SLD

I'm curious of the arguments for and against the authenticity of this rather famous passage:
Some scholars have argued that it conflicts with Galatians 1:11-12:

Admittedly that's a conflict. But does it reflect a mere internal contradiction by Paul or a later addition by another writer into 1 Corinthians, perhaps one who was not aware of Galatians? Paul wrote these letters at different times in his ministry and for different purposes; he could therefore just have been confused.

Others claim that Ignatius in his letter to the Romans (Chapter 9, V 2) quotes from the passage thus proving its authenticity:

It is of course very similar to verses 8-9 of the Corinthian passage, but is that enough to prove authenticity? Could it be the other way around - Ignatius's letter was grafted somewhat into Corinthians?

Other thoughts on this dispute?

SLD

Toto

Ignatius' letters are heavily interpolated.

Doug Shaver

Those scholars would be right, if Paul had said to the Corinthians, ". . . I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received from . . . ." and had then gone one to name some people. But he didn't. All he says is that he "received" it. If he was under the impression that he received it by divine revelation, then there is no conflict.

When we're talking about canonical Christian writings, I don't think interpolation can ever be ruled out. I don't yet see it as a compelling hypothesis for this passage, but I wouldn't bet the rent on its authenticity, either.

Not in my judgment. I think a more parsimonious inference would be that "born out of due time" was a figure of speech that had some currency during the first century.

SLD

Any source for that? How would we know?

SLD

Simplyme

I'm curious of the arguments for and against the authenticity of this rather famous passage:



In my opinion the authenticity of the whole book is questionable.

Toto

A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellean Writings (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Roger Parvus, or search this forum for posts by user RParvus.

The book can be downloaded as an ebook from here.

See Peter Kirby's page on Ignatius. There is a "long recession" of Ignatius' letters that isBut even the short or middle recession has apparently been edited by a Catholic editor to bring it into line with orthodoxy. Parvus' argument is complex, but worth the effort it will take to absorb it.

Rick Sumner

Are you aware of anyone other than Price who takes that tack? In any event, it's weak.

No it isn't. "The gospel," discussed in 1Cor 15 isn't the same thing as "my gospel," discussed in Galatians. The former requires an appeal to some sort of homogenity--I or they, so do we preach. The latter demands exactly the opposite. Paul can't claim unaninimity, because obviously "they" are preaching something "I" am not.

Paul is "making known" (present tense) something that presumably his readers already know. Their knowledge of it is in fact presumed in 6:14.

The passage lacks the breaks usually seen in the epistle with topic shifts. The issue at stake isn't mentioned until well after the break commences. The actual issue (the resurrection of the dead) makes more sense following from the discussion of resurrection in ch.6. Paul was nothing if not a skilled rhetor, it's somewhat difficult to imagine why he didn't take advantage of the force gained in the earlier passages to illustrate the issue.

His use of "gospel" here is unique to the authentic Paulines. His gospel usually concerns present realities extending in to the future. Here it is a recollection of past experiences. This, to me, smacks of anachronism, and makes me suspicious.

I'm planning on doing a series on my 'blog when time permits on the question of Pauline authorship. I don't know that I would go so far as to confidently state it's not Pauline, particularly since I lack the philological training to engage in an extensive discussion of stylistic concerns, but I would be surprised, at the very least, if it originated in this epistle, and if it didn't have some later redaction. Possibly it's a different epistle, forming a composite here.

But while I would hesitate to declare it confidently an interpolation, I would be at least equally reluctant to take the passage (as a great many have) as an early credal confession by which to define the burgeoning Christian movement.

spin

I try not to be up on the scholarship, but your claim that this is weak isn't convincing. These appearances obviously impact on the veracity of Paul claiming that he didn't learn the gospel from humans

Of course, it is. And just consider the conflict of 1 Cor 15:5-11 with the motivation of the argument in 1 Cor 15:12ff. Paul wouldn't need to argue that the christ was raised if there had been all these appearances. The futility of faith without the belief in a raised christ would be made a futile argument.


spin

Rick Sumner

Except, as I noted both above and here (nifty how easy it is to rebut when you ignore the considerations, isn't it?), it's not the same gospel. I'm not sure that it can even be considered a Pauline gospel of any sort.

No, it isn't, because the gospel he's describing isn't the same. In fact, it's different from every other instance of "gospel" in the authentic Pauline corpus.

Even (relatively) conservative commentators acknowledge that this usage is the oddity. For example Barrett, on Rom.1.2, indicates that he frequently prefers the translation "good news" to distinguish between Paul's "gospel" and just a proclamation of good things. His distinction is arbitrary and seems to reflect a theological bent. Using Barrett's criteria, it should always be "good news." 1 Cor 15 is such an odd man out.

It's my largest reason for being suspicious of the passage. The "gospel" of 1 Cor 15 isn't Paul's gospel. It's closer to what we think of with the "gospel" of Mark. It smacks of anachronism, but I'm not sure if the taste is strong enough to call it outright.

You don't need to go that far into the epistle to see the redundancy. As I noted above, 6:14 assumes that the creedal confession in 1Cor 15 doesn't need to be made. It certainly assumes that they might need to be reminded, but Paul doesn't need to "make [it] known."

I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of with the observation, though. I already noted I'm highly suspicious of the passage.

spin

Nifty rebuttal that's worthless because you haven't made the case!

I understand that that is still your unsubstantiated claim. I don't agree with you. Make your case, which I hope has more substance than just your interpretation of a possessive adjective, especially when there's no possessive adjective in the source, Gal 1:11.

It's the gospel and that's what Paul proclaims. That's also the case in 1 Cor 15:1.

Perhaps in your usual lack of specificity I haven't got the drift of what you are on about. Perhaps you could linger on the issue long enough to make a clear case.

Wot?

Barrett is welcome to his opinions. But why you're bothering to repeat them here is a mystery.

Umm, why not? It's the gospel he proclaims.

It sad that you bring up this verse. It's one of the few verses in the Pauline corpus using the non-titular κυριος for Jesus and at the same time it is both clearly disruptive of the discourse on bodies and of more theological importance to than its context.

Stick with the material at hand rather than risking further tangents. Otherwise you'll just whinge that I claim ad hoc this verse is an interpolation, despite the fact that it follows all the rules I've openly been working on and droned on about.

It was something that needed to be said in the thread, as it has impact on the thread's substance.


spin