1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 3652
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2020 5:30 pm
There were/are "righteous Gentiles" and requirements for Gentiles in Judaism, but it doesn't necessarily follow that Jesus had a "Pauline style view on gentile converts." Paul said he did not receive his gospel to the Gentiles "from any man, not was I taught it" (Gal. 1:12), but by a revelation he says he received from the heavenly Jesus. And if the human Jesus had taught the same gospel to the Gentiles that Paul did, Paul would have been able to say that he received it from other people who had learned about it from the human Jesus, right?
now that's the interesting question
when Paul says 'his gospel' to me that means the whole Paul package as we see it in his letters and it covers a lot of ground
but you can take specific items of this and look at them separately as whether they might have predated his revelation or been part of it
its possible to go back to the gospels to try and look for those (although most people say they were written after Paul's letters... i think that's still worthwhile and they've got their own tradition)
The gospels do contain some information so if we think these go back to Jesus, not everything Paul taught was unknown before
i recon substantial pieces of what he taught were known before and he presented them in new ways as part of his revelation

I think all gospels were written after Paul, but I'm open to the possibility that some of them contain sayings and doings of Jesus that pre-date Paul. And in what I regard as the earliest gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke), Jesus is pro-Jewish Torah observance and (with few exceptions) does not minister to Gentiles or teach his followers to minister to Gentiles, as noted here:

When Jesus began His ministry, it was only to the people of Israel. When He sent out the apostles on their first evangelistic mission, He ordered them, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6). This does not mean that He ignored individual Gentiles, because He did minister to a few (Matt. 8:5-13; 15:21-28), but His major emphasis was on Israel.


https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... es-15-8-13

But Paul's "major emphasis" was on Gentiles, right?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
davidmartin
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by davidmartin »

John2 yes this description is what i find problematic
Jesus is 'pro-Torah observant' - but what does that actually mean?
I think in the context of Christianity it doesn't give sufficient information
If you knew nothing else about Jesus and the history of Christianity you'd think the phrase would mean he was teaching and observing the Torah just like the Pharisees or any other rabbi
Now if that were true then Paul has to be a false apostle for teaching the opposite!

That's my problem with Jesus being presented as religiously conservative, that is fine - but then Paul and his teaching has to be rejected as diverging. This is what some Jews today suggest (and Muslims also) i saw a whole video on this

One solution is to see Jesus as being a reformer with parallels indeed to Pauls gospel, and Pauls claim to receiving 'from no man' to be a bit of hyperbole.
Another solution is to realise his followers saw him as the messiah, thus can claim authority to reform as much as obey tradition
John2
Posts: 3652
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 »

davidmartin wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 8:14 am John2 yes this description is what i find problematic
Jesus is 'pro-Torah observant' - but what does that actually mean?
I think in the context of Christianity it doesn't give sufficient information
If you knew nothing else about Jesus and the history of Christianity you'd think the phrase would mean he was teaching and observing the Torah just like the Pharisees or any other rabbi
Now if that were true then Paul has to be a false apostle for teaching the opposite!

I think Jesus makes it clear in Mk. 7:8-13 that all of the Torah is to be observed, otherwise he would be a hypocrite too for nullifying parts of the Torah with his "tradition." And Mk. 1:27 makes it clear that Jesus' teaching was new, i.e., not entirely like that of the Pharisees.

And I think James' reproval of Paul in his letter and Acts 21 shows that Paul was perceived as teaching against the necessity of Jewish Torah observance, but Nazarenes do not appear to have regarded him as a false prophet because of that.

You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men.”

He went on to say, “You neatly set aside the command of God to maintain your own tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever you would have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), he is no longer permitted to do anything for his father or mother.Thus you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down. And you do so in many such matters.”
All the people were amazed and began to ask one another, “What is this? A new teaching with authority!

That's my problem with Jesus being presented as religiously conservative, that is fine - but then Paul and his teaching has to be rejected as diverging. This is what some Jews today suggest (and Muslims also) i saw a whole video on this

One solution is to see Jesus as being a reformer with parallels indeed to Pauls gospel, and Pauls claim to receiving 'from no man' to be a bit of hyperbole.
Another solution is to realise his followers saw him as the messiah, thus can claim authority to reform as much as obey tradition

Paul appears to be the "reformer" to me, since he is reproved by Nazarene leaders (in James and Acts), and Cephas and all the Jews sided with James and the "circumcision party" in Antioch, and what they teach is in keeping with what Jesus teaches in the gospels (i.e., Jewish Torah observance). It's thus hard for me to see Paul as being the only early Christian who taught the original gospel and all others as being reformers.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
davidmartin
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by davidmartin »

I think it's more likely by the time of Acts the author wanted to present Paul and Nazarenes as grudgingly accepting each other (it's hardly presented as being without difficulty). But originally they didn't.
Not so hard if Paul's letters are not widely known at that time only hearsay
But it means the Nazarenes accepting what Paul says about the law 'it's useless/worthless', 'slavery' etc
I don't see how logically they can accept Paul based on his statements about the law. They are different and so are their gospels
I can see how later on it might be presented that they did reflecting what was going on 50-75 years later when some of Pauls and some of the Nazarenes spiritual descendants may indeed have accepted each other and wanted to harmonise their history

The Ebionites?
The Clementine Ebionite writings claim to represent the original Peter and James and they oppose Paul
I've read all the Clementine stuff and analysed it closely for any sign they guys actually had any intimate knowledge of Jesus of N
They don't. There's a ton of their own theology, some interesting historical tidbits but nothing about Jesus, his life or his teachings except what's found in gosp. of Matthew. So i don't think they ever really knew him - this undermines the Ebionites claims

So could Paul have certain things correct?
John2
Posts: 3652
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 »

davidmartin wrote: Sat Sep 12, 2020 11:36 pm I think it's more likely by the time of Acts the author wanted to present Paul and Nazarenes as grudgingly accepting each other (it's hardly presented as being without difficulty). But originally they didn't.
But I think the NT letters "present Paul and Nazarenes as grudgingly accepting each other" too. While the letter of James opposes what it perceives to be Paul's position on Jewish Torah observance, it doesn't reject Paul, and while Paul has issues with some Nazarenes, he doesn't reject them either. Paul collected money for the the "saints" and James' letter concludes with the hope that, "if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, consider this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins."

To me Acts looks more like someone's attempt to write a history of the early church using more or less all of the NT letters (and other sources like the "we" writings) and that it is more or less in sync with the "voice" of these letters (as Ben has noted elsewhere). So I think the Nazarene acceptance of Paul was always there (however grudging) and that Acts is simply reflecting it (if in the best light).


Not so hard if Paul's letters are not widely known at that time only hearsay
But it means the Nazarenes accepting what Paul says about the law 'it's useless/worthless', 'slavery' etc
I don't see how logically they can accept Paul based on his statements about the law. They are different and so are their gospels

But they all knew their gospels were different and were fine with it, according to Gal. 2:9 ("And recognizing the grace that I had been given, James, Cephas, and John—those reputed to be pillars—gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised").

Now, Paul may have overstepped his boundaries as far as his view on the necessity of Jewish Torah observance goes (for which he was reprimanded in Galatians and Acts), but he was at least willing to pretend to be Torah observant (as per 1 Cor. 9:20), which is in keeping with his presentation in Acts 21 and could explain his acceptance by Nazarenes ("To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law").
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
davidmartin
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by davidmartin »

John2 i think the only difference between us is timing
i think the earliest church was in harmony then got disrupted very early with differences among various groupings
The Acts viewpoint presents the harmonious period as going on longer encompassing the time of Paul and Nazarenes who although they differed ultimately reached some agreement. It was after that the real differences emerged (as per church fathers description of heresies)
It's only a difference of timing
I just think Acts is presenting an agreement that is happening at the time Acts was written not reflecting what happened earlier
I believe in the historical Jesus who was accepted as the messiah by his followers
John2
Posts: 3652
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by John2 »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:12 am John2 i think the only difference between us is timing
i think the earliest church was in harmony then got disrupted very early with differences among various groupings
Was the earliest church ever in harmony? Doesn't Jesus complain about his followers' lack of faith and understanding? And don't the earliest NT writings (the letters) show that Paul and Jewish Christians had some issues?

The Acts viewpoint presents the harmonious period as going on longer encompassing the time of Paul and Nazarenes who although they differed ultimately reached some agreement.

But "some agreement" is already there in the NT letters, that Paul would preach about Jesus to Gentiles.

It was after that the real differences emerged (as per church fathers description of heresies)
It's only a difference of timing

But the "real differences" are in the NT letters too, that Paul was perceived as overstepping his boundary regarding the necessity of Jewish Torah observance but was willing to pretend to be observant, just like in Acts.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
gryan
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by gryan »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:09 am
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:The careful structure and rhythmic character of the piece is part of what motivates a lot of scholars to regard it as a pre-Pauline "creedal" statement of some kind.
:mrgreen:
So it's either a Pre-Pauline creed or a Post-Pauline interpolation. (But please do not argue that it comes from Paul and his fellow workers ...)
I think that those who argue for a pre-Pauline creedal statement have taken notice, not only that the writing is of a different kind than in the surrounding context, but also that Paul says (twice, in verses 1 and 3) that he received this gospel message and (once, in verse 11) that others are preaching the same thing. They do not think it sounds as if Paul means that he received it directly from God and that the other preachers got it from him; so they take him to mean that he got it from others. They also, I believe, point to the language used (delivered, received) as typical of the passing on of traditions in the Pharisaic manner (Josephus, Antiquities 13.10.6 §297; 13.16.2 §408).

I think that those who argue for a post-Pauline interpolation find it hard to believe that the same firebrand who denied receiving the gospel from humans in Galatians 1.11-12 would here so nonchalantly admit to having received the core of his entire message from humans. They also notice that this passage contains a good deal of material that could be leveled against Marcion, and suspect that it was incorporated, possibly even created, precisely for that purpose.

I think that both positions have merit. (It is very easy to read Paul as saying that he got this message from others, and the apparent contradiction between 1 Corinthians 15.1, 3 and Galatians 1.11-12 does require an explanation.) If you do not, why not? Why should those two positions be off the table?

(And please bear in mind that I agree with you overall on the linguistic arguments. Very little in this section strikes me as something that Paul might not have penned on linguistic grounds.)
Re: "the apparent contradiction between 1 Corinthians 15.1, 3 and Galatians 1.11-12 does require an explanation."

Here is my explanation: Paul's revelation gave him extraordinary knowledge of the risen Christ in him, but it did not tell him about such ordinary things as who else had also had visions of the risen Christ. He had to get ordinary history and tradition from other sources.

How's that for an explanation?
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: Mon May 03, 2021 7:24 amRe: "the apparent contradiction between 1 Corinthians 15.1, 3 and Galatians 1.11-12 does require an explanation."

Here is my explanation: Paul's revelation gave him extraordinary knowledge of the risen Christ in him, but it did not tell him about such ordinary things as who else had also had visions of the risen Christ. He had to get ordinary history and tradition from other sources.

How's that for an explanation?
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."

The issue is that, in 1 Corinthians 15.1-11, the list of appearance is given precisely as at least part of the content of "the gospel" (verse 1, and then follow the flow of the presentation from there), and in Galatians 1.11-12 Paul denies vehemently having received the gospel from humans.
gryan
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by gryan »

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.

Is that a base hit?
Post Reply