1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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
... 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).
robert j wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:56 am
... the evidence in the letter is entirely consistent with the opposition consisting of local Jews ...
Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:26 am
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?
Paul does not provide enough information in the letter Galatians to clearly characterize the opponents. My objection is about making statements about the opponents that are not supported by the evidence.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by gryan »

I'm getting a sense that for Paul the difference between "from a human source" and from God via "revelation" has a lot to do with the difference between imitation of words and real power. Anyone can repeat words and pass on traditions. Paul's gospel is from God, he claims, since it is accompanied by signs and wonders and power: "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power" (1 Cor 4:20). So also, Gal 3:5, "Therefore, the One supplying to you the Spirit and working miracles among you, is it out of works of the Law, or out of hearing of faith?"
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:19 am 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 ... 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 ...
This is well-considered. I also tend to view 1 Cor 15:3-11 as original. It's also missing an empty tomb and all of that.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
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 11:46 am
Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:19 am
... 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).
robert j wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 9:56 am
... the evidence in the letter is entirely consistent with the opposition consisting of local Jews ...
Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:26 am
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?
Paul does not provide enough information in the letter Galatians to clearly characterize the opponents. My objection is about making statements about the opponents that are not supported by the evidence.

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 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! (Gal 1.6-9)

How is this entirely consistent with the opposition consisting of local Jews? Is Paul referring to Judaism a false gospel here? Does he use the word gospel that way anywhere else?
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by robert j »

robert j wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 11:46 am
Paul does not provide enough information in the letter Galatians to clearly characterize the opponents.
Ken Olson wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 3:21 am
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 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! (Gal 1.6-9)

How is this entirely consistent with the opposition consisting of local Jews? Is Paul referring to Judaism a false gospel here? Does he use the word gospel that way anywhere else?

I just don’t see how your focus on the term “gospel” here has any relevance to the question at hand. Unless of course you see the term anachronistically.

I think Paul’s letters were the first texts about a Jesus Christ. Written before the opening line of the tale in GMark (drawing on Paul IMO), and written long before the term “gospel” became a Christian technical term for a written narrative about events in the life and death of a Jesus Christ.

Paul’s “the gospel” (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) --- his announcement of good news --- consisted primarily of his teaching that faith in his Jesus Christ allowed Gentiles full participation with God’s chosen people of Israel without the benefit of circumcision or adherence to the Mosaic rituals. That was the primary focus in Galatians, but other ancillary benefits including resurrection from the dead when “he comes” and escape from the coming wrath are in focus in other letters.

Anyone that would deny Paul’s claims would be denying his announcement of good news, and in effect promoting another announcement of good news. But Paul denies that there even was another gospel, but only that some people were troubling the Galatians and denying his announcement of good news ---

I am amazed that so quickly you are deserting from the one having called you in the grace of Christ to another gospel, which is not another, except there are some who are troubling you and are desiring to pervert the gospel of Christ. (Galatians 1:6-7)

Paul’s particular use of the term was quite uncommon in his times. The term was commonly used as a verb and sometimes as a plural noun without the definite article or as a feminine singular noun. But prior to Paul there are no extant examples of the way Paul most commonly used the term as a singular neuter noun with the article (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον). Paul seemed to have adopted the term in a proprietary sense --- his announcement of good news. This form was adopted by subsequent Christian authors. However, the first extant occurrence of the term as a singular neuter noun with the article in a non-Christian text is found about a half-century after Paul in a text by Plutarch.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Ken Olson »

robert j wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 7:46 am I think Paul’s letters were the first texts about a Jesus Christ. Written before the opening line of the tale in GMark (drawing on Paul IMO), and written long before the term “gospel” became a Christian technical term for a written narrative about events in the life and death of a Jesus Christ.

Paul’s “the gospel” (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) --- his announcement of good news --- consisted primarily of his teaching that faith in his Jesus Christ allowed Gentiles full participation with God’s chosen people of Israel without the benefit of circumcision or adherence to the Mosaic rituals. That was the primary focus in Galatians, but other ancillary benefits including resurrection from the dead when “he comes” and escape from the coming wrath are in focus in other letters.

***

Paul’s particular use of the term was quite uncommon in his times. The term was commonly used as a verb and sometimes as a plural noun without the definite article or as a feminine singular noun. But prior to Paul there are no extant examples of the way Paul most commonly used the term as a singular neuter noun with the article (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον). Paul seemed to have adopted the term in a proprietary sense --- his announcement of good news. This form was adopted by subsequent Christian authors. However, the first extant occurrence of the term as a singular neuter noun with the article in a non-Christian text is found about a half-century after Paul in a text by Plutarch.
Are you claiming that Paul coined the term τὸ εὐαγγέλιον for the message about the resurrection of Jesus? And that other Christians did not use it before Paul? And any that used it after he did derived their usage from him?
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: Tue May 11, 2021 8:40 am
Are you claiming that Paul coined the term τὸ εὐαγγέλιον for the message about the resurrection of Jesus?
I think "that Paul coined the term τὸ εὐαγγέλιον" is an overstatement, rather preferring to say that Paul adapted the term as a noun in the singular neuter with the article as something of a proprietary term to describe his own announcement of good news. And that his message included the redemptive and salvific death on wood in addition to the resurrection.
Ken Olson wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 8:40 am
Are you claiming ... that other Christians did not use it before Paul? And any that used it after he did derived their usage from him?
Yes.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Ken Olson »

robert j,

I do not understand the term gospel the way you do. It seems to me that Paul allows that other Christians, particularly missionaries, also preach the gospel and this may differ in some particulars from Paul's gospel, which he calls 'my gospel' and, in Galatians, suggests is the only true gospel.

First it seems that Peter was entrusted by god with the gospel to the circumcised:

7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been [entrusted with the gospel] for the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles),[Gal. 2.7-9; bracketed word not in the Greek, but required by sense of the sentence]

We also see Paul suggesting that other apostles also preach the gospel in 1 Corinthians:

9 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to our food and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife ['sister wife'] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who at any time pays the expenses for doing military service? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not get any of its milk?

8 Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law also say the same? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we still more?

Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is sacrificed on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

15 But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this so that they may be applied in my case. Indeed, I would rather die than that—no one will deprive me of my ground for boasting! 16 If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an obligation is laid on me, and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel! 17 For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission. 18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in my proclamation I may make the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my rights in the gospel.

Here it seems to me that when Paul says that the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel in v.14 that the divine command refers to what Paul has already put forward in vv. 4-6, where he asks whether he an Barnabas, who he claims are apostles, do not have right to be supported by the church or their converts in the same way that Cephas and the other apostles (and at least some of the brothers of the Lord) do. Preaching the gospel seems to be the basic activity of Christian missionaries, including apostles and some brothers of the Lord, by which they make their living.

It would also seem strange if Paul himself were the one who introduced the term gospel because the divine command seems to be referring to an existing practice of apostles receiving support from the church before Paul, who, he says, did not take advantage of the practice. The term may have come from Isaiah 61.1 (as might the term 'the poor' used in Gal. 2.10).

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

Post by Ken Olson »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 10:02 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Mon May 10, 2021 8:19 am 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 ... 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 ...
This is well-considered. I also tend to view 1 Cor 15:3-11 as original. It's also missing an empty tomb and all of that.
Right, I discussed where the empty tomb in Mark, or, rather, the story of the women at the empty tomb in Mark may have come from on the list here:

viewtopic.php?p=87960#p87960

and received some decent criticism from Ben Smith and Kunegunde Kreuzerin in the Silence of the Women thread linked there.

I think 1 Cor. 15.3-11 are probably authentic (i.e. Pauline), and that vv. 3-5 (the 'that' clauses) are probably pre-Pauline (i.e., Paul is quoting an earlier formulation).

Best,

Ken
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: Tue May 11, 2021 2:05 pm robert j,

I do not understand the term gospel the way you do.
And I do not understand Paul in the same manner as you do.

Ken Olson wrote: Tue May 11, 2021 2:05 pm
... It seems to me that Paul allows that other Christians, particularly missionaries, also preach the gospel and this may differ in some particulars from Paul's gospel, which he calls 'my gospel' and, in Galatians, suggests is the only true gospel.

First it seems that Peter was entrusted by god with the gospel to the circumcised:

7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been [entrusted with the gospel] for the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles),[Gal. 2.7-9; bracketed word not in the Greek, but required by sense of the sentence]

We also see Paul suggesting that other apostles also preach the gospel in 1 Corinthians:

9 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to our food and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife ['sister wife'] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who at any time pays the expenses for doing military service? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not get any of its milk?

8 Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law also say the same? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we still more?

Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is sacrificed on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

15 But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this so that they may be applied in my case. Indeed, I would rather die than that—no one will deprive me of my ground for boasting! 16 If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an obligation is laid on me, and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel! 17 For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission. 18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in my proclamation I may make the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my rights in the gospel.

Here it seems to me that when Paul says that the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel in v.14 that the divine command refers to what Paul has already put forward in vv. 4-6, where he asks whether he an Barnabas, who he claims are apostles, do not have right to be supported by the church or their converts in the same way that Cephas and the other apostles (and at least some of the brothers of the Lord) do. Preaching the gospel seems to be the basic activity of Christian missionaries, including apostles and some brothers of the Lord, by which they make their living.

It would also seem strange if Paul himself were the one who introduced the term gospel because the divine command seems to be referring to an existing practice of apostles receiving support from the church before Paul, who, he says, did not take advantage of the practice. The term may have come from Isaiah 61.1 (as might the term 'the poor' used in Gal. 2.10).
Absent clearly independent evidence for the purported Judean predecessors in the faith that Paul claimed, I do not take such a generous approach to much of Paul’s rhetoric.

I think Paul’s letters are authentic and adequately intact for reasonable analysis. Accepting that as a starting point, one can be reasonably certain of the existence of several named figures. For example, the Corinthians knew Paul’s junior-partners Timothy, Silvanus and Titus because they had met and interacted with them. Similar associations could be outlined for Paul’s other congregations.

However, there is no evidence in the letters that any among his congregations had ever met Cephas, James or John nor that his followers had any independent knowledge of such figures other than what Paul had told them. The same holds true for the Judean assemblies in Christ that Paul claimed to exist. I’m not aware of clearly independent evidence for these figures and groups, hence we are entirely dependent on the self-serving claims of one man.

The story of Judean assemblies and of the Jerusalem leadership triumvirate provided Paul the valuable ability to claim his faith system was part of a wider spiritual movement taking place in the Judean homelands. Tradition. Paul likely told all his potential patrons similar stories of these purported predecessors during his evangelizing visits with each of his congregations. And Paul continued to use (and abuse) these figures in his letters to provide significant support for his position when points of contention arose with his congregations.

What about other Christian actors or groups outside of Paul’s immediate circle that are seemingly described in Paul’s letters?

You have acknowledged that the opposition among the Galatians might have consisted of local Jews.

I think the evidence in 2 Corinthians is consistent with the so called “super apostles” being professional Jewish missionaries working the Diaspora circuit. Perhaps they were recommended to Paul’s Corinthian group by Jewish associates. I suspect with just a brief meeting with a few of the Corinthians to gain an invitation to a meeting, they would have heard a bit about Paul’s heavenly son of the Jewish God. Enough for these polished professionals to incorporate a few mentions of that spiritual logos and celestial anointed savior (Christ Jesus) into one of their standard presentations on the mysteries of Moses. Paul heard about these figures --- and about what they had taught the Corinthians --- third-hand from Titus after his long return journey. A passage that is often seen as acknowledging these figures as Christian missionaries only provides such a result with expanded (apologetic) translations (2 Corinthians 11:23). Rife with conditionals, Paul really wasn’t sure what the missionaries had told the Corinthians about Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 11:4). In his clearest characterization of these competitors in relation to a Jesus Christ, Paul refers to them as servants of Satan that were “disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:13). Paul seems pretty confident in that last part.

The existence of a Christian congregation in Rome in Paul’s day depends entirely on the textually compromised chapters 1 and 15 of Romans. The textual evidence for chapter 15, and portions of chapter one as well, is complicated by clear signs of manipulation based on manuscripts and early attestations. Gamble reports a 14-chapter version of the text as both relatively early and geographically widespread. And he adds that the textual evidence for missing addresses to Rome in chapter one is associated with the 14-chapter version of the text. Sure, Gamble concludes that the 14-chapter version was edited down from a more original, longer version; but the same evidence can also be used to argue for a 14-chapter version as being the more original.

To the second portion of your post here ---

As suitable for my purposes of presenting Paul as I see him, you could not have picked a better passage than that portion of chapter 9 in 1st Corinthians. The passage reminds me of something a person who is upset might write to air a grievance, then crumple up and toss into the waste basket. In this interlude in the wider letter, this is Paul unplugged.

He starts off again using his purported predecessors to enhance his argument, and to introduce his extended appeal for compensation. Paul goes on for 8 more verses throwing everything including the kitchen sink into his argument that the Corinthians should pay him for his work. After all this guilt-tripping, Paul caps it off with his claim that such compensation is a command from the Lord. What you characterize as “the divine command”, I see as a desperate appeal to an honored higher power to serve his personal ambitions.

And after all that, since the Corinthians weren’t paying him anyway, Paul shamelessly claims that he doesn’t really want to get paid, that it would be a blow to his pride to accept compensation from them. However, this is empty rhetoric. In 2 Corinthians, Paul acknowledges that the Macedonians had been supporting him when he was in Corinth (2 Corinthians 11:7-9). Why would it be so noble to work for the Corinthians without compensation, only to be supported by the Philippians?

I take a much more skeptical approach to Paul than most investigators who also accept his letters as authentic. I would change my tune with clearly independent evidence of Paul’s Jerusalem triumvirate and of Judean assemblies in Christ in Paul’s day. Absent that, I am not willing to rely on Paul, the father and patron Saint of modern-day televangelists.
Post Reply