1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

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

Post by Solo » Sat Jul 02, 2016 5:57 pm

Just the essential points:
spin wrote:
Solo wrote:
spin 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.
Yeah, but the debate is about whether there were any creedal ideas in Paul's time that involved Jesus, and my take on it is that, "yes, without a doubt but it is highly doubtful that anyone but Paul had taught Messiah crucified, who rose from the dead, and was presenting himself in the bodies of select visionaries".
spin wrote:
Solo wrote: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.

No, Paul offered salvation through Christ to Jews and non-Jews alike. His specialty might have been Gentiles, and I believe it was simply because he was more successful with that group than with the learned Jews, but he is clear about the universality of his creed:

1 Co 1:23-24 ..we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Rom 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; but that Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame."

The passage in Romans shows very clearly where Paul departed from the perimeter of Judaism. For Paul, faith was without a doubt superior to the adherence to the law and set him against the Jerusalem Jesus sectaries after his conversion experience. Before his revelation, he would have broiled against them because they were naïve in the extreme in their belief in the restoration of the old kingdom in Rome's presence, for their beliefs in the reality of "signs" and evidently also for their lack of piety.
spin wrote:If there is anything specific in Romans you'd like to bring to the discussion....
see above
spin wrote:
Solo wrote:
spin wrote: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.
Well read again the verse and this time do not omit the bolded part!
spin wrote:
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.
Well, yeah maybe, Paul served it hypothetically. How about Gal 3:1 though ? surely someone was bewitching Paul's flock with a different messianic vision, wouldn't you say ?
spin wrote:
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.
Transparent meaning it is perhaps not but the sentence has structure which allows logical operations which assure us that Paul heard about something or someone he now calls "Jesus Christ" and it was "kata sarka", i.e. not from God. Again, we do not know what it was and can debate it, but we know that Paul relates to this object differently after his revelation then he did previously when he heard of it through regular information channels. You are not going to deny that, are you ?

Best,
Jiri

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 » Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:01 pm

Ben wrote:

Also, while it is difficult to come up with a good reason for Paul to have digressed so far so quickly from his main objective in the chapter, it is quite easy to come up with good reasons for later churchmen to have added all of this material. The appearances ensure, against Marcion, that Paul is not a maverick in the church. The "last of all" speech ensures, against Marcion, that Paul himself felt subject to the leadership, exactly as Acts would have it. (And the "according to the scriptures" lines ensure, against Marcion, that Paul is preaching in accordance with the Jewish scriptures and not in direct opposition to the Demiurge whom they celebrate.)

Wouldn't Nazarene Christians also wish to "come up with good reasons .. to have added all this material" to 1 Cor. 15:3-11 in addition to the presentation of Paul in Acts as being more or less in line with Jewish Christian leaders?

I view Acts (and Luke) as being written by a follower of Paul (specifically Epaphroditus) and date it to c. 95 CE and that, given its acceptance of Paul (and that Jesus is pro-Torah observance in Luke), it better espouses the position of Nazarene Christians, and thus I see 1 Cor. 15:3-11 (for the most part) as being a genuine reflection of Paul's acceptance of and by Nazarenes before Marcion came on the scene.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

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 » Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:09 pm

John2 wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:01 pm
Ben wrote:

Also, while it is difficult to come up with a good reason for Paul to have digressed so far so quickly from his main objective in the chapter, it is quite easy to come up with good reasons for later churchmen to have added all of this material. The appearances ensure, against Marcion, that Paul is not a maverick in the church. The "last of all" speech ensures, against Marcion, that Paul himself felt subject to the leadership, exactly as Acts would have it. (And the "according to the scriptures" lines ensure, against Marcion, that Paul is preaching in accordance with the Jewish scriptures and not in direct opposition to the Demiurge whom they celebrate.)

Wouldn't Nazarene Christians also wish to "come up with good reasons .. to have added all this material" to 1 Cor. 15:3-11 in addition to the presentation of Paul in Acts as being more or less in line with Jewish Christian leaders?

I view Acts (and Luke) as being written by a follower of Paul (specifically Epaphroditus) and date it to c. 95 CE and that, given its acceptance of Paul (and that Jesus is pro-Torah observance in Luke), it better espouses the position of Nazarene Christians, and thus I see 1 Cor. 15:3-11 (for the most part) as being a genuine reflection of Paul's acceptance of and by Nazarenes before Marcion came on the scene.
What I am saying is that most of 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 is irrelevant to Paul's argument. Are you saying that you think Nazarene Christians interpolated this passage into Paul? Or what are you saying?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 » Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:42 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:09 pm
John2 wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:01 pm
Ben wrote:

Also, while it is difficult to come up with a good reason for Paul to have digressed so far so quickly from his main objective in the chapter, it is quite easy to come up with good reasons for later churchmen to have added all of this material. The appearances ensure, against Marcion, that Paul is not a maverick in the church. The "last of all" speech ensures, against Marcion, that Paul himself felt subject to the leadership, exactly as Acts would have it. (And the "according to the scriptures" lines ensure, against Marcion, that Paul is preaching in accordance with the Jewish scriptures and not in direct opposition to the Demiurge whom they celebrate.)

Wouldn't Nazarene Christians also wish to "come up with good reasons .. to have added all this material" to 1 Cor. 15:3-11 in addition to the presentation of Paul in Acts as being more or less in line with Jewish Christian leaders?

I view Acts (and Luke) as being written by a follower of Paul (specifically Epaphroditus) and date it to c. 95 CE and that, given its acceptance of Paul (and that Jesus is pro-Torah observance in Luke), it better espouses the position of Nazarene Christians, and thus I see 1 Cor. 15:3-11 (for the most part) as being a genuine reflection of Paul's acceptance of and by Nazarenes before Marcion came on the scene.
What I am saying is that most of 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 is irrelevant to Paul's argument. Are you saying that you think Nazarene Christians interpolated this passage into Paul? Or what are you saying?

I'm suggesting that Nazarenes are just as if not more viable for being candidates for interpolating 1 Cor. 15:3-11, and that since it is also in keeping with the presentation of Paul in Acts (which even calls him "a ringleader of the Nazarene sect" in 24:5) and I date Acts to c. 95 CE (i.e., before Marcion was active), perhaps it is even a genuine Pauline reflection of pre-95 CE Christianity serving to show that he was more or less in line with Jewish Christian leaders with respect to core doctrine like Nazarenes maintained.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

davidmartin
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by davidmartin » Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:56 pm

If you only have 2 sects - Paul and Nazarenes all you get is logical inconsistencies through and through
Introducing a 3rd sect that was prior to both solves the problem

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 » Mon Sep 07, 2020 7:11 am

davidmartin wrote:
Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:56 pm
If you only have 2 sects - Paul and Nazarenes all you get is logical inconsistencies through and through
Introducing a 3rd sect that was prior to both solves the problem

How so? Just curious to understand what you mean.

For me, Paul is called a Nazarene and is accepted by Nazarenes in Acts (as he was by later Nazarenes), and Luke and Acts espouse the Nazarene position of Jewish Torah observance and were accepted by Nazarenes. I have a hard time understanding why orthodox Christians would create writings that espouse the Nazarene position and call Paul a Nazarene when they viewed Nazarenes as heretics.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

davidmartin
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by davidmartin » Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:35 am

How so? Just curious to understand what you mean.

For me, Paul is called a Nazarene and is accepted by Nazarenes in Acts (as he was by later Nazarenes), and Luke and Acts espouse the Nazarene position of Jewish Torah observance and were accepted by Nazarenes. I have a hard time understanding why orthodox Christians would create writings that espouse the Nazarene position and call Paul a Nazarene when they viewed Nazarenes as heretics.
i think i understand your position and it's sure possible your right
But i have trouble believing that Paul and the Nazarenes accepted each other
My belief is Paul's churches and most of the Nazarenes united some time about 100AD and so Acts make them seem more in agreement than they were
By this point the only Nazarene heretics were those who didn't go along with this (Ebionites)
But i don't see the Nazarenes as the original Christians I think Paul was closer to them than they were
That's the 3rd group - the original Christians. Paul emerged from them while the Nazarenes were an offshoot on the fringes of the original Christians
Paul encounters the Nazarenes in Galatians but denies knowing the 3rd group (his strange denial of ever having met any other leaders)

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 » Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:54 am

davidmartin wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 10:35 am
How so? Just curious to understand what you mean.

For me, Paul is called a Nazarene and is accepted by Nazarenes in Acts (as he was by later Nazarenes), and Luke and Acts espouse the Nazarene position of Jewish Torah observance and were accepted by Nazarenes. I have a hard time understanding why orthodox Christians would create writings that espouse the Nazarene position and call Paul a Nazarene when they viewed Nazarenes as heretics.
i think i understand your position and it's sure possible your right
But i have trouble believing that Paul and the Nazarenes accepted each other
My belief is Paul's churches and most of the Nazarenes united some time about 100AD and so Acts make them seem more in agreement than they were

Alright, we both agree on the dating of Acts more or less (c. 100 CE), but even in your scenario I think whoever wrote it was a Nazarene or someone who sided with and espoused the views of Nazarenes, given that it is pro-Jewish Torah observance/pro-Nazarene. In that case, you could say that after "Paul's churches and most of the Nazarenes united," the Nazarene position prevailed (i.e, that Jewish Torah observance was necessary as were some basic requirements for Gentiles, and the calling of Paul and other Christians "Nazarenes") as far as whoever wrote Acts is concerned. So perhaps in this way both of our beliefs can co-exist.

But i don't see the Nazarenes as the original Christians I think Paul was closer to them than they were. That's the 3rd group - the original Christians. Paul emerged from them while the Nazarenes were an offshoot on the fringes of the original Christians
Paul encounters the Nazarenes in Galatians but denies knowing the 3rd group (his strange denial of ever having met any other leaders)

I don't quite understand your third group. What I've seen (inside and outside the NT) indicates that the first Christians were those who came to be called called Nazarenes (which was fairly early on going by our dating of Acts c. 100 CE), from which emerged what I would call proto-Ebionites at some point before 70 CE (if we go by what Acts 21-23 says about the extremist anti-Paul faction) and then Ebionites proper after 70 CE.

So my "third group" would be the (somewhat) later one, the one I call proto-Ebionites/Ebionites, who emerged (shortly) after (what came to be called) the Nazarenes and Paul.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

Stuart
Posts: 612
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Stuart » Mon Sep 07, 2020 2:34 pm

Ben, I was amazed how close your reproduction was to mine. My notes

55) 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 – ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον and– κατὰ τὰς γραφάς
15:4b-10 – κατὰ τὰς γραφάς … οὐκ ἐγὼ δὲ ἀλλὰ ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ [ἡ] σὺν ἐμοί

The traditions of 15:4(b)-10 were placed by the Catholic redactor to lessen Paul’s role, and to harmonize to Acts (Jesus appearing to Peter in 15:5, the elevation of James and the Apostles in 15:7, Saul/Paul persecuting the “Church of God” in verse 15:9, et al). The most that could remain forms a simple coherent statement

“Now I make known to you, brothers, the Gospel which I preached to you, which you received, in which you also have stood, through which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless in vain you believed. For I handed on to you, in the very first things, that Christ died for our sins, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day. Therefore whether I or they, so we preach and so you believe.”

Note the theme of two distinct Christian camps in verse 15:11, I (Paul/Marcion) and they (implying Jewish Christians of the Catholic opponents).

The evidence for this reading as Marcion comes first from the fact that neither Epiphanius nor Tertullian made any mention of verses 15:5-10 being in Marcion. There is no need for these verses, which were inserted to affirm apostolic priority.

Additional testimony concerning the structural details of the Marcionite form comes from DA 5.6, which although not quoting Marcion also deletes ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον and both κατὰ τὰς γραφάς from the text. The κατὰ τὰς γραφάς is understandable, since the only text it could refer to is the Gospel of Luke (in Marcionite form), but this doesn’t fit Paul’s basic claim that what he presents comes from revelation not scripture.

Below are the testimonies for the original text

DA 5.6 Greek:
Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν, ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἑστήκατε, δι᾽ οὖ καὶ σῴζεσθε, τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν εἰ κατέχετε, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῇ ἐπιστεύσατε. παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.

Epiphanius P42 γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν
Epiphanius P42 ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανε καὶ ἐτάφη καὶ ἐγήγερται τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ

DA 5.6 Rufinus:
Notem autem uobis facio, fratres, euangelium. Quod euangelium? Quod euangelizaui uobis, quod et suscepistis, in quo et statis, per quod et salui efficiemini, qua ratione euangelizaui uobis si retinetis, nisi forte sine causa credidistis. Tradidi enim uobis in primus quia Christus mortuus est pro peccatis nostris secundum scripturas et quia sepultis est et quia resurrexit tertia die.

AM 3.8.5 Tradidi enim, inquit, vobis inprimis, quod Christus mortuus sit pro peccatis nostris, et quod sepultus sit, et quod resurrexerit tertia die.
DA GreekDA Rufinus LatinEpiphanius P42Tertullian AM 3.8.5Marcion
15:1– ἀδελφοί++(not witnessed)+
15:3– ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον– ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον(not witnessed)– ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον
15:3– κατὰ τὰς γραφάς+– κατὰ τὰς γραφάς– κατὰ τὰς γραφάς
15:4– κατὰ τὰς γραφάς– κατὰ τὰς γραφάς– κατὰ τὰς γραφάς– κατὰ τὰς γραφάς

The deletion of ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον in verse 15:3 is surprising since verse 11:23 uses the same formulation, Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, when addressing the subject of Jesus’ betrayal.
AM 3.8.5 Tradidi enim, inquit, vobis inprimis, quod Christus mortuus sit pro peccatis nostris, et quod sepultus sit, et quod resurrexerit tertia die.
'For I delivered, he says, to you first of all, that Christ died for our sins, and that he was buried, and that He rose again the third day'
DA 5.6 Epiphanius P42 ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανε καὶ ἐτάφη καὶ ἐγήγερται τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ and ~ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ support F G K L P Ψ 049 maj, but not reflected in Tertullian; both accounts delete – κατὰ τὰς γραφάς (probably also delete verse 5ff)

Epiphanius P42 "on the raising of the dead" γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν

Western non-interpolation (Latin b Ambrosiaster Irenaeus-Latin Tertullian) "that which I also received" ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον was almost certainly not in Marcion, as it implies a teacher-student relationship, clearly rejected by Marcion (see Galatians 1:11-12, 15-17a)

The question here is, why place any weight on the testimony of DA 5 when Clabeaux had demonstrated thoroughly the unreliability of this chapter containing any Marcionite readings? There are two reasons, first the text is an independent witness, almost certainly from an earlier unknown anti-heretic work, that knows the text of 1 Corinthians 15 in an earlier form, which coincides exactly with the Marcionite text we know from Tertullian and Epiphanius. That the source might be Catholic implies that the additions to the text may have been ongoing even after the initial Catholic redaction of the Marcionite collection; something at times hinted at by the silence of Tertullian on obvious points that are presented in the modern text. The second reason is the claimed Marcionite passage of Luke 18:35-38, 39-43 in DA 5.14, which although carrying a very late HT on verse 39, and using the Lukan form παραχρῆμα instead of the expected εὐθέως (Rufinus however uses statim which more often reflects εὐθέως than παραχρῆμα in DA – but this could simply reflect corruptions in both the Greek text we have and also in the Greek text Rufinus translated), yet it also carries the Marcionite reading in 18:37 of deleting ὁ Ναζωραῖος indicating it likely came from an earlier anti-Marcionite tract – albeit in rather corrupted form (the only other potential Marcionite readings are the deletion of ὁ Ἰησοῦς in 18:40, and deleting the obvious Catholic/Lukan glorifying God passage starting with καὶ ἠκουλούθει αὐτῷ δοξάζων τὸν θεόν in 18:43). The conclusion on DA 5 is that it serves as another text witness of the 4th century built on earlier texts that had some contact to the Marcionite texts. Thus the text can be used as a sort of category III type witness.

Note: The term παραχρῆμα ‘in a word’ was favored by Luke, and here and there (missing some due to fatigue) replaced the original term εὐθεώς ‘in an instant’, such as in Luke 4:30, but preserved as εὐθὺς in Mark 1:30.

Additional Note: Robert Price, Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation, argues that even the phrase “and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day” was not part of the original formula, beyond my reduction. This may well be true in the pre-Marcionite form. However the text is consistent with the formula in Luke 9.22 attested in AM 4.21.7, making it clear that Marcion, while perhaps the earliest text, does not represent the earliest formula. But this is consistent with a proto-Gospel common to Mark and Marcion, an earlier tradition, an earlier Christianity.

My reproduction is thus:

15:1 Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν, (1)
Now I make known to you, brothers, the Gospel which I preached to you,
ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἑστήκατε,
which you received, in which you also have stood,
15:2 δι᾽ οὖ καὶ σῴζεσθε, τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν εἰ κατέχετε, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῇ ἐπιστεύσατε.
if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless in vain you believed.
15:3 παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, (2) ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν
For I handed on to you, in the very first things, that Christ died for our sins,
15:4 καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη, καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ, (3)
and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day,

15:12-14, 16-20a are the same as the Canonical in Marcion, picking up directly from 15:4. (I am agnostic about 15:11)

Notes:
(1) Epiphanius P42 "on the raising of the dead" γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν
(2) Western non-interpolation (Latin b Ambrosiaster Irenaeuslat Tertullian) "that which I also recieved" ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον was almost certainly not in Marcion, as it implies a teacher-student relationship, clearly rejected by Marcion (see Galations 1:11-12, 15-17a)
(3) AM 3.8.5; Tradidi enim, inquit, vobis inprimis, quod Christus mortuus sit pro peccatis nostris, et quod sepultus sit, et quod resurrexerit tertia die. 'For I delivered, he says, to you first of all, that Christ died for our sins, and that he was buried, and that He rose again the third day'; DA 5.6 Epiphanius P42 ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανε καὶ ἐτάφη καὶ ἐγήγερται τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ and ~ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ support F G K L P Ψ 049 maj, but not reflected in Tertullian; both accounts delete – κατὰ τὰς γραφάς (probably also delete verse 5ff)
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

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 » Mon Sep 07, 2020 2:43 pm

Stuart wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 2:34 pm
Ben, I was amazed how close your reproduction was to mine.
Sometimes things work out.... It is not as if I disagree with everything you say. :cheers:
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply