Paul’s Jesus --- Man or Myth ?

[robert j]

But Gal. 3 -and Paul's entire gospel, really- seems to be the ultimate example of going "beyond what has been written" if he is referring to the OT in 1 Cor. 4:6, since he effectively interpreted the Torah out of existence and promoted "a new covenant ...

I agree that Paul went well beyond what was in the LXX. Regardless, I think he was referring to the LXX in 1 Cor. 4:6.

I think you may be expecting way too much of Paul in terms of consistency. He was often not consistent --- and he sometimes stretched logic to the breaking point.

... in the desire of some to make their dispute 'public' as a means to gain more honor than their opponent ...

Now that line is not a bad characterization of some among the Corinthians. But the congregation organized as a formal association with a set of by-laws --- that I just don't see.

[FransJVermeiren]

I think you may be expecting way too much of Paul in terms of consistency. He was often not consistent --- and he sometimes stretched logic to the breaking point.

Of course, an inconsistent Paul is much more interesting than a consistent one. I believe Paul was utterly consistent in propagating a future Christ for Jews and gentiles alike. For that purpose he indeed 'stretched logic to the breaking point'. All the rest are interpolations.

[John2]

Robert J,

I've been looking into the issue of 1 Cor. 4:6 more and I see that it is made more complicated by textual variants. Lim outlines various suggestions here and argues that while Paul "is almost invariably citing texts that would later be included in the canon" when using a particular "introductory formula," 1 Cor. 4:6 may be an exception:

There are ... numerous textual, grammatical, and interpretive issues attached to this clause. First, the clause is elliptical and needs a verb to be read as a negative articular infinitive. Some manuscripts supply φρονειν, thus "not to think beyond what is written." Second, there is numerical incongruity between the plural relative pronoun and its singular antecedent. Some manuscripts change the relative to the singular ho. Third, its referent has been variously interpreted: (a) the meaning is utterly corrupt and beyond recovery; (b) the clause was a scribal gloss that has been introduced subsequently into the text; (c) it is a reference to a public document of the Corinthian church; (d) it alludes to the metaphors of planting and building in 1 Cor 3:5-7; (e) it means scripture generally; (f) it has in mind the biblical quotations in 1 Corinthians specifically; or (g) Paul may have been quoting a slogan or proverb known by the Corinthians.

https://books.google.com/books?id=1RH7A ... en&f=false

I've seen some other arguments that make a good case for 1 Cor. 4:6 referring to the OT, and I still don't know what to think, but it's an interesting issue in any case.