Information on Detering's commentary about 1 cErinthians

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 5423
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Information on Detering's commentary about 1 cErinthians

Post by Giuseppe » Wed May 15, 2019 2:09 am

I remember a pdf of dr. Detering where he argues that 1 and/or 2 Corinthians were written against Cerinthians as polemical target.

Since I think that "Mark" is Cerinthus, I am interested to recover that pdf.

Thanks in advance for any help in this sense.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 5423
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Information on Detering's commentary about 1 cErinthians

Post by Giuseppe » Wed May 15, 2019 7:54 am

I have recovered the pdf from my db. It is titled "Die Gegner des Paulus".

From a primissima facie reading (by using google.translate) , it seems that :
  • Cerinthus assumed that the man Jesus will be the first to be risen, in the future. So he denied that the man Jesus was already risen. Hence the polemic in 1 Corinthians 15 against who denies the resurrection of the dead and of Christ in particular.
    The author could have saved himself the detailed "historical proof" of Christ's resurrection if he had not known the objection that Christ was not risen, that he interpreted as "Christ is not risen." , He could only know it from Cerinthus.


  • ...1 Corinthians 10:12, the author warns his readers: whoever "thinks he is standing" (ἑστ άναι ναι ναι), may see that "he does not fall" (μὴ πέσῃ). The verse is often regarded by the exegetes as a general warning of pneumatic securitas. It has not yet been recognized that the verse contains an allusion, which seems to be understandable only against the background of the conflict between Paulinism / Marcionism and Jewish Christianity. The allusion refers to the person who was regarded by the Jewish Christians of the second century as the main enemy because of their attitude to the sacrifice of the sacrifice (see p. 260) and also gets away badly in this interpolation: Simon, who stands as "standing "Or as the one who" stands...

  • The Christ party ("I am of Christ") is a reference to cerinthians as possessed by the spiritual Christ.
  • The preaching of "Christ crucified" goes against the Cerinthus's belief that the Christ didn't suffer on the cross, but only the man Jesus.
My reflections:

Curiously, under this reconstruction, the emphasis on the crucifixion of Christ in Paul, and only on it, is explained not from a mythical Christ, but from the fact that the author of the epistle was emphasizing the carnal reality of Christ also in the extreme moment of the death, since his Cerinthian opponents conceded already the fact that Christ “was there” while the man Jesus was living and not still on the cross.

But an alternative explanation is possible. Christ was still not euhemerized on the earth by the time the author of 1 Corinthians wrote the epistle against the Cerinthians. Hence the primitive belief shared by all was that the Christ descended on a man and someway a crucifixion of this man happened. The author of 1 Corinthians claimed that Christ suffered with this man. While the his polemical opponents denied that Christ suffered with this man. Just as they denied the resurrection of this man.

Hence they were the party "of Christ" while who believed in the real suffering of the spiritual Christ claimed that they were the party "of Cephas" (Christ suffered with Cephas), or "of Apollos" (Christ suffered with Apollos).

A-pollos is the denial of the multiplicity: hence the Apollos party claimed a strictu senso identity between the Christ and the man, during the his death on the cross.

The Simon Cephas party assumed that the crucified man was Simon (the Magus?). Was he the Rock because he was the "standing one" as a rock?

At any case, you know what was the Rock Party:
Image
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply