1 Cor 15 vs Gal 1 - how to reconcile?

[rgprice]

1 Cor 15 states that, "I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received" (1 Cor 15:3) This indicates that Paul is passing on something he was told by others.

But Gal 1 states, "the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:11-12)

These are, of course, totally at odds with one another.

One explanation is that much 1 Cor 15 is a later "Catholicizing" interpolation. It does seem that much of 1 Cor 15 is designed to place primary on Peter, make Paul subordinate, and to bring Paul's teachings in line with the Peterine branch of the ministry. I know much has been written on this subject, and I've read many opinions about it, but as usual, nothing seems quite satisfactory. I find myself like many others who have attempting to really dissect the Pauline letters. The more you dig into them and try to make sense out of them the less sense they make.

Anyone else have thoughts on this particular issue? Can this be addressed without resorting to interpolations? Goodacre views this as evidence that 1 Cor was written prior to Gal.

I do tend to agree with the view, expressed by RMP and others, that 1 Cor is itself assembled from multiple letters. If this is the case, then of course trying to date 1 Cor becomes a fool's errand, because different parts of it could be written at different times. A major question would also be, if 1 Cor is a compilation of multiple letters, were they all actually even written by Paul? What if, for example, 1 Cor ends up containing letters that were written by Paul and Barnabas and Timothy?

Well anyways...

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,
About 1 Co 15:3-11 being an interpolation:
http://historical-jesus.info/9.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Irish1975]

1 Cor 15 states that, "I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received" (1 Cor 15:3) This indicates that Paul is passing on something he was told by others.

Wait, why? Why does παρέλαβον in Corinthians mean “something he was told by others” if it means exactly the opposite in Galatians 1:12? If in Galatians Paul “received” the gospel not by man, not by teaching, but by revelation, then why not here as well?

These are, of course, totally at odds with one another.

In Corinthians Paul admits that Christ appeared to Cephas and James and the 500 before appearing to Paul himself. He omits this part of the story in Galatians. But I don’t see the two epistles, the two accounts, being “totally at odds.”

The gospel received and preached by Paul, and the appearances of Christ, are two different things in 1 Corinthians. He affirms that Christ appeared to Cephas and the others, but he doesn’t say that they also received his gospel, which he specifically defines in scriptural-prophetic terms:

that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures
that he was buried
that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas, etc.

The claim that Christ died for sins is Paul’s claim and Paul’s gospel. There is no trace of it having been believed or taught by Cephas and James, and 1 Peter had to be fabricated so as to make Peter seem like an adherent of Paul’s soteriology. The pseudographer of the letter of James even allows that James would not could not did not believe in a saving death, and doesn’t try to portray him that way.