1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1373
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 28, 2016 11:09 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:We have preaching (tying back to verses 1 and 11b), and we have a raising from the dead (tying back to verses 3-4), but we find nothing corresponding to an argument from the appearances, to wit, "Now if all of these worthy men are witnesses of the resurrection of our Lord, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (This observation overlaps with some of what spin was arguing on the Reddit page linked to in the OP.)
I think there is something in the text which gives the impression that it is or could be an interpolation (or interpolations). You are right that the sense of the verses 15:1-11 jumps from point to point and each point is a bit dramatized. But these points are not tightly connected.

The gospel, Paul and the faith of the Corinthians
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.
Christ died, was buried, was raised and appeared
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
Appearences
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.
Paul the apostle
For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me
This is not a straight line. I think that every single point is not the problem (not for me). But the emphasizing of each zig and zag is a little bit confusing. This gives the impression that a) the points are interpolated or b) at least we could remove one or two points without a problem.
Ben C. Smith wrote:So what does Paul mean here when he says he received it? (Same words and construction, as you point out, as "you [Corinthians] received it.") You do not have to agree with Paul; he may be lying. But what do you think he means? (You laughed a bit at scholars thinking Paul is using a pre-Pauline creed, yet that appears to be a very clean reading of his own claim here. At the same time, you are attracted to the idea that Paul composed it himself, yet he is most definitely not claiming that.)
So I have no problem that Paul “received” his gospel and I think there is no answer to your question. But I agree that the use of the word seems at first glance a bit out of context.

I have some trust that this kind of reasoning is typical for Paul and I will try to check this.

(I just laughed about the alternatives: Pre-Pauline or Post-Pauline)

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

...Pre-Pauline creed...

Post by spin » Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:16 pm

...Pre-Pauline creed...
Are we seriously still beating this drum?? Our known creeds all owe their existence to lengthy periods of Christian church theological unrest for which the creed is an end result to aid the rank and file members keep in mind what their religion should be, so a creedal formula should indicate an organized entity in existence long enough to need theology straightened out. This is simply not the case at the time Paul was writing at the very beginning of Christian literature and very close to (if not at the beginning of) Christian oral production. At best you had a flotilla of disjointed communities kept in check by infrequent visits from some theorized core group of apostles and at worst no Christian organization at all before Paul. If Paul himself had happened on constructing a creedal formula, you'd expect him to use it with other communities, but we know that none of the material in 1 Cor 15:3-11 is like anything else he ever wrote that is preserved. That Paul would have obtained such a creed from others he has plainly disavowed in Gal 1:11-12. So:

1. Not by Paul,
2. Not by others before him, and
3. Creeds suggest a later organized Christianity.

It might have been ok in modern maximalist Christian theology to believe in a Pre-Pauline creed, but today in more reasonable circles the notion of a Pre-Pauline creed is simply ludicrous.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

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

Re: ...Pre-Pauline creed...

Post by Solo » Tue Jun 28, 2016 5:20 pm

spin wrote:
...Pre-Pauline creed...
Are we seriously still beating this drum?? That Paul would have obtained such a creed from others he has plainly disavowed in Gal 1:11-12. So:

1. Not by Paul,
2. Not by others before him, and
3. Creeds suggest a later organized Christianity.

It might have been ok in modern maximalist Christian theology to believe in a Pre-Pauline creed, but today in more reasonable circles the notion of a Pre-Pauline creed is simply ludicrous.
I think there are two issues here, spin. Clearly there was another sectarian movement that invoked Jesus, one that preceded Paul. Paul's letters confirm that part. But...though the messianists in Jerusalem were some sort of ecstatic cult or an alliance of such groupings, it is highly doubtful they worshipped Jesus as Messiah. We don't know whether Jesus there was some cultic oracle of Joshua the Son of Nun, come as an apocalyptic intervener or whether some memorial cult grew around an obscure prophetic figure, who was killed in the precinct, and whose inner circle was freed from prison by James the Just who then sent them on missions into the diaspora. But obviously this group had some articles of faith, that set them against Paul's forays, first as a Judaic persecutor, and then as self-converted ecstatic messianist himself. So, there is no serious doubt in my mind that there were some creedal formulas before Paul.

However that would not be my issue: my issue is whether there were creedal formulas before Paul that proclaimed Jesus Christ crucified, and one resurrected from the dead with the promise of same for those who believe it and who behave themselves accordingly. I don't think so because that was the kernel of Paul's creed around which Christianity was built and which, on the evidence of Mark's gospel, the Jerusalem Jesus traditions landed only after Paul was gone.

Best,
Jiri

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

Re: ...Pre-Pauline creed...

Post by spin » Tue Jun 28, 2016 7:46 pm

Solo wrote:
spin wrote:
...Pre-Pauline creed...
Are we seriously still beating this drum?? That Paul would have obtained such a creed from others he has plainly disavowed in Gal 1:11-12. So:

1. Not by Paul,
2. Not by others before him, and
3. Creeds suggest a later organized Christianity.

It might have been ok in modern maximalist Christian theology to believe in a Pre-Pauline creed, but today in more reasonable circles the notion of a Pre-Pauline creed is simply ludicrous.
I think there are two issues here, spin.
You're not actually dealing with anything you cited of my post, ie that

1. the creedal material doesn't reflect anything Paul wrote elsewhere in any way, so not by Paul;
2. he ruled out other sources than god in Gal 1:11-12—he did not receive the gospel from human sources, nor was he taught it—, so not from others before him; and
3. our creedal notions come from established Christianity.


Solo wrote:Clearly there was another sectarian movement that invoked Jesus, one that preceded Paul. Paul's letters confirm that part.
I've seen nothing substantial about what other people believed before Paul about Jesus. He avoids talking about Jesus in his version of the meeting with the Jerusalem crowd. This is strange because he wants to talk about Jesus. The only reason I can see is that Paul doesn't reject Mosaic Judaism (and would feel some affinity with Jewish messianists, so if the Jerusalemites were Jewish messianists waiting for the messiah along the lines of the baptist sect hinted at in the gospels), fellow believers in the god of the Jews and there would be no point in talking to them about Jesus, as salvation for them was through the torah. That he doesn't talk to them about Jesus suggests that they didn't share a notion of Jesus and they are not relevant to any historical discourse relating to 1 Cor 15.
Solo wrote:But...though the messianists in Jerusalem were some sort of ecstatic cult or an alliance of such groupings, it is highly doubtful they worshipped Jesus as Messiah. We don't know whether Jesus there was some cultic oracle of Joshua the Son of Nun, come as an apocalyptic intervener or whether some memorial cult grew around an obscure prophetic figure, who was killed in the precinct, and whose inner circle was freed from prison by James the Just who then sent them on missions into the diaspora. But obviously this group had some articles of faith, that set them against Paul's forays, first as a Judaic persecutor, and then as self-converted ecstatic messianist himself. So, there is no serious doubt in my mind that there were some creedal formulas before Paul.
The stuff about Paul persecuting messianists does not help get any closer to a Jesus before Paul. There were obviously messianists before Paul, but were any of them Jesuine? How would you know? We can't tell from the letter to the Galatians. Maybe Paul proselytizing Jesus to Roman Jewish converts?
Solo wrote:However that would not be my issue: my issue is whether there were creedal formulas before Paul that proclaimed Jesus Christ crucified, and one resurrected from the dead with the promise of same for those who believe it and who behave themselves accordingly. I don't think so because that was the kernel of Paul's creed around which Christianity was built and which, on the evidence of Mark's gospel, the Jerusalem Jesus traditions landed only after Paul was gone.
Again,what creedal formulas before Paul? Were there any? How would you know? When and in what context could they have developed?? From what we know about creeds they were artefacts of organized Christianity. Got any examples of ones that weren't?
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1373
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 28, 2016 10:48 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:To quote 15.11b against me is not fair, though, since it has belonged in my reconstruction from the beginning, as have parts of verses 3 and 4. And I do not think Against Marcion 4.4.5 is necessarily relevant, since it does not derive from the analytical portion of Tertullian's treatment, in which he promises to use Marcion's own canon against his Antitheses.
I did not quote 15.11b "against" you. But we may have different views. I think that the Marcionite readings are a (minor) point for you, but you seems to think that in the current discussion it is a point for me. At the end we both will believe that the other one has clearly "won" the debate :D

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Wed Jun 29, 2016 1:13 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:I have some trust that this kind of reasoning is typical for Paul and I will try to check this.
It is not exactly the same, but with very similar aspects
context1 Cor 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?tongues, prophets ...
frame31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.the higher gifts
Paul's poem of loveThe points of 1 Cor 13
1) Paul: nothing without love
2) The nature of love
3) Only love will remain to the end
4) When the perfect comes - and Paul again
- jumps from point to point and each point is a bit dramatized
- argues with his own personality
- no straight line of reasoning
- at first glance out of context
frame1 Cor 14:1 Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.the spiritual gifts
context1 Cor 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.tongues, prophets ...

The greater context
Paul's old hat: faith, love and hope1 Thes 1:2 We give thanks to God always for all of you, constantly mentioning you in our prayers, 3 remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Corinthians and their egos1 Cor 8:1 “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. 2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, he is known by God.
1 Cor 16:13 Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. 14 Let all that you do be done in love.


User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Jun 29, 2016 5:54 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:I have some trust that this kind of reasoning is typical for Paul and I will try to check this.
It is not exactly the same, but with very similar aspects
And then you analyze 1 Corinthians 13, the Love Chapter, which of course has been suspected as an interpolation, probably for some of the reasons you mention. :D There just is no winning at this game. (Let me say from the start that I do not know all of the reasons it has fallen suspect, not being up on the literature about it, and also that I have always secretly rather hoped it was not an interpolation.)

I agree there are some similarities, and the chapter does seem to meander a bit; it is basically a prose poem. I think there is a pretty big difference, though, as well: verses 1-2 and 8-10 specifically reference prophecy and tongues, which are squarely on point for chapters 12 and 14; verse 3 follows the same pattern as verses 1-2, and verses 11-12 develop the thought of verses 8-10. While I can imagine verse 13 as a gloss, it is also a superb conclusion, and Paul elsewhere (several times, if memory serves, of which you listed 1 Thessalonians 1.2) places faith, hope, and love in juxtaposition (though he is not the only one to do so). This leaves verses 4-7 to be explained, and they are all about love, which is exactly what is being set out as the "more excellent way" of 12.31b. So yes, the passage at first glance appears to be out of context, but that is because it is being deliberately swept in from on high as a deus ex machina to trump all other spiritual gifts. It is a bit like a conservative politician pragmatically weighing two different approaches to welfare reform but, in the middle of it all, affirming that if she had her way government would not be in the welfare business in the first place: the aside is intentionally out of context, because it is intentionally brought from the outside as the politician's true preference, which nobody else seems to be talking about. (If that analogy does not work for you, please scrap it.)

In fact, one can argue that Paul is making the case for ἀγάπη (for love, for fellowship, for camaraderie) all throughout chapters 12-14: all being for "the common good" in 12.7, for example, or the Kindergarten-level instruction to take turns in 14.27. It is only in chapter 13 that he makes it explicit.

Of course, I can also imagine an interpolator making the case for love on Paul's behalf in chapter 13, but at least in this instance it is just as easy (at least so far) for me to imagine Paul himself making the case.

I do not see any such connections between the list of appearances and the rest of the resurrection argument.
I did not quote 15.11b "against" you.
Okay, I probably overstated that. :)
But we may have different views. I think that the Marcionite readings are a (minor) point for you, but you seems to think that in the current discussion it is a point for me. At the end we both will believe that the other one has clearly "won" the debate :D
Truly one of the more pleasant debates I have been involved in. Sincere thanks for your high level of discourse and civility. May the virus spread.

Ben.

ETA: You already mentioned 1 Corinthians 13.13 and 1 Thessalonians 1.2 as giving us the trio (faith, hope, and love), but there are other passages.

Galatians 5.5-6:

5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

Romans 5.1-5:

1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

1 Thessalonians 5.8:

8 But since we are of the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation.

Ephesians 4.1-6 (though this one seems to be of a different character, since the three virtues are not special in their own right in the passage):

4 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, 3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Hebrews 10.22-25 (this one is very much on pattern, despite not having been written by Paul):

22 ...let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

1 Peter 1.20-22 (again, not by Paul but still relevant):

20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you 21 who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. 22 Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart....

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

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

Re: ...Pre-Pauline creed...

Post by Solo » Wed Jun 29, 2016 1:42 pm

spin wrote:
Solo wrote: I think there are two issues here, spin.
You're not actually dealing with anything you cited of my post, ie that

1. the creedal material doesn't reflect anything Paul wrote elsewhere in any way, so not by Paul;
I agree emphatically (violently?) that the creedal formulas in the passage do not come from Paul. But it is simply wrong to say that all creedal formulas having to do with Jesus originate with Paul or are later than Paul.
2. he ruled out other sources than god in Gal 1:11-12—he did not receive the gospel from human sources, nor was he taught it—, so not from others before him; and
spin, you are walking into a trap here: the disputed passage 1 Cor 15 passage presents Paul as a part of larger tent on whose behalf he speaks and he diminishes his own importance. Argumenting with Gal 1 material will not help here because, there is right after the two verses an admission that he persecuted excessively the very Church which - would have to exist before him. I am actually suspicious of Gal 1:13-14 (Ioudaismos is a hapax, and the reference in Paul to an overarching "Church of God" rings false. But the interpolator probably saw this lame defense of Paul's persecution and decided to have a more contrite Paul instead). But bottom line is if Gal 1:13-14 is genuine, or earlier forgery than 1 Cor 15:3-11, than this would be one piece of evidence of a creed that Paul did not like but which he cautioned his flock not to badmouth (1 Co 10:32).
3. our creedal notions come from established Christianity.
That does not help much now, does it ?
Solo wrote:Clearly there was another sectarian movement that invoked Jesus, one that preceded Paul. Paul's letters confirm that part.
I've seen nothing substantial about what other people believed before Paul about Jesus. He avoids talking about Jesus in his version of the meeting with the Jerusalem crowd.
True, we do not know what the Jerusalem sectaries believed about Jesus, but we know (sort of) that Paul was first opposed to their beliefs (creed) and then tried to convert them to his.
This is strange because he wants to talk about Jesus. The only reason I can see is that Paul doesn't reject Mosaic Judaism (and would feel some affinity with Jewish messianists, so if the Jerusalemites were Jewish messianists waiting for the messiah along the lines of the baptist sect hinted at in the gospels), fellow believers in the god of the Jews and there would be no point in talking to them about Jesus, as salvation for them was through the torah. That he doesn't talk to them about Jesus suggests that they didn't share a notion of Jesus and they are not relevant to any historical discourse relating to 1 Cor 15.
And you say that after reading Romans, right ?
Solo wrote:But...though the messianists in Jerusalem were some sort of ecstatic cult or an alliance of such groupings, it is highly doubtful they worshipped Jesus as Messiah. We don't know whether Jesus there was some cultic oracle of Joshua the Son of Nun, come as an apocalyptic intervener or whether some memorial cult grew around an obscure prophetic figure, who was killed in the precinct, and whose inner circle was freed from prison by James the Just who then sent them on missions into the diaspora. But obviously this group had some articles of faith, that set them against Paul's forays, first as a Judaic persecutor, and then as self-converted ecstatic messianist himself. So, there is no serious doubt in my mind that there were some creedal formulas before Paul.
The stuff about Paul persecuting messianists does not help get any closer to a Jesus before Paul. There were obviously messianists before Paul, but were any of them Jesuine? How would you know? We can't tell from the letter to the Galatians. Maybe Paul proselytizing Jesus to Roman Jewish converts?
Well why not ? And what about 1 Co 2:2 μὴ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ τοῦτον ἐσταυρωμένον. That does not indicate to you that someone else preached Jesus (perhaps Christ) alive and well ? How about 2 Co 11:4 : εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἄλλον Ἰησοῦν κηρύσσει. You are not reading it- as someone suggested here to me recently - that Paul meant literally 'another person named "Jesus"', are you ? Because it would seem way more reasonable to read that as "someone preaching Jesus differently" than according to the gospel of Paul. And then there is 2 Co 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer. Again to a meat-and-potato semi-Christian like me, this would logically entail Paul knowing about what later became the object of his worship from other people, before he had a revelation about the Risen One.
Solo wrote:However that would not be my issue: my issue is whether there were creedal formulas before Paul that proclaimed Jesus Christ crucified, and one resurrected from the dead with the promise of same for those who believe it and who behave themselves accordingly. I don't think so because that was the kernel of Paul's creed around which Christianity was built and which, on the evidence of Mark's gospel, the Jerusalem Jesus traditions landed only after Paul was gone.
Again,what creedal formulas before Paul? Were there any? How would you know? When and in what context could they have developed?? From what we know about creeds they were artefacts of organized Christianity. Got any examples of ones that weren't?
We do not know what creedal formulas. If you want to go with Baur and Tuebingen school, the Jacobites taught that the poor saints already lived in kingdom come. FWIW, I happen to believe that the Thomas gospel comes originally from around James (see saying 12) also; clearly the group believed that if you mastered their Jesus' sayings you would be invulnerable. You would become a passerby...like Simon of Cyrene.

Best,
Jiri

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

Re: ...Pre-Pauline creed...

Post by spin » Thu Jun 30, 2016 3:52 pm

Solo wrote:
spin wrote:
Solo wrote: I think there are two issues here, spin.
You're not actually dealing with anything you cited of my post, ie that

1. the creedal material doesn't reflect anything Paul wrote elsewhere in any way, so not by Paul;
I agree emphatically (violently?) that the creedal formulas in the passage do not come from Paul.
Good, that is a sufficient response to that point. Your further comment has nothing to do with it, wouldn't you agree?
Solo wrote:But it is simply wrong to say that all creedal formulas having to do with Jesus originate with Paul or are later than Paul.
2. he ruled out other sources than god in Gal 1:11-12—he did not receive the gospel from human sources, nor was he taught it—, so not from others before him; and
spin, you are walking into a trap here: the disputed passage 1 Cor 15 passage presents Paul as a part of larger tent on whose behalf he speaks and he diminishes his own importance. Argumenting with Gal 1 material will not help here because, there is right after the two verses an admission that he persecuted excessively the very Church which - would have to exist before him. I am actually suspicious of Gal 1:13-14 (Ioudaismos is a hapax, and the reference in Paul to an overarching "Church of God" rings false. But the interpolator probably saw this lame defense of Paul's persecution and decided to have a more contrite Paul instead). But bottom line is if Gal 1:13-14 is genuine, or earlier forgery than 1 Cor 15:3-11, than this would be one piece of evidence of a creed that Paul did not like but which he cautioned his flock not to badmouth (1 Co 10:32).
I think it is strange that when I refer to Gal 1:11-12 to show Paul's relationship to his gospel and input from others regarding it, you change topic and talk instead of Gal 1:13-14 (I agree though the notion of an overarching "Church of God" is discordant). This is a refusal to acknowledge the evidence for the argument presented. I understand that some people take the talk of persecuting the church of God as persecuting christians, but that is not what the text says, just what the commentator wishes to believe. To me this simply leads into a different discourse, one that is excluded on the content of Gal 1:11-12. Why would you disagree with Paul here when he states a view you don't have reason to think is not his? His gospel did not come to him from other people, nor as he taught it. This makes the theory of him proffering a Pre-Pauline creed against his behavior and you then have to conjure up a scenario to make it fly.
Solo wrote:
3. our creedal notions come from established Christianity.
That does not help much now, does it ?
Actually yes, it does. It says that commentators should stop retrojecting notions of creedal formulae into the text of Paul, because those notions have the great possibility of being anachronistic. We should accept that our ideas on creeds are formed from the fourth century and stop using the notion in the context of Pauline literature.
Solo wrote:
Solo wrote:Clearly there was another sectarian movement that invoked Jesus, one that preceded Paul. Paul's letters confirm that part.
I've seen nothing substantial about what other people believed before Paul about Jesus. He avoids talking about Jesus in his version of the meeting with the Jerusalem crowd.
True, we do not know what the Jerusalem sectaries believed about Jesus, but we know (sort of) that Paul was first opposed to their beliefs (creed) and then tried to convert them to his.
I don't know what you are saying with the comment after the "but". Paul is a Jew and personally adhered to the Jewish faith, but offered God's salvation to non-Jews through his savior. I don't see why you would think that Paul would oppose the personal "beliefs" of other Jews, such as those in Jerusalem.
Solo wrote:
This is strange because he wants to talk about Jesus. The only reason I can see is that Paul doesn't reject Mosaic Judaism (and would feel some affinity with Jewish messianists, so if the Jerusalemites were Jewish messianists waiting for the messiah along the lines of the baptist sect hinted at in the gospels), fellow believers in the god of the Jews and there would be no point in talking to them about Jesus, as salvation for them was through the torah. That he doesn't talk to them about Jesus suggests that they didn't share a notion of Jesus and they are not relevant to any historical discourse relating to 1 Cor 15.
And you say that after reading Romans, right?
If there is anything specific in Romans you'd like to bring to the discussion....
Solo wrote:
Solo wrote:But...though the messianists in Jerusalem were some sort of ecstatic cult or an alliance of such groupings, it is highly doubtful they worshipped Jesus as Messiah. We don't know whether Jesus there was some cultic oracle of Joshua the Son of Nun, come as an apocalyptic intervener or whether some memorial cult grew around an obscure prophetic figure, who was killed in the precinct, and whose inner circle was freed from prison by James the Just who then sent them on missions into the diaspora. But obviously this group had some articles of faith, that set them against Paul's forays, first as a Judaic persecutor, and then as self-converted ecstatic messianist himself. So, there is no serious doubt in my mind that there were some creedal formulas before Paul.
The stuff about Paul persecuting messianists does not help get any closer to a Jesus before Paul. There were obviously messianists before Paul, but were any of them Jesuine? How would you know? We can't tell from the letter to the Galatians. Maybe Paul proselytizing Jesus to Roman Jewish converts?
Well why not ? And what about 1 Co 2:2 μὴ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ τοῦτον ἐσταυρωμένον. That does not indicate to you that someone else preached Jesus (perhaps Christ) alive and well ?
No. You need to contextualize his comment with the previous verse. He wasn't going use great rhetoric nor wisdom, instead just Christ crucified.
Solo wrote:How about 2 Co 11:4 : εἰ μὲν γὰρ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἄλλον Ἰησοῦν κηρύσσει. You are not reading it- as someone suggested here to me recently - that Paul meant literally 'another person named "Jesus"', are you ? Because it would seem way more reasonable to read that as "someone preaching Jesus differently" than according to the gospel of Paul.
Again, context is your friend. He does not say that anyone has preached a different Jesus (αλλον Ιησουν). It is a hypothetical. He uses the name of the messiah as was revealed to him in that hypothetical.
Solo wrote:And then there is 2 Co 5:16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer. Again to a meat-and-potato semi-Christian like me, this would logically entail Paul knowing about what later became the object of his worship from other people, before he had a revelation about the Risen One.
And don't the alarm bells start ringing? Paul learned of Jesus through revelation, so how can there be a "we" in "we have known Christ according to the flesh"? Who is this "we"? For me the verse is problematic. It doesn't allow itself to be taken the way you wish, but it also doesn't provide a transparent meaning.
Solo wrote:
Solo wrote:However that would not be my issue: my issue is whether there were creedal formulas before Paul that proclaimed Jesus Christ crucified, and one resurrected from the dead with the promise of same for those who believe it and who behave themselves accordingly. I don't think so because that was the kernel of Paul's creed around which Christianity was built and which, on the evidence of Mark's gospel, the Jerusalem Jesus traditions landed only after Paul was gone.
Again,what creedal formulas before Paul? Were there any? How would you know? When and in what context could they have developed?? From what we know about creeds they were artefacts of organized Christianity. Got any examples of ones that weren't?
We do not know what creedal formulas.
So shouldn't we do away with the eisegesis and talk about what is there in the text?
Solo wrote:If you want to go with Baur and Tuebingen school, the Jacobites taught that the poor saints already lived in kingdom come. FWIW, I happen to believe that the Thomas gospel comes originally from around James (see saying 12) also; clearly the group believed that if you mastered their Jesus' sayings you would be invulnerable. You would become a passerby...like Simon of Cyrene.

Best,
Jiri
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes

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

Re: ...Pre-Pauline creed...

Post by TedM » Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:05 am

spin wrote: 1. the creedal material doesn't reflect anything Paul wrote elsewhere in any way, so not by Paul;
Yes, it is unique to the rest of what Paul writes.
2. he ruled out other sources than god in Gal 1:11-12—he did not receive the gospel from human sources, nor was he taught it—, so not from others before him; and
I think that's a very weak argument because his 'gospel' is not so easily defined IMO. IMO his gospel is more about the MEANING of the resurrection and not the SOURCE of the resurrection claim. Paul can claim originality re the aspects of the gospel that are unique to his message: the idea of salvation through faith for all of mankind. That IMO is what Paul is talking about in Galatians. There is no compelling reason to apply the 'no other man' source in Galatians to his belief in the historical aspect of the gospel. Where do you think Paul got the idea that Jesus was raised from the dead? If it was from scripture are you claiming that Paul, and Paul alone taught that? Why didn't he say anything about that in Galatians then if it was so important to him to let them know that he(Paul) was the source of the teaching that Jesus rose from the dead? Since obviously the 'fact' of the resurrection is NOT what Galatians is about, why would you think that Paul's claim that he got his gospel from no other man WAS about that?
3. our creedal notions come from established Christianity.
Yes, when referring to theological concepts, but the idea that a 'creed' could not have developed quickly to pass along critical events re a historical resurrection claim is - for me - puzzling. A simple, easy to remember, 'creed' makes perfect sense for such a thing. Theological concepts usually require some time to develop. Historical events require no time at all.

Whether this really is a creed, I am not ready to say, but your arguments presented here against it being a creed are IMO extremely weak.

Post Reply