1 Cor 15:3-11 once again

[Ben C. Smith]

But, I noticed something interesting related to this. If you remove 3-11, then Paul's use of 'our' in verse14, and "we" and "witnesses" in the plural in 15 doesn't follow verses 1 and 2 very well since he only refers to himself and his own gospel there, using 'I' 3 times! :

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

But, if 3-11 remain as part of the passage, his usage of "our", "we" and the plural "witnesses" makes perfect sense. Otherwise, why is he saying "we", "our", and "witnesses" - sure you can go back to his mention of others earlier in the book, but you have the tension of the singular "I" to deal with in the opening verses. The tenses IMO match up much better with 3-11 included as opposed to excluded.

That is a great point, Ted, and I hope that it is addressed:

1 Now I declare to you, brothers, the Good News which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. [3-11 Alleged interpolation.] 12 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? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also is in vain. 15 Yes, we are also found false witnesses of God, because we testified about God that he raised up Christ, whom he didn’t raise up, if it is so that the dead are not raised....

[Secret Alias]

FWIW there is a consistent tendency IMO to change the singular to the plural to make Paul sound less like a lunatic. Scholars do it all the time. "We can see" instead of "I guess" or "I think."

[Bernard Muller]

to TedM,

I have no problem with his using the word "preach" with regard to the witnessed resurrection. That's what 'preachers' do today. I don't think using the word 'preach' in any way implies that the event wasn't factual or witnessed. It's just a word used to proclaim information that one wants others to believe. It still requires/asks that those who hear have faith in its accuracy.

I have a problem with that. In this context, "preach" does not reflect on a hugely witnessed "historical" event, but rather an appeal to faith and acceptance to what Paul proclaimed (without overwhelming factual evidence). From Google for "to preach":

preach
prēCH/Submit
verb
deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church.
"he preached to a large congregation"
synonyms: give/deliver a sermon, sermonize, address, speak More
publicly proclaim or teach (a religious message or belief).
"a church that preaches the good news"
synonyms: proclaim, teach, spread, propagate, expound
"he preached the gospel to them"
earnestly advocate (a belief or course of action).
"my parents have always preached toleration and moderation"
synonyms: advocate, recommend, advise, urge, teach, counsel
"they preach toleration"

You don't preach that 49 people got killed in Orlando a few days ago.
You do not preach the earth is round.
You do not preach things which are well evidenced and fully accepted.

Let's face it. If this multiple witnessing had happened, and with the alleged witnesses still alive (therefore that could be checked), that would have been reported by many. Christianity would have increased to huge numbers quasi-instantly. Paul would have repeated that fact many times in his epistles (rather he appealed to faith for accepting Jesus' resurrection, as shown in my previous post to you). The sequence of these reappearances would be in every gospels. Instead none of the four gospels & acts reports on Jesus appearing to 500 together or to James.

Are you saying that he should have said "so we preached and you believe"? If so, verse 2 seems to contradict that:

You have a point here. I have to do something about it.

What I meant is that without 3-11 Paul provides no basis for their belief other than his(and unnamed others) preaching. But he never says WHY they believed such outrageous claims.

Well a lot of beliefs of his converts comes from Paul (and others) preaching:
1 Th 4:14 "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him."
That pretty well summarizes 1 Cor 15:1-19, without 3-11.

To the extent that a valid verse 12 supports the wording in verse 13 (the issue at question), I'll address this. Paul WOULD endorse the preaching of a resurrected Christ, so I don't understand why this is listed.

Verse 11 is a general statement, not limited to the resurrection of Christ.

But, I noticed something interesting related to this. If you remove 3-11, then Paul's use of 'our' in verse14, and "we" and "witnesses" in the plural in 15 doesn't follow verses 1 and 2 very well since he only refers to himself and his own gospel there, using 'I' 3 times!

1 Cor 15:3-11 does not fix the problem much. A plural for the preachers appears only in verse 11. And it seems to include Paul and all other preachers in his days. In 15:14, Paul might have been thinking to him and his helpers only. It does not matter if 15:3-11 is authentic or not, Paul transitioned between singular and plural, either within 15:11 or from 15:2 to 15:14 (without 3-11).

Also, related: if Paul is appealing to God as the source of his information that he was preaching - which included the claim that Jesus was resurrected - that is not inconsistent with the idea that he saw God as the source of the resurrection appearances to specific people as well as to himself. That would seem a very natural conclusion by anyone who saw or thought they saw a risen being.

According to 15:3-9, the information that Jesus was resurrected comes from Christ himself and seen by many, not from God. However according to 15:15, the information that Jesus was resurrected comes from God himself (and not seen).
I think there is inconsistency.

The idea that in a passage in which the very resurrection of Christ was in question due to the implications of some of the issues the Corinthians were having that Paul would not provide a reminder to the Corinthians as to WHY they believed such preaching in the first place.

Paul's converts had to believe a lot of things through his preaching only, sometimes supplemented by OT quotes, rarely by what Jesus allegedly said or commanded, but most of the time coming from Paul's thinking and alleged visions.

But that's exactly what we end up with if 3-11 is removed entirely

That's would be very scary for a Christian, more so because in other epistles, believing in the Resurrection is presented as a matter of faith. So that's why 15:3-11 was added by an interpolator.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

But, I noticed something interesting related to this. If you remove 3-11, then Paul's use of 'our' in verse 14, and "we" and "witnesses" in the plural in 15 doesn't follow verses 1 and 2 very well since he only refers to himself and his own gospel there, using 'I' 3 times!

1 Cor 15:3-11 does not fix the problem much. A plural for the preachers appears only in verse 11. And it seems to include Paul and all other preachers in his days. In 15:14, Paul might have been thinking to him and his helpers only. It does not matter if 15:3-11 is authentic or not, Paul transitioned between singular and plural, either within 15:11 or from 15:2 to 15:14 (without 3-11).

I do not think you are giving the objection its fair due. With 15.3-11 in place, the transition is seamless:

• "I preached" (verses 1-2).
• The list of witnesses (verses 5-7.
• "Whether, then, it is I or they [the witnesses]..." (verse 11a).
• "...this is what we [they + I] preach" (verse 11b).

That solves the problem Ted brought up fully, without remainder.

As you know, I lean toward regarding (most of) this section as in interpolation, but even my Marcionite option apparently suffers this switch from singular to plural... unless Epiphanius has misquoted, in which case I would just be speculating as to what was there before the plural crept in. I think it is a splendid observation, and one that deserves attention.

Ben.

[spin]

That is a great point, Ted, and I hope that it is addressed:

This "we" objection thingy has been dealt with before. It is nothing new. It is just the sort of rearguard hopefulness we see here in this thread. When Paul talks of "we" in a preaching context in Corinthians, he is referring—as he does in 9:4-6—to himself and Barnabas (and/or whoever accompanies him, eg Titus in Gal 2:1), having started off in the singular in 9:1-3.

9:1 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, 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?

[Ben C. Smith]

That is a great point, Ted, and I hope that it is addressed:

This "we" objection thingy has been dealt with before. It is nothing new. It is just the sort of rearguard hopefulness we see here in this thread. When Paul talks of "we" in a preaching context in Corinthians, he is referring—as he does in 9:4-6—to himself and Barnabas (and whoever accompanies him, eg Titus in Gal 2:1), having started off in the singular in 9:1-3.

1 Now I declare to you, brothers, the Good News which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. [3-11 Alleged interpolation.] 12 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? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also is in vain. 15 Yes, we are also found false witnesses of God, because we testified about God that he raised up Christ, whom he didn’t raise up, if it is so that the dead are not raised....

Okay, good point, and here is that passage:

1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? 2 Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?

That does look like a very similar phenomenon.

[TedM]

That is a great point, Ted, and I hope that it is addressed:

This "we" objection thingy has been dealt with before. It is nothing new. It is just the sort of rearguard hopefulness we see here in this thread. When Paul talks of "we" in a preaching context in Corinthians, he is referring—as he does in 9:4-6—to himself and Barnabas (and/or whoever accompanies him, eg Titus in Gal 2:1), having started off in the singular in 9:1-3.

9:1 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, 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?

I agree. This addresses this issue well. I wouldn't call it rearguard hopefulness though.

[Ben C. Smith]

I agree. This addresses this issue well. I wouldn't call it rearguard hopefulness though.

No, you are right; that bit was just rhetoric. I believe the singular/plural observation was a genuine one, and not one borne out of a tendentious reading. But I agree that spin's counterexample takes care of it handily.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,
Looking at just 1 Corinthians, I found that:
1 Cor 2:3-7:

And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.

And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: ...

1 Cor 8:8, 13

Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.
...
Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall

1 Cor 13:11-12

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Cordially, Bernard

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
A little analysis of 1 Cor 15:3 - Pauline word usage or not?
The numbers of occurrences are taken from katabiblon (they are not completely correct, because some textual variants are counted)

1 Cor 15:3
παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον, ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς
(I) delivered indeed (to) you in (the) foremost what also (I) received that Christ died for the sins (of) us, according (to) the scriptures

1) παραδίδωμι – delivered (total occurrences NT: 134)
Rom 1:24, 1:26, 1:28, 4:25, 6:17, 8:32; 1Cor 5:5, 11:2, 11:23, 13:3, 15:3, 15:24; 2Cor 4:11; Gal 2:20

2) γὰρ – indeed, one of Paul's favorite words, occurrences in chapter 15 of 1 Cor
1Cor 15:3, 1Cor 15:9, 1Cor 15:16, 1Cor 15:21, 1Cor 15:22, 1Cor 15:25, 1Cor 15:27, 1Cor 15:32, 1Cor 15:34, 1Cor 15:41, 1Cor 15:52, 1Cor 15:53,

3) πρῶτος – first, foremost (total occurrences NT: 169)
Rom 1:8, Rom 1:16, Rom 2:9, Rom 2:10, Rom 3:2, Rom 10:19, Rom 15:24, 1Cor 11:18, 1Cor 12:28, 1Cor 14:30, 1Cor 15:3, 1Cor 15:45, 1Cor 15:46, 1Cor 15:47, 2Cor 8:5, 1Thes 4:16, Phil 1:5

4) παραλαμβάνω - received (total occurrences NT: 54)
1Cor 11:23, 1Cor 15:1, 1Cor 15:3, Gal 1:9, Gal 1:12, Phil 4:9, 1Thes 2:13, 1Thes 4:1

5) ἀποθνῄσκω – died (total occurrences NT: 119)
Rom 5:6, Rom 5:7, Rom 5:7, Rom 5:8, Rom 5:15, Rom 6:2, Rom 6:7, Rom 6:8, Rom 6:9, Rom 6:10, Rom 7:2, Rom 7:3, Rom 7:6, Rom 7:9, Rom 8:13, Rom 8:34, Rom 14:7, Rom 14:8, Rom 14:8, Rom 14:9, Rom 14:15, 1Cor 8:11, 1Cor 9:15, 1Cor 15:3, 1Cor 15:22, 1Cor 15:31, 1Cor 15:32, 1Cor 15:36, 2Cor 5:14, 2Cor 5:14, 2Cor 5:15, 2Cor 5:15, 2Cor 6:9, Gal 2:19, Gal 2:21, 1Thes 4:14, 1Thes 5:10, Phil 1:21

6) for our sins („ὑπὲρ“ instead of „περὶ“ - for our sins)
(total occurrences NT without Paul: only 4 - Heb 5:1, 5:3, 7:27, 10:12)
Paul has
περὶ - Rom 8:3 καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας - (By sending his own Son) ... and for sin
ὑπὲρ - 2Cor 5:21 ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν - For our sake he made him to be sin
and the variant reading in Gal 1:4 for our sins
περὶ or ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν
ὑπὲρ ς WH NA28
περὶ Byz

7) γραφή (total occurrences NT: 54)
Rom 1:2, Rom 4:3, Rom 9:17, Rom 10:11, Rom 11:2, Rom 14:25, Rom 15:4, Rom 16:26, 1Cor 15:3, 1Cor 15:4, Gal 3:8, Gal 3:22, Gal 4:30