1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

[spin]

A' 35-58 The evidence for resurrection (analogy)

Do we take this as an attempted parody?

(In case not, it's not "evidence for resurrection" but an analysis of the nature of the resurrection body. It might go better with a more considered kludge.)

[andrewcriddle]

A' 35-58 The evidence for resurrection (analogy)

Do we take this as an attempted parody?

(In case not, it's not "evidence for resurrection" but an analysis of the nature of the resurrection body. It might go better with a more considered kludge.)

IMHO it is evidence for resurrection, Paul is not discussing the resurrection body from abstract theological interest.
He is attempting to answer those who regard the idea of a bodily resurrection as impossibly crude and philosophically incoherent.

Andrew Criddle

[spin]

IMHO it is evidence for resurrection, Paul is not discussing the resurrection body from abstract theological interest.
He is attempting to answer those who regard the idea of a bodily resurrection as impossibly crude and philosophically incoherent.

Signal of a new topic:

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”

Andrew, you seem to be serious with this half-baked idea. (I hope you can pass the buck onto someone else for it.) Perhaps you can find a parallel with another chiasm in which the closing section suddenly expands into something nearly as long as all the rest in a new direction. It would seem to me that you have lost sight of how a chiasm is structured. 1 Cor 15:35-55 deals repeatedly with the body and what it is, the difference between the physical and spiritual bodies. There is nothing to match the topic in the initial section of your hypothesized chiasm, no talk of the body, the distinction between the physical and the spiritual. It doesn't work.

[andrewcriddle]

IMHO it is evidence for resurrection, Paul is not discussing the resurrection body from abstract theological interest.
He is attempting to answer those who regard the idea of a bodily resurrection as impossibly crude and philosophically incoherent.

Signal of a new topic:

35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”

Andrew, you seem to be serious with this half-baked idea. (I hope you can pass the buck onto someone else for it.) Perhaps you can find a parallel with another chiasm in which the closing section suddenly expands into something nearly as long as all the rest in a new direction. It would seem to me that you have lost sight of how a chiasm is structured. 1 Cor 15:35-55 deals repeatedly with the body and what it is, the difference between the physical and spiritual bodies. There is nothing to match the topic in the initial section of your hypothesized chiasm, no talk of the body, the distinction between the physical and the spiritual. It doesn't work.

See https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PlN ... on&f=false

15:35-58 directly and explicitly addresses the subject of the resurrection of the body, beginning with the question: “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” (v. 35). In 15:35-50 Paul addresses the “conceivability” of the resurrection: How can resurrection be both credible and intelligible? ...

Andrew Criddle

[JoeWallack]

JW:
If there is a chiasm here without 3-11 then I think this is it:

1 Corinthians 15

Verse	Key
1 Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand,	Current standing
2 by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain.	False hope
12 Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?	no resurrection of the dead
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised:	If/Then
14 and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain.	Negation
15 Yea, we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised.	False witness
16 For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised:	If/Then
17 and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.	Negation
18 Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished.	no resurrection of the dead
19 If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable.	False hope
20 But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep.	Current standing

JW:
[What spin is trying to tell you guys]Note that the above chiasm is limited to only presenting and discussing the issue/question. It does not contain any answer/solution. I believe the answer/solution response starts at 15:21. The context for the answer is a theological argument as opposed to a natural one (such as historical witnesses). 3-11, with supposed historical witness, is out of place here as the theme for everything else in this Chapter assumes that "witness" is in the context of faith/belief and not history/knowledge. The previous sentence is also consistent with the rest of Paul's writings.[/What spin is trying to tell you guys]


Joseph

Star Of David Wars

[spin]

See https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PlN ... on&f=false

15:35-58 directly and explicitly addresses the subject of the resurrection of the body, beginning with the question: “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” (v. 35). In 15:35-50 Paul addresses the “conceivability” of the resurrection: How can resurrection be both credible and intelligible? ...

Perhaps you can find a parallel with another chiasm in which the closing section suddenly expands into something nearly as long as all the rest in a new direction. It would seem to me that you have lost sight of how a chiasm is structured. 1 Cor 15:35-55 deals repeatedly with the body and what it is, the difference between the physical and spiritual bodies. There is nothing to match the topic in the initial section of your hypothesized chiasm, no talk of the body, the distinction between the physical and the spiritual. It doesn't work.

And the issue is a linguistic one. What lexical indicators can you point to in the A part of the chiasm that matches the discussion about bodies, physical and spiritual?? I'll take it that you aren't interested in the way chiasms are structured or work.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

For followers of this problematic passage, which I think is an interpolation, I have thrown together another analysis with at least one novel addition on Reddit, that of a chiasm in 1 Cor 15:1-34, which naturally only works without v.3-11. (See the above link for more detail.) Here's the basic chiasm.

As an opponent (of the interpolation-theory), I think you made a good point. imho the best argument that you did present

[TedM]

Hi spin! A few comments:

1.

A: 1-2 hold firmly to the word

This doesn't give any credit to the first verse:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand

Skipping right to verse 12 seems to pass over the purpose of verse 1, which seems to be that Paul is going to summarize what he had first told the Corinthians with regard to his gospel of the resurrection of Jesus. So, it seems to me there should be SOMETHING expected after verse 2 and before verse 12 along those lines. Ben's Marcionite reconstruction makes more sense to me than nothing at all.



2. Verse 20's pronouncement that 'In fact Christ has been raised from the dead' falls flat for me without 3-11 because it is missing a reason for such conclusion. How can he say that in FACT Christ has been raised without saying anything about WHY they believed that? (side-note: it appears to me that the Corinthians were not questioning whether Christ was raised - they believed it for SOME reason that Paul had preached, but that some questioned whether 'normal' humans could be raised and/or how).



3. Nice observation on the chiasm. However, I don't see one as strong or complete as you do because I see it as a natural way of argumentation and of just expressing things, and in this case verses 20-24 are more of a recitation of the expected chronology of events than a purposeful chiasm:

Christ was the first human raised
In the future Christ will come and others will be raised
Then He will judge others - and death itself will then end.
After that Christ will submit to God having completed his mission

Should we conclude that Paul intentionally created a chiasm within a chronological rendering of expected events?


Without 3-11 it looks more like this to me:

A. Intro/promise of a coming reminder of what was taught
B. Encouragement to keep the faith
C. Implications of no resurrection
D. Christ was resurrected, and the chronology of future events including resurrection of believers
C. Implications of no resurrection
B. Keep the faith - stop doubing/sinning
E. What is the resurrected body going to be like

With 3-11 or some other kind of explanation then a second 'A would be inserted between B and C.

[Solo]

A' 35-58 The evidence for resurrection (analogy)

Do we take this as an attempted parody?

(In case not, it's not "evidence for resurrection" but an analysis of the nature of the resurrection body. It might go better with a more considered kludge.)

IMHO it is evidence for resurrection, Paul is not discussing the resurrection body from abstract theological interest.
He is attempting to answer those who regard the idea of a bodily resurrection as impossibly crude and philosophically incoherent.

Andrew Criddle

...and ends up with an assumed virtual spiritual death-unstingable proto-astro body.


Best,
Jiri

[spin]

Hi spin! A few comments:

We've already been through this before, TedM.

1.

A: 1-2 hold firmly to the word

This doesn't give any credit to the first verse:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand

Skipping right to verse 12 seems to pass over the purpose of verse 1, which seems to be that Paul is going to summarize what he had first told the Corinthians with regard to his gospel of the resurrection of Jesus. So, it seems to me there should be SOMETHING expected after verse 2 and before verse 12 along those lines. Ben's Marcionite reconstruction makes more sense to me than nothing at all.

There is no "now" in the Greek text. Where is the noun clause object to the verb "make known" (γνωριζω)? There isn't one. Look at how Paul uses the verb elsewhere (1 Cor 12:3, Gal 1:11): notice the "that"+clause which follows the verb. There isn't one in v.1. You can't generalize based on a verb that doesn't fit what you expect. Paul makes known the gospel and the Corinthians need to hold firm to the message: that's how 1 Cor 15:1-2 works.

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?)

If you had read the linked post you'd know that vv3-7 certainly cannot be justified by the presence of vv12-19, which continue as though Paul needs to struggle to justify Christ being raised, for had their been eye witness accounts mentioned in vv3-7 there would be no need for vv12-19 at all. V.12 picks up from 1-2 with Paul's gospel, as Paul preached that Christ had been raised from the dead. This links together without vv3-11 through the connection of the two verbs "to preach" (the first, literally "to goodnews-ize/evangelize" in v2), but more importantly in vv12-19 he is developing on the notion of (not) believing in vain (v2). Ben C's suggestion of the Marcionite version does minimize the problems.

The most significant issue, not mentioned here is the sleight of hand performed by readers who want to maintain vv3-11, ie that which Paul makes known, ie his gospel, is material that he has never talked about elsewhere, but fulfills the modern readers' notion of the MtMkLkJn-style gospel. Paul's gospel he insists is Christ crucified and the salvation it brings through Christ being raised. Almost everything in vv3-11 is novel and in no way reflects any gospel notion that Paul has elsewhere expressed.