1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13414
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:13 pm

Clement doesn't know anything in chapter 15 until after verse 32 or something. For some reason I know these things :confusedsmiley:
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

TedM
Posts: 851
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by TedM » Tue Jun 14, 2016 5:59 am

Spin, yes I remember discussing the passage, and at this time don't want to re-do that.

I made 3 points and you have addressed the first one only.

Rather than discuss any perceived issues with 3-11 (my #1 point didn't require 3-11 to be the same), I want to look at just verse one.

If you remove the word 'now' from the English version I used, you have this:

"I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, "

You say "Paul makes known the gospel". He clearly implies that he is NOW going to talk about what he had previously preached and they had previously believed, with regard to the resurrection of Christ - the gospel. Where does he do that in this passage? In your scenario he immediately says this:

<<Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead>>

In your scenario he starts off with the most important part of his gospel, but gives no background for it. But surely the REASON for preaching Christ resurrected was given to the Corinthians when Paul preached to them initially. Why, would he not address that here after explicitly saying he was going to 'make known' the gospel he preached to them? Where is the part that says "As you know we preached that [according to scripture] [through revelation of the Holy Spirit] Christ was raised from the dead"?

Since he focuses on how their faith is in vain if Christ's own resurrection is in vain doesn't it only follow that he would address the reason why they believed that Christ was resurrected in the first place - what it was that he told them? How can he 'make known the gospel' without doing that, and expect his argument to be taken seriously? He also said "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised" - the logical thing to do is support or at least re-state the reasons they believed Christ had been raised in the first place.
Last edited by TedM on Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:34 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Jun 14, 2016 6:08 am

spin wrote: In the linked post in the O.P. I also mention the importance of the verb "received (as a student)" (παραλαβετε/παραλαβον), which is fine for Paul when God gives (Gal 1:12), but undermining in 1 Cor 15:3 to a proselytizer fighting for his place with the Corinthians. (Remember that discussion?)
JW:
There is some textual pressure against "received":

LaParola

Against Heresies Book III Chapter XVIII
He was likewise preached by Paul: “For I delivered,” he says, “unto you first of all, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.”36413641 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4.
Verses:
For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
Note that in Irenaeus of Lyons' (yes, "Lyons") there is no "received". This is supported by the observation that Irenaeus' primary objective in this area of Against Heresies is to try and refute the Gnostics who claim that Paul was the sole authority. Yet the offending quote above is not in the specific (earlier) part of Against Heresies where Irenaeus gives his supposed arguments that Paul coordinates authority with the supposed other apostles. Where it is is in the part of Against Heresies where Irenaeus argues that Jesus Christ was a fleshy man and not just a phantom spirit. This suggests that at a minimum, "received" is not original. And if "received" is not original...


Joseph

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - The Woodhead Commission - 1938

User avatar
Tenorikuma
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:40 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Tenorikuma » Tue Jun 14, 2016 6:16 am

"Received" is also missing from Codex Veronensis (4th or 5th century) and Ambrosiaster (4th century). Skimpy evidence, and only in the Latin text, but also very early.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13414
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Jun 14, 2016 6:52 am

I know thinking is difficult for many at this forum (and in the world in general) but can anyone tell me what the 'thread of logic' is between the 16 chapters of this alleged 'letter' is? The whole Pauline corpus probably contains a core document written by Paul chopped up and spread across more than a dozen false 'letters' with a healthy heaping of foreign material. Even if you don't accept that scenario both 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians (not to mention 1 Clement also written to the Corinthians) are a jumbled mess that begin with one topic move to the next topic meander to something else go back to the second digression before introducing another and then back and then forth. Ancient letters weren't written like this. So anyone trying to find 'sense' in one section of the letter who ignores the fact that there is no logical thread or theme running throughout the whole letter is just wasting their time.

Are the letters forgeries? Yes. Was large amounts of new material added to the new compositions as 'filler' to water down the original point made by Paul? Yes. Marcion already points us in this direction. But please don't try and act like some created this literary monstrosity the first time around. The reason it has this meandering literary quality is because large amounts of foreign material - not just in chapter 15 but in the fourteen chapters which precede it - have been added to obscure the author's original purpose in writing to Christians.

It has been suggested that the last few verses of chapter 15 are the so-called 'Marcionite Antitheses' because of the antithetical character of the argument there. These Antitheses are mentioned by Tertullian. The last few verses certainly have nothing to do with the rest of the composition but then again that is true for the rest of the composition too!
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Tue Jun 14, 2016 2:35 pm

spin wrote:Here's the basic chiasm.
another pattern, based on the word "Cephas", which is used four times in 1 Corinthians, could be the following
1:11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?3:21 So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.


User avatar
Tenorikuma
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:40 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Tenorikuma » Tue Jun 14, 2016 4:17 pm

Secret Alias wrote:I know thinking is difficult for many at this forum (and in the world in general) but can anyone tell me what the 'thread of logic' is between the 16 chapters of this alleged 'letter' is?
I agree completely. It's obvious from even a cursory reading of 1 Corinthians that it is several documents stitched together, lurching as it does from one unrelated topic to another.
So anyone trying to find 'sense' in one section of the letter who ignores the fact that there is no logical thread or theme running throughout the whole letter is just wasting their time.
We're not discussing the whole letter, though. Individual sections certainly have identifiable themes and argument structures.

User avatar
spin
Posts: 2075
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by spin » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:28 pm

This is in the link I asked you to read:
spin wrote:It quite amazes me how people reading 1 Cor 15 don't notice the problems involved in maintaining the Pauline origin of 3-11. Look at this:

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Hang on a second, you should be asking, hasn't Paul just demonstrated that Christ has been raised in 3-7 with eye witness accounts? Why then does he need to go on extensively with this theoretical argument on whether Christ has been raised? There is a wave of conditionals, if... if... if... if... and so on. This is rendered totally useless, had he already produced eye witness reports as to the fact Christ had been raised.
Vv.12-19 talk specifically to Paul's gospel, for Paul preached that Christ had been raised from the dead, a central tenet to his gospel. These verses overtly exclude the material in vv.3-7.
TedM wrote:Spin, yes I remember discussing the passage, and at this time don't want to re-do that.

I made 3 points and you have addressed the first one only.
Did you really want a response to your untinged assertion about a reference you take to be anaphoric (backward reference), but which is in fact cataphoric (forward reference)?? Once again, note the Greek particle δε which indicates a shift in discourse focus in v.20. He's signaling new ideas coming into the discussion, not looking back, as you would have it.

Your third point doesn't seem to have a point. Yes, there's a chiasm, but is it purposeful? Your opinion that well,-not-so-much doesn't change the fact that there seems to be a tight chiasm with verbal repetition to help you see it.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Solo » Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:26 am

spin wrote:Vv.12-19 talk specifically to Paul's gospel, for Paul preached that Christ had been raised from the dead, a central tenet to his gospel. These verses overtly exclude the material in vv.3-7.
No doubt, spin. The tenor of the 3-11 passage is so rabidly anti-Pauline that it simply does not leave much room to manoeuvre in the defence of the text. It has been pointed out that the language of the passage is markedly alien vis-à-vis the corpus. Actually, there are some elements there that should send all sorts of flags up that this is late. The Twelve is otherwise unattested in the corpus (and is likely an invention of Mark as is the use of the plural “scriptures”). You are also right about Paul not likely to refer to Christ as “buried” outside of the communal experience of the death of his death. All these look like later developments of the confessional formula. The fairytale of the Pentecost (arose from the corruption of the “five hundred”) is transparently an answer to Paul’s raising this scene hypothetically in 1 Co 14:23. Late are also the traditions of Paul’s penitential posturing on account of his “persecution of the church”. Paul in his own mind was commissioned by God, not tolerated as a minor figure by the church as the passage falsely suggests. And the hostility of the writer to Paul’s “credentials” is such that he makes him call himself ‘ektromati’ in a rather obvious allusion to Paul’s assertion that he was set apart by God ‘from his mother’s womb (Gal 1:15 - ek koilias mhtros mou).
Best,
Jiri

TedM
Posts: 851
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by TedM » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:17 am

spin wrote:It quite amazes me how people reading 1 Cor 15 don't notice the problems involved in maintaining the Pauline origin of 3-11. Look at this:

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Hang on a second, you should be asking, hasn't Paul just demonstrated that Christ has been raised in 3-7 with eye witness accounts? Why then does he need to go on extensively with this theoretical argument on whether Christ has been raised? There is a wave of conditionals, if... if... if... if... and so on. This is rendered totally useless, had he already produced eye witness reports as to the fact Christ had been raised.
It isn't rendered totally useless because they weren't (apparently) questioning whether Christ had been raised. Had they been questioning THAT then we'd have an entirely different kind of chapter. They were questioning more generally whether the 'dead' are resurrected. This passage from 12-19 is his explanation of the implications of that question. Those implications were

1. Christ has not been raised.
2. Our faith has been in vain.
3. Your faith has been in vain.
4. We misrepresented God by our false testimony.
5. Those who have died wont be raised (have perished)

He repeats a few of those, but that is irrelevant.

Paul rightly says though that they SHOULD BE questioning whether Christ had been raised, and that is why it only make sense that he remind them of why they believed that in the first place. That's what is missing in 12-19. It would be foolish for Paul to say he is going to discuss his gospel if their belief in Christ being raised is critical to their belief that the dead are raised without even a mention as to WHY they believed Christ had been raised. Sure he 'testified' but why was it successful? In your scenario he doesn't appeal to his great wisdom, scripture, common knowledge. He says nothing about what was the 'true' testimony regarding Christ being raised - what did he say? Surely you don't believe he just waltzed into Corinth and said "Hey the Messiah came and was killed and then was raised from the dead" and everybody just believed it.

So, common sense would have us conclude that Paul - if he were making a good argument - would have reminded the Corinthians that they had a good reason to believe that Christ had been raised - and therefore they should have confidence that the dead will also be raised.

Second, the point I made before is that Paul says in verse one that he is going to tell them again what it is they believed - which of course is that Christ was raised from the dead. Then in verse 12 he says "Now if Christ is raised from the dead". Doesn't it look like something very critical is missing there? Doesn't it make sense that between those verses he TOLD THEM that the gospel was that Christ WAS raised from the dead and don't you think he would have tried to impress upon them the reasons that it was true since it was so critical to his need in the future verses to convince them that the future dead will also be resurrected?

So both common sense about how to make a good argument, and the wording of verses 1 and 12 point to the NEED for Paul to have said something about Christ having been raised from the dead, and the reason the people of Corinth believed it in the first place.

Vv.12-19 talk specifically to Paul's gospel, for Paul preached that Christ had been raised from the dead, a central tenet to his gospel. These verses overtly exclude the material in vv.3-7.
Yes, and it makes more sense for them (v 12-19) to have excluded the type of 'authority/origins' information found in 3-7 only if he had just written it prior to that, as explained above.

Your third point doesn't seem to have a point. Yes, there's a chiasm, but is it purposeful? Your opinion that well,-not-so-much doesn't change the fact that there seems to be a tight chiasm with verbal repetition to help you see it.
I think your chiasm should not ignore the fact that much of it is simply a chronological listing of events, which pretty much means it wasn't done purposefully and so what you have is a much less impressive chiasm as it pertains to your overall argument for interpolation.
Last edited by TedM on Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:55 am, edited 5 times in total.

Post Reply