1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Ben C. Smith »

gryan wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 1:13 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 7:41 am
Your explanation requires that information about the visions granted to others fall into the category of, as you put it, "ordinary information," which to my eye contradicts the statement in 1 Corinthians 15.3 that the listed information was "of first importance."
This reminds me of playing softball. The expert tosses a nice slow pitch to make it easy for the new guy. So, thanks for that, Ben. You are one of those taller, more experienced cool kids who amazingly, is not a bully! (There seems to be quite a few of those types around here. This forum is a special place that way. So thanks to all who make this possible). I never got into this text in such detail before!

Re: "of first importance"

I'm seeing five categories: 1) Of first importance, 2) and that 3) after that, 4) then and 5) last of all.

1) of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

2) and that He appeared to Cephas and then to the Twelve.

3) After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

4) Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

5) And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth.

From his own vision, all Paul knew was "He appeared to me" (ὤφθη κἀμοί) -- that vision was, in its essential quality, not "received from a human source" (παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον, Gal 1:12). The discourse of 1 Cor 15:3f is by nature "received from a human source", and thus, Paul writes, "I handed down... what I received (παρέδωκα... παρέλαβον i.e. "from a human source"). With his own testimony--"He appeared to me"--Paul was adding his own witness to the public record for others to receive and to hand down.
Are the first items on the list part of "the gospel?" Are at least the "that"/"and that" items "of first importance?"

Because it looks to me like you are walking through the Corinthian passage, accurately explaining what it means, without denying that it stands in contradiction to the Galatian passage.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by gryan »

Re: contradiction to the Gal 1:12, ("I did not receive it from a human, nor was I taught it; but, I received it by revelation of Jesus Christ.")

If, except for the experience that led to the confession, "he appeared to me", all of 1 Cor 15:3-1 is the sort of information that can be and was received from human beings, then what is left in the opposing category--"revelation of Jesus Christ"? I don't think the name "Jesus Christ" was revealed. That was a name that pre-existed Paul's experience of revelation and had already been communicated to him by human means. So, what is left in the category of "revelation"--divine revelation--when all that is from a human source is stripped away?

I'm pondering that one.
TedM
Posts: 855
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:25 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by TedM »

I think of Paul's 'gospel' of Jesus as the message of salvation through faith in the resurrection of Jesus, and particularly the message that this salvation was available to Gentiles. Galatians isn't about Paul defending the resurrection of Jesus. It appears mainly to be Paul's defense against the claim others were making that the Galatians needed to be circumcised.

To me it seems that the issue of faith vs works for Gentiles was THE difference between the gospel Paul was preaching and the gospel others were preaching.

So when Paul writes about receiving the gospel from no man but from God/Jesus himself he was being consistent with the apparent purpose of Galatians -- he was using that to support his point that his gospel of salvation through faith - and faith alone - for Gentiles was superior to the gospels others were teaching.

I don't see any contradiction between 1 Cor 15 and Galatians 1:11-12 because 1 Cor 15 isn't talking about the issue of circumcision at all.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by davidmartin »

If one seeks the origins of Christianity and ends up identifying it, it might just be the entry point for a new direction rather than it's true origin
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Ken Olson »

Ben,

Are the tensions between 1 Cor. 15.3-11 and Gal. 1.11-12 really of the sort that forbid or even tell against common authorship, or are they more of the sort that we might expect to find in any writer from whom we have a fairly lengthy body of work, especially written over a period of time?

I would date 1 Corinthians before Galatians (and perhaps before the Antioch incident described in Gal. 2.11-14), before Paul's relationship with the Jerusalem church deteriorated (i.e., when he learned there were Jewish Christian missionaries preaching to his Gentile converts that they must be circumcised and follow the Mosaic law).

I think there are actually a lot of internal tensions in Paul's thinking and/or his preaching. He seems to spend much of 1 Corinthians walking back or qualifying things he said because they have led to unforeseen consequences. To name two that I have previously discussed on this forum, there's his advocacy of celibacy, which he has to qualify in 1 Cor. 7.5 because apparently some men have sought prostitutes because their wives decided to practice celibacy, and then there's his claim that idols are nothing, which has led some of he Corinthians to deduce that it's perfectly alright to take part in pagan feasts because the meet is just meet and the pagan gods do not exist, so what could be the harm?

In Galatians, Paul is very consciously trying to establish his independence from the Jerusalem church and its authority and minimize or explain away his previous association with it - he only visited it twice, and on the first visit saw only one, or perhaps two, apostles, and that only briefly. On his second visit, they added nothing to his gospel and shook hands over a deal made as equals (Paul was definitely NOT given directions on what to do). Galatians does read like Paul's previous association with the Jerusalem church was something of a problem he needed to deal with in order for his claims that his (law-free) gospel was given to him directly by God and that he was never under the authority of the Jerusalem church to be credible. If anything, I would think 1 Cor 15.3-11 is authentic (the humblebrag in 15.10-11 sounds very Pauline to me) and that he's shading the truth or revising history in Galatians in light of subsequent events.

Also, if later churchmen interpolated the post-resurrection appearances in 1 Cor 3.5-11, why would they have stuck with naming only Cephas and James, who Paul says he met on his first visit to Jerusalem in Gal. 1.18-19 (and who constitute two of the three pillars named in the second visit in Gal. 2.9)? They could have named many other apostles or disciples or other figures from the gospels (like the Marys) as witnesses.

Best,

Ken

EDITED: Jewish Christian missionaries, not mercenaries (though that would be cool).
Last edited by Ken Olson on Mon May 10, 2021 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by robert j »

Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:19 am
I would date 1 Corinthians before Galatians ...
I think the two letters were written consecutively within a relatively short period of time. I haven't gotten down and dirty in all the details, but I tend to agree with you that 1 Corinthians was written before Galatians.
Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:19 am
... before Galatians (and perhaps before the Antioch incident described in Gal. 2.11-14), before Paul's relationship with the Jerusalem church deteriorated (i.e., when he learned there were Jewish Christian mercenaries preaching to his Gentile converts that they must be circumcised and follow the Mosaic law).
What evidence do you find in the letter Galatians that the opposition consisted of "Jewish Christian mercenaries"? Sure, that is a common assumption, but the evidence in the letter is entirely consistent with the opposition consisting of local Jews --- Jewish acquaintances that were not overly concerned about the stories of Paul's salvific son the Jewish God found in the Jewish scriptures by means of creative readings, but strenuously objected to Gentiles becoming full participants with God's chosen people of Israel without being circumcised.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Ken Olson »

robert j wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:56 am What evidence do you find in the letter Galatians that the opposition consisted of "Jewish Christian mercenaries"? Sure, that is a common assumption, but the evidence in the letter is entirely consistent with the opposition consisting of local Jews --- Jewish acquaintances that were not overly concerned about the stories of Paul's salvific son the Jewish God found in the Jewish scriptures by means of creative readings, but strenuously objected to Gentiles becoming full participants with God's chosen people of Israel without being circumcised.
Missionaries. I meant jewish-Christian missionaries.

The body of the letter, after the salutation, begins:

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8

Paul seems to be assuming that the people who are encouraging the Galatians to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic law are preaching a different gospel and perverting the gospel of Christ. Also, his discussion of the false brethren and the men from James in chapter 2 suggests the existence of a circumcision faction within the church that cared about the circumcision (or not) of Gentile Christians and that Paul probably connects them to the teachers of circumcision in Galatia (though Paul seems to be relying on reports and may not have good information on what's really going on there).

Best,

Ken
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by mlinssen »

Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 10:21 am
Missionaries. I meant jewish-Christian missionaries.
One of the better autocorrect mishaps :cheeky:
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by robert j »

Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 10:21 am
robert j wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:56 am What evidence do you find in the letter Galatians that the opposition consisted of "Jewish Christian mercenaries"? Sure, that is a common assumption, but the evidence in the letter is entirely consistent with the opposition consisting of local Jews --- Jewish acquaintances that were not overly concerned about the stories of Paul's salvific son the Jewish God found in the Jewish scriptures by means of creative readings, but strenuously objected to Gentiles becoming full participants with God's chosen people of Israel without being circumcised.
Missionaries. I meant jewish-Christian missionaries.
Yes, of course, thanks for the reply Ken. My question would be the same for "jewish-Christian missionaries".
Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 10:21 am
The body of the letter, after the salutation, begins:

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8

Paul seems to be assuming that the people who are encouraging the Galatians to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic law are preaching a different gospel and perverting the gospel of Christ. Also, his discussion of the false brethren and the men from James in chapter 2 suggests the existence of a circumcision faction within the church that cared about the circumcision (or not) of Gentile Christians and that Paul probably connects them to the teachers of circumcision in Galatia (though Paul seems to be relying on reports and may not have good information on what's really going on there).
Men from James in Paul's story set in Antioch does not place Jewish Christian opponents among the Galatians.

"... seems to be assuming ... suggests ... Paul probably ... though Paul seems ... may not have good information on what's really going on there."

So the answer to my question is apparently, no. There is no clear evidence in the letter Galatians that Paul's opposition among the Galatians consisted of Jewish Christians, nor anyone from outside the local area.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1278
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Ken Olson »

robert j wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:04 am Men from James in Paul's story set in Antioch does not place Jewish Christian opponents among the Galatians.

"... seems to be assuming ... suggests ... Paul probably ... though Paul seems ... may not have good information on what's really going on there."

So the answer to my question is apparently, no. There is no clear evidence in the letter Galatians that Paul's opposition among the Galatians consisted of Jewish Christians, nor anyone from outside the local area.
Yes, in the field of history, especially in ancient history, we tend to work from the most reasonable inferences we can make.

It is possible that those who were encouraging Paul's Gentile converts to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic laws were local (non-Christian) Jews. Do you have any clear evidence from the letter that that is, in fact, the case? And barring clear evidence, can you show that that would be the inference more (or most) strongly supported by the contents of the letter?

Best,

Ken
Post Reply