pauline writer could NOT have written all of 1 Cor 15.

All you appear to be doing is attempting to remove the evidence that shows the Pauline writings are ALL LATE.

jakejonesiv

:hobbyhorse::hobbyhorse::hobbyhorse::hobbyhorse::h obbyhorse::hobbyhorse: