Re: 1 Cor 15:3-11 once again
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:13 pm
Clement doesn't know anything in chapter 15 until after verse 32 or something. For some reason I know these things
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
JW:spin wrote: In the linked post in the O.P. I also mention the importance of the verb "received (as a student)" (παραλαβετε/παραλαβον), which is fine for Paul when God gives (Gal 1:12), but undermining in 1 Cor 15:3 to a proselytizer fighting for his place with the Corinthians. (Remember that discussion?)
Verses:He was likewise preached by Paul: “For I delivered,” he says, “unto you first of all, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; and that He was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.”36413641 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4.
Note that in Irenaeus of Lyons' (yes, "Lyons") there is no "received". This is supported by the observation that Irenaeus' primary objective in this area of Against Heresies is to try and refute the Gnostics who claim that Paul was the sole authority. Yet the offending quote above is not in the specific (earlier) part of Against Heresies where Irenaeus gives his supposed arguments that Paul coordinates authority with the supposed other apostles. Where it is is in the part of Against Heresies where Irenaeus argues that Jesus Christ was a fleshy man and not just a phantom spirit. This suggests that at a minimum, "received" is not original. And if "received" is not original...For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
another pattern, based on the word "Cephas", which is used four times in 1 Corinthians, could be the followingspin wrote:Here's the basic chiasm.
1:11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? | 3:21 So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s. |
9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, 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 eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along 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? | 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. |
I agree completely. It's obvious from even a cursory reading of 1 Corinthians that it is several documents stitched together, lurching as it does from one unrelated topic to another.Secret Alias wrote:I know thinking is difficult for many at this forum (and in the world in general) but can anyone tell me what the 'thread of logic' is between the 16 chapters of this alleged 'letter' is?
We're not discussing the whole letter, though. Individual sections certainly have identifiable themes and argument structures.So anyone trying to find 'sense' in one section of the letter who ignores the fact that there is no logical thread or theme running throughout the whole letter is just wasting their time.
Vv.12-19 talk specifically to Paul's gospel, for Paul preached that Christ had been raised from the dead, a central tenet to his gospel. These verses overtly exclude the material in vv.3-7.spin wrote:It quite amazes me how people reading 1 Cor 15 don't notice the problems involved in maintaining the Pauline origin of 3-11. Look at this:
12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Hang on a second, you should be asking, hasn't Paul just demonstrated that Christ has been raised in 3-7 with eye witness accounts? Why then does he need to go on extensively with this theoretical argument on whether Christ has been raised? There is a wave of conditionals, if... if... if... if... and so on. This is rendered totally useless, had he already produced eye witness reports as to the fact Christ had been raised.
Did you really want a response to your untinged assertion about a reference you take to be anaphoric (backward reference), but which is in fact cataphoric (forward reference)?? Once again, note the Greek particle δε which indicates a shift in discourse focus in v.20. He's signaling new ideas coming into the discussion, not looking back, as you would have it.TedM wrote:Spin, yes I remember discussing the passage, and at this time don't want to re-do that.
I made 3 points and you have addressed the first one only.
No doubt, spin. The tenor of the 3-11 passage is so rabidly anti-Pauline that it simply does not leave much room to manoeuvre in the defence of the text. It has been pointed out that the language of the passage is markedly alien vis-à-vis the corpus. Actually, there are some elements there that should send all sorts of flags up that this is late. The Twelve is otherwise unattested in the corpus (and is likely an invention of Mark as is the use of the plural “scriptures”). You are also right about Paul not likely to refer to Christ as “buried” outside of the communal experience of the death of his death. All these look like later developments of the confessional formula. The fairytale of the Pentecost (arose from the corruption of the “five hundred”) is transparently an answer to Paul’s raising this scene hypothetically in 1 Co 14:23. Late are also the traditions of Paul’s penitential posturing on account of his “persecution of the church”. Paul in his own mind was commissioned by God, not tolerated as a minor figure by the church as the passage falsely suggests. And the hostility of the writer to Paul’s “credentials” is such that he makes him call himself ‘ektromati’ in a rather obvious allusion to Paul’s assertion that he was set apart by God ‘from his mother’s womb (Gal 1:15 - ek koilias mhtros mou).spin wrote:Vv.12-19 talk specifically to Paul's gospel, for Paul preached that Christ had been raised from the dead, a central tenet to his gospel. These verses overtly exclude the material in vv.3-7.
It isn't rendered totally useless because they weren't (apparently) questioning whether Christ had been raised. Had they been questioning THAT then we'd have an entirely different kind of chapter. They were questioning more generally whether the 'dead' are resurrected. This passage from 12-19 is his explanation of the implications of that question. Those implications werespin wrote:It quite amazes me how people reading 1 Cor 15 don't notice the problems involved in maintaining the Pauline origin of 3-11. Look at this:
12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Hang on a second, you should be asking, hasn't Paul just demonstrated that Christ has been raised in 3-7 with eye witness accounts? Why then does he need to go on extensively with this theoretical argument on whether Christ has been raised? There is a wave of conditionals, if... if... if... if... and so on. This is rendered totally useless, had he already produced eye witness reports as to the fact Christ had been raised.
Yes, and it makes more sense for them (v 12-19) to have excluded the type of 'authority/origins' information found in 3-7 only if he had just written it prior to that, as explained above.Vv.12-19 talk specifically to Paul's gospel, for Paul preached that Christ had been raised from the dead, a central tenet to his gospel. These verses overtly exclude the material in vv.3-7.
I think your chiasm should not ignore the fact that much of it is simply a chronological listing of events, which pretty much means it wasn't done purposefully and so what you have is a much less impressive chiasm as it pertains to your overall argument for interpolation.Your third point doesn't seem to have a point. Yes, there's a chiasm, but is it purposeful? Your opinion that well,-not-so-much doesn't change the fact that there seems to be a tight chiasm with verbal repetition to help you see it.