1 Corinthians 15:12 : the best argument against a mythical Christ in Paul

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

1 Corinthians 15:12 : the best argument against a mythical Christ in Paul

Post by Giuseppe »

Frankly, I consider any historicist argument different from the following one as mere garbage.

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

(1 Corinthians 15:12)

If there is a point in all Paul that may be defined evidence of the historicity of Jesus, it is this. If the deniers of the resurrection ("some of you") are Christians, i.e. people who by definition believe that Jesus is someway a divine being, then they can only be separationist Christians: Jesus died and didn't rise, while the spiritual Christ didn't suffer (hence he can't be said 'risen'). Hence it is improbable that the body of Jesus was left in the tomb in the lower heavens, while the Christ didn't die in the his place. A Jesus who dies and doesn't rise (while the Christ doesn't suffer) is clearly an earthly Jesus. Separationism is intrinsically an earthly christology.

I think that only if "some of you" are not-Christians, only in that case, the passage can be expected under mythicism.

Unfortunately, I don't see as Doherty addresses this problem, even if he enumerates 15:12 among the surprising silences:


1 Corinthians 15:12-16


12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. [NASB/NIV]


There are some devastating implications to be drawn from this passage. Paul expresses himself as though the raising of Christ from the dead is a matter of faith, not of historical record as evidenced by eyewitness to a physical, risen Jesus at Easter. He is so adamant about the necessity to believe that the dead will be raised, that he is prepared to state—and he repeats it four times—that if they are not, then Christ himself "has not been raised." If men he knew had witnessed the actual return of Jesus from the grave, I do not think he would have thought to make even a rhetorical denial of it.
Moreover, the verb for "witness" (martureo) is often used in the sense of witnessing to, of declaring one’s belief in, an item of faith, not of factual record (though it can mean this in some contexts). Such a meaning here is strongly supported by what follows this verb: kata tou theou, or "against God." Translators often seem uncertain of the exact import of this phrase, but Bauer’s Lexicon firmly declares it as meaning "give testimony in contradiction to God." The idea that Paul is trying to get across here is that if in fact God did not raise Jesus from death (which would have to be the conclusion, he says, if all of the dead are not raised) then, rhetorically speaking, he and other apostles have been contradicting God and lying about Jesus’ resurrection.

The point is, and it’s unmistakable, Paul is saying that knowledge about Jesus’ raising has come from God, and that his own preaching testimony, true or false, is something which relates to information which has come from God—in other words, through revelation. Not history, not apostolic tradition about recent events on earth. In all this discussion about the trueness of Christ’s resurrection, Paul’s standard is one of faith, faith based on God’s testimony—meaning, in scripture. (Cf. Romans 8:25, 10:9, 1 Thess. 4:14.) Historical human witness plays no part.

http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/siltop20.htm
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: 1 Corinthians 15:12 : the best argument against a mythical Christ in Paul

Post by Giuseppe »

A counter-argument (if "some of you" are Christians who denied the resurrection of Jesus) is the following:

Was an original Pauline "Corinthian" letter actually directed towards a group of heretics, the followers of Cerinthus?

It is often said that Paul had within his sights "Judaizers", though he never uses the word himself – adversaries are referred to only obliquely ("Are they Hebrews? So am I.") and never as specific sectarians. The same passages could be directed at the so-called "re-Judaizers" of the 2nd century, those who took issue with the Marcionites and kindred Gnostics for their rejection of the entirety of Jewish scripture.

It appears that some, at least, of Paul's opponents denied the resurrection of the dead:
"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?"

– 1 Corinthians 15.12.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/corinth3.html
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2297
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: 1 Corinthians 15:12 : the best argument against a mythical Christ in Paul

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:41 pm Frankly, I consider any historicist argument different from the following one as mere garbage.

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

(1 Corinthians 15:12)

If there is a point in all Paul that may be defined evidence of the historicity of Jesus, it is this.
What is the existing historicist argument for that passage? How does 1 Cor 15:12 show that Jesus was historical?
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: 1 Corinthians 15:12 : the best argument against a mythical Christ in Paul

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:30 am
Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jul 27, 2019 9:41 pm Frankly, I consider any historicist argument different from the following one as mere garbage.

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

(1 Corinthians 15:12)

If there is a point in all Paul that may be defined evidence of the historicity of Jesus, it is this.
What is the existing historicist argument for that passage? How does 1 Cor 15:12 show that Jesus was historical?
If "some of you" (the enemies of Paul in Corinth who were denying the resurrection of the dead and of Jesus) were Christians, then they adored a not-risen Christ. But a not-risen Christ can be adored (i.e. is worthy of adoration) only if he is not crucified. But then who was crucified (since the Christians have to assume a crucifixion in any case) is not the spiritual Christ, but a mere man possessed by the spiritual Christ and abandoned by the spiritual Christ just before the crucifixion. This belief is called commonly "separationism".

Paul would be saying: you separationist Christians fail to recognize that the Christ was the same man suffering and dead on the cross. Therefore, if Christ is dead, then Christ is risen.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: 1 Corinthians 15:12 : the best argument against a mythical Christ in Paul

Post by Giuseppe »

The separationism implies that the crucified man who didn't rise, was found on the earth, not in heaven.

Carrier says that the body of Jesus was abandoned by Jesus (after the death), but he doesn't say that the pauline Christ was not risen. He say that by the resurrection Jesus assumed a new body. The my point is that a Christian can deny the resurrection only if he is a separationist, and the separationism implies only an earthly Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: 1 Corinthians 15:12 : the best argument against a mythical Christ in Paul

Post by toejam »

In context, the verse makes best sense if Paul and those he is attempting to rebuke agree that Jesus had recently been here on Earth and had died. I personally doubt Paul's opponents did not believe in Jesus' resurrection, I think the disagreement is over the nature of the resurrection. Paul's opponents here apparently don't think there will be a general resurrection of the dead for the rest of us. They probably understand Jesus' resurrection as spiritual in some way or another that Paul is not down with. Paul tries to have it both ways. For Paul, Jesus' resurrection is somewhat physical and somewhat spiritual. Paul describes the resurrection body as 'pneumatic'. I think the best interpretation of that is 'super-physical'. There is a some sort of newness about the resurrection body, but it is also understood to have somehow grown out from with the old "flesh and blood" body (consider Paul's analogy of the flower that grows from the buried seed). Jesus (according to Paul) really did rise from the grave as the "first fruits" of the traditionally expected general resurrection, but it is in a way previously unexpected - resurrected into a 'super-physical' body. Paul thinks the faithful will also attain a 'super-physical' resurrection body of the sort that Jesus put on. That Paul has to reiterate this implies that both he and his opponents accept a recently deceased (and probably resurrected) earthly-Jesus. That is the common ground he can work with before plowing ahead with his apologetics about his understanding of the nature of the resurrection. I wouldn't say this is the best and only evidence of an earthly-Jesus in Paul's epistles, but it is certainly a worthy one.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: 1 Corinthians 15:12 : the best argument against a mythical Christ in Paul

Post by Giuseppe »

I wouldn't say this is the best and only evidence of an earthly-Jesus in Paul's epistles, but it is certainly a worthy one.
I think that it is the best and only evidence pro historicity only if the opponents were Christians who denied the resurrection of Jesus. I.e. only if they were separationists. Otherwise it is all pure speculation between Paul and even atheist (!) opponents.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply