1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

[robert j]

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.

… had their (sic) 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.

Paul’s argument takes the form of a modus ponens. A modus ponens from Wikipedia ---

“It can be summarized as "P implies Q; P is asserted to be true, so therefore Q must be true." The history of modus ponens goes back to antiquity.[6]”

[6]” Susanne Bobzien (2002). The Development of Modus Ponens in Antiquity, Phronesis 47, No. 4, 2002.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens

1 Corinthians 15:12 ---

15:12 --- Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised out from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

To better characterize the form of the argument, I will re-word Paul’s statement in a form that I believe has an equivalent intent, by re-wording the rhetorical question ---

15:12 intent --- If Christ is preached as raised from the dead, then you cannot deny the resurrection of the dead.

Form of Paul’s argument ---
P implies Q;
P is asserted to be true,
so therefore Q must be true.

1 Corinthians 15	The argument
If Christ is preached that He has been raised out from the dead ...(15:12)	The P statement
… that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (15:4) … That He appeared to Cephas … the twelve … 500 brothers … James … all the apostles … me … (15:5-8) … this is what we preach, and this is what you believed. (15:11)	P is asserted to be true,
… then you cannot deny the resurrection of the dead. [… how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? (15:12)]	so therefore Q must be true.

One might also characterize verse 15:12, standing alone, as a tautology of sorts.

Paul follows directly with threats, he threatened the congregation with what will happen to them if they persist in their disbelief in the resurrection of the dead ---

If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then ---
… your faith is worthless …
… your faith is futile …you are still in your sins.
… those also who have fallen asleep in Christ [your loved ones] have perished.
… [you] are to be pitied more than all men. (15:13-19)

If 15:3-8 (or 3-11) is a late interpolation, what a ham-handed job. Certainly from a later perspective, one would expect these verses to represent post-resurrection appearances. Take the LE of Mark as an example --- the interpolator attempted a harmonization with other traditions, though shaded with his own proclivities --- it represents an obvious harmonization.

Not so with the mess in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Only by means of stretched apologetics can one find harmony with synoptic gospel traditions. And trying to explain the mess as an interpolation designed to settle pissing-matches between Pauline-Petrine-Jamesian or other traditions does not succeed, IMO, any better.

The key to understanding the received text is found, IMO, by forgetting all the later traditions and seeing the passage as a brief summary of the story Paul told the Corinthians during his initial evangelizing visit. It’s Paul’s back-story of the discovery of the Christ in the scriptures, and his version of how the knowledge of that scriptural discovery spread. Paul’s story claimed a wider spiritual movement in far-away Judea (as also told in Galatians) --- the perception of a wider spiritual movement that provided a foundation, traditions, needed credibility for Paul’s teachings.

The formulaic portions of the passage were composed, IMO, by one of Paul’s junior partners --- one with a proper Greek education --- likely the same one that composed the “love poem” in chapter 13, and the poetic passages at the end of chapter 15.

[Ben C. Smith]

If 15:3-8 (or 3-11) is a late interpolation, what a ham-handed job. Certainly from a later perspective, one would expect these verses to represent post-resurrection appearances. Take the LE of Mark as an example --- the interpolator attempted a harmonization with other traditions, though shaded with his own proclivities --- it represents an obvious harmonization.

Not so with the mess in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Only by means of stretched apologetics can one find harmony with synoptic gospel traditions.

Then why look for harmony with synoptic gospel traditions? It may yet be an interpolation from the same era as the Galilean resurrection appearances in Matthew and the Jerusalem ones in Luke or in John. Those two strands do not harmonize very well; is one a ham-handed interpretation of the other? Or do they simply represent different traditions? Likewise with 1 Corinthians 15.3-8: it may just represent a different tradition, one predating the urge to harmonize everything as we find in the Longer Ending of Mark.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to TedM,

Context matters. The previous verse (11) is:

11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

So 'is preached' is not problematic at all.

The verse is very problematic because:
a) "preach" can hardly allude to the alleged many factual visions of the resurrected Jesus. Here I would expect, if Jesus' resurrection was not doubted, "Whether then it was I or they, so we stated and so you believe").
b) According to the normal use of the verb "to preach" and "to believe" (relative to converts) in Paul's epistles, "preach" should have a past tense and "believed" a present tense. http://historical-jesus.info/9.html
c) The "they" & "we" are most likely about the other apostles (if Paul wrote the verse). But Paul would not endorse their preaching.
d) That verse does not fit well with the preceding verses and seems to imply that Paul's preaching was as good as the ones of the other apostles & later presbyters (because of the present in "preach"), therefore written by an interpolator.

14 and if Christ hath not risen, then void is our preaching, and void also your faith,
Why "if"? Why the negation? Why not "and/but Christ hath risen, then true is our preaching, and true also your faith,"

Seriously? Because it directly follows verse 13:

13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;

However, verse 13 would fit well as it is with what I already wrote for verses 12 & 14, as Paul should have written if 1 Cor 15:3-11 was not an interpolation:
"12 And because Christ, out of the dead, hath risen, how say certain among you, that there is no rising again of dead persons?
13 and if there be no rising again of dead persons, neither hath Christ risen;
14 but Christ hath risen, then true is our preaching, and true also your faith,"

Ok, but if you remove 3-11 Paul never says how God was the source of information.

I do not know what you mean. Are you saying the alleged facts of 15:3-7 was known by Paul from God, not from the human witnesses of these post-resurrection visions?

That seems unlikely for reasons I explained.

What is unlikely?

And, I don't see any reason to conclude that a direct witnessing of Jesus resurrected is not information they considered to have been revealed to them by God Himself.

But that's what Paul said:
"and we also are found false witnesses of God, because we did testify of God that He raised up the Christ, ..."

If they doubted then that would be the very reason to remind them - otherwise what hope is there?

I said if they (or rather some of them) doubted Jesus' resurrection, those, of course, automatically would doubt also Paul's own visions, and his preaching. Not a time to put forward believed doubtful preaching and alleged visions from one man only.
Furthermore, in other epistles, Paul wrote believing in the Resurrection is a matter of faith, not from abundantly witnessed facts by people still alive:
1 Th 4:14 "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him."
Ro 10:9 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Cordially, Bernard

[robert j]

If 15:3-8 (or 3-11) is a late interpolation, what a ham-handed job. Certainly from a later perspective, one would expect these verses to represent post-resurrection appearances. Take the LE of Mark as an example --- the interpolator attempted a harmonization with other traditions, though shaded with his own proclivities --- it represents an obvious harmonization.

Not so with the mess in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Only by means of stretched apologetics can one find harmony with synoptic gospel traditions.

Then why look for harmony with synoptic gospel traditions? It may yet be an interpolation from the same era as the Galilean resurrection appearances in Matthew and the Jerusalem ones in Luke or in John. Those two strands do not harmonize very well; is one a ham-handed interpretation of the other? Or do they simply represent different traditions? Likewise with 1 Corinthians 15.3-8: it may just represent a different tradition, one predating the urge to harmonize everything as we find in the Longer Ending of Mark.

Ben.

Good points. Perhaps I didn't present my argument well there. Let me try another tack --- I have not seen any convincing argument or solution that explains the set of appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 in relation to later traditions. But of course, that's just my opinion. One might argue that this passage represents the only evidence of an otherwise lost later tradition. There are many feasible solutions --- each must decide for themselves the most probable.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I have not seen any convincing argument or solution that explains the set of appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 in relation to later traditions. But of course, that's just my opinion.

I think that spin and others presented two very good arguments to argue in favor of an interpolation. But my impression is that they assume the case is done and that they don't want to see a few problems, although some of them are clearly obvious. For example the name "Cephas" in 1 Cor 15:5 (We would expect "Peter" as in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 if it is a hamonization with the synoptics).

It has been pointed out that the language of the passage is markedly alien vis-à-vis the corpus.

I friendly disagree. I think there are a few typical Pauline words and phrases. If it is an interpolation than it is a good forgery (not like Ps-Mark 16:9ff).

[Bernard Muller]

Likewise with 1 Corinthians 15.3-8: it may just represent a different tradition,: it may just represent a different tradition,

If 1 Corinthians 15.3-8 represents an early tradition, allegedly understood as facts by Paul, at a times when many of the witnesses of the resurrected Jesus were still alive, why this very important "tradition" got lost by the time the gospels were written?
I do not think there are anything unacceptable in this "tradition" to any of the gospel authors.
Actually, the sequence in this "tradition" makes a lot of sense, more so than the ones in the gospels.

I contend that "tradition" was very much influenced by gLuke, as I explained in http://historical-jesus.info/9.html
>> Lk 24:45-46 "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,"
Let's compare the above quote with:
1 Cor 15:3b-4 "... Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" <<

The beginning of the sequence is the same in 1 Corinthians & gLuke: Peter/Cephas, then the twelve.
Ok, gLuke has also the twosome on the road of Emmaus, but they are minor disciples, not worth to be included in the 1 Corinthians list. Also "Luke" had Jesus appearing to (only) eleven disciples but also to others who would include the replacement for Judas.
And Paul's epistles state Jesus appeared to other apostles and of course to Paul himself.
Also little in Acts would interfere about Jesus appearing to the 500 & James.

And with John's gospel being published much later and with gMatthew not initially having any Jesus' reappearances (as explained in http://historical-jesus.info/appdx.html), as also gMark, "Luke" stories about reappearances would be the only ones available for some 10 to 20 years (and later incorporated in gMark & gJohn. Also Mk 16:9-20 incorporated some from gJohn).
For gMatthew, the two interpolators (one for each reappearance of Jesus) decided to stay with (without yet 16:9-20) gMark future predicted reappearances in Galilee (which "Luke" deleted).

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

For example the name "Cephas" in 1 Cor 15:5 (We would expect "Peter" as in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 if it is a hamonization with the synoptics).

I think the interpolator would have kept Cephas, because Paul used that name instead of Peter in his epistles (1 Corinthians and Galatians), except Gal 2:7-8, widely believed to be an interpolation.

I friendly disagree. I think there are a few typical Pauline words and phrases. If it is an interpolation than it is a good forgery (not like Ps-Mark 16:9ff)

Yes, there are oddities in the wordings of 1 Cor 15:3-11, as I mentioned here http://historical-jesus.info/9.html.
Starting by "According to the scriptures" and "the twelve", Paul's alleged demeaning statement about himself, etc.

Cordially, Bernard

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

For example the name "Cephas" in 1 Cor 15:5 (We would expect "Peter" as in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 if it is a hamonization with the synoptics).

I think the interpolator would have kept Cephas, because Paul used that name instead of Peter in his epistles (1 Corinthians and Galatians), except Gal 2:7-8, widely believed to be an interpolation.

Thanks, it was Gal 2:7-8 (what I meant with "1 Thessalonians 2:14-16" ) And exactly that is a good hint how interpolators may think

I friendly disagree. I think there are a few typical Pauline words and phrases. If it is an interpolation than it is a good forgery (not like Ps-Mark 16:9ff)

Yes, there are oddities in the wordings of 1 Cor 15:3-11, as I mentioned here http://historical-jesus.info/9.html.
Starting by "According to the scriptures" and "the twelve", Paul's alleged demeaning statement about himself, etc.

Agreed there are "oddities", but it is far far away from "alien vis-à-vis the corpus". Paul's two words for "then" in 1 Cor 15:5-7 - εἶτα (eita) and ἔπειτα (epeita) - and how they form a pattern (εἶτα - ἔπειτα - ἔπειτα - εἶτα) may one of the best examples. I can imagine that Paul was interested in such a pattern. But an interpolator?

And btw it seems it was a very interesting interpolator:
- On the one hand he used typical Pauline words and phrases like "Cephas".
- On the other hand his forged wording is "alien vis-à-vis the corpus".

[TedM]

to TedM,

Context matters. The previous verse (11) is:

11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

So 'is preached' is not problematic at all.

The verse is very problematic because:

a) "preach" can hardly allude to the alleged many factual visions of the resurrected Jesus. Here I would expect, if Jesus' resurrection was not doubted, "Whether then it was I or they, so we stated and so you believe").

I have no problem with his using the word "preach" with regard to the witnessed resurrection. That's what 'preachers' do today. I don't think using the word 'preach' in any way implies that the event wasn't factual or witnessed. It's just a word used to proclaim information that one wants others to believe. It still requires/asks that those who hear have faith in its accuracy.

b) According to the normal use of the verb "to preach" and "to believe" (relative to converts) in Paul's epistles, "preach" should have a past tense and "believed" a present tense. http://historical-jesus.info/9.html

Are you saying that he should have said "so we preached and you believe"? If so, verse 2 seems to contradict that:

by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

In addition, he may have preferred to use the past tense since their faith appeared to be shaky now - safer to refer to what they once believed than what they now believe if some folks are questioning certain aspects so central to the belief as to whether the dead rise again and with what kind of body, etc..?


As to his use of "preach" instead of "preached" - especially if 'believed' is what he meant I can't get too excited about that argument. First, yes he (and the others) did preach in the past (preached), but he (and the others) was/were still preaching in the present too. Perhaps more importantly, the entire passage is rooted in the present, using IS and not WAS - even with regard to 'our' preaching:

12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified [f]against God that He raised [g]Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

c) The "they" & "we" are most likely about the other apostles (if Paul wrote the verse). But Paul would not endorse their preaching.

To the extent that a valid verse 12 supports the wording in verse 13 (the issue at question), I'll address this. Paul WOULD endorse the preaching of a resurrected Christ, so I don't understand why this is listed.

But, I noticed something interesting related to this. If you remove 3-11, then Paul's use of 'our' in verse14, and "we" and "witnesses" in the plural in 15 doesn't follow verses 1 and 2 very well since he only refers to himself and his own gospel there, using 'I' 3 times! :

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

But, if 3-11 remain as part of the passage, his usage of "our", "we" and the plural "witnesses" makes perfect sense. Otherwise, why is he saying "we", "our", and "witnesses" - sure you can go back to his mention of others earlier in the book, but you have the tension of the singular "I" to deal with in the opening verses. The tenses IMO match up much better with 3-11 included as opposed to excluded.

d) That verse does not fit well with the preceding verses and seems to imply that Paul's preaching was as good as the ones of the other apostles & later presbyters (because of the present in "preach"), therefore written by an interpolator.

?? Are you suggesting that there were 2 interpolators - one lowering Paul's status, and the other raising it to an equal level?


So, to conclude on my comment that verse 12 makes good sense given the existence of verse 11 - I would go further and say that it makes MORE sense for verse 11 to exist than to not exist given the context of what is found in 1-2, and 12-19

Why not "and/but Christ hath risen, then true is our preaching, and true also your faith,"

Accepting the testimony of all those witnesses in 3-11 still takes faith, so I just see no problem with verse 13 in that context - because listing all the witnesses doesn't make it a fact - people still either believe it or don't. So, for me using "if" in "Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead" sounds perfectly natural even after including 3-11.

Ok, but if you remove 3-11 Paul never says how God was the source of information.

I do not know what you mean. Are you saying the alleged facts of 15:3-7 was known by Paul from God, not from the human witnesses of these post-resurrection visions?

What I meant is that without 3-11 Paul provides no basis for their belief other than his(and unnamed others) preaching. But he never says WHY they believed such outrageous claims. That to me would seem odd. With 3-11-- or some alternative such as what Ben proposed -- it is obvious why they believed.

Also, related: if Paul is appealing to God as the source of his information that he was preaching - which included the claim that Jesus was resurrected - that is not inconsistent with the idea that he saw God as the source of the resurrection appearances to specific people as well as to himself. That would seem a very natural conclusion by anyone who saw or thought they saw a risen being.

That seems unlikely for reasons I explained.

What is unlikely?

The idea that in a passage in which the very resurrection of Christ was in question due to the implications of some of the issues the Corinthians were having that Paul would not provide a reminder to the Corinthians as to WHY they believed such preaching in the first place. But that's exactly what we end up with if 3-11 is removed entirely.

I think the above addresses your remaining comments fairly well, so will stop here.

I'm glad to be discussing this because I have recently been taking a look at this passage(time permitting) and in fact had spent some time reviewing your comments on it on your website. I plan to also review R Price, and Carrier's views, as well as some pro-authentic writings. I may add a review of the blog by spin too.

[Bernard Muller]

to Kunigunde Kreuzerin,

And exactly that is a good hint how interpolators may think

Well, the interpolator of Gal 2:7-8 was not clever on this point, but the one of 1 Cor 15:3-11 was. That would explain that. Different interpolators, different brains.

Paul's two words for "then" in 1 Cor 15:5-7 - εἶτα (eita) and ἔπειτα (epeita) - and how they form a pattern (εἶτα - ἔπειτα - ἔπειτα - εἶτα) may one of the best examples. I can imagine that Paul was interested in such a pattern. But an interpolator?

I do not see why an interpolator would not used that pattern (εἶτα - ἔπειτα - ἔπειτα - εἶτα) but Paul would? And that pattern does not jump at you when you read the text. I do not see any special meaning in it.
It also seems to me the author did not want to repeat the same word close to each other, which is what a good writer should do.

Cordially, Bernard