I think your bold assertions are not clearly supported by the evidence.
In their polemic and apologetic writings against Marcion, do the Church Fathers and their ilk lend significant evidence that the passage in question is an interpolation?
In a discussion of the material related to the passage in 1 Corinthians as proposed for a Marcionite version, BeDuhn concludes,
No clear help for interpolation there. Sure, just an appeal to authority on my part, and others may have different opinions on the scant available evidence specifically related to a Marcionite Apostolikon for this passage. But I see no need for raking that scant evidence back-and-forth over the coals in light of BeDuhn's strongly worded conclusion.
Viewing through a wider lens, several attributions to the 1 Corinthians passage in question are found in the writings of the early Church Fathers and heretic hunters. Between the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian, the following words of 1 Corinthians 15:3-10 are clearly attested ---
15:3 ---
For I delivered unto you first of all, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures (entire, a) (portions, b, c, d)
15:4 ---
and that He was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures (entire, a) (portions, b, c, d)
15:8 ---
And last of all, as the ektroma (τῷ ἐκτρώματι) , he was seen by me also (entire, e) (portion, f)
15:10 ---
I laboured more than they all (g)
a. Irenaeus, Adv Her, Book 3, chapt. 18.3;
b. Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, chapt. 55;
c. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapts. 2, 15, 29, and 30
d. Tertullian, Adv Marc, Book 3, chapt. 8
e. Irenaeus, Adv Her, Book 1, chapt. 8.2;
f. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapt. 15
g. Irenaeus, Adv Her, Book 4, chapt. 24.1
None of these references to the passage in question in Irenaeus or Tertullian are used specifically for anti-Marcionite purposes except for Tertullian’s partial citation of 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 in his 3rd Book of Against Marcion. See the Notes at the end of the post for more discussion of each of these citations of 1 Corinthians 15:3-10.
I’ll discuss the citation of 1 Corinthians 15:8 by Irenaeus here because I think it provides direct evidence supporting that the verse, and the wider passage in question, are not interpolations. In Book 1 of Against Heresies, the focus is on the Valentinians and descriptions of the Valentinian system. Irenaeus claims that the Valentinians used Paul’s self-identification as the ektroma in 1 Corinthians15:8 in support of their own doctrinal system ---
That the Valentinians used Paul’s letters extensively to support their system of thought has been well developed by Pagels (2/). Whether historically accurate or merely tradition, Clement of Alexandria relates the claim that ---
The Valentinians claim to trace their origins back to Paul, and hence, his letters. And Valentinus and Marcion are generally seen as roughly contemporaneous. If the passage was an interpolation in the important letter 1 Corinthians, added before the writings of Irenaeus or even by Irenaeus himself, what a cluster-fuck that would have been. Talk about unintended consequences. Irenaeus admits that the Valentinians used verse 15:8 for their own doctrinal purposes. Would the Valentinians have used an early-catholic addition to their treasured 1 Corinthians to interpret and develop their own doctrines? Not likely.
The writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian do not support the claim that 1 Corinthians 15:3-10 is an interpolation.
Do the extant manuscripts --- like they do for the first and 15th chapters of the letter Romans --- show clear signs of textual manipulation in the passage in question? No. Beyond what is probably a scribal emendation for a word in 1 Corinthians 15:5, there are only three or four minor variants that were likely due to scribal error in the manuscripts for 1 Corinthians 15:3-10.
So that leaves analyses and interpretations of the extant text. How can one make sense of the text? Here, the evidence is even further under the influence of interpretation and opinion. And this passage is one of the more difficult in Paul’s letters. Some fancy dancing is required for all solutions.
If the passage was an interpolation added in response to the Marcionites, then at the time of composition, versions of the NT Gospel stories would have been reasonably well established along with their various versions of post-resurrection appearances. Why would an author --- adding a long and important passage to an important Pauline letter --- screw the pooch so badly? As post-resurrection appearances, the events in 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 do not jibe well with any of the Gospel tales or with Acts.
Even when viewed as an original Pauline or pre-Pauline rendition of post-resurrection appearances --- or as visions of a risen Christ --- it remains a difficult task to reconcile the odd set of events.
I’m not surprised that Irenaeus and Tertullian did not comment on the events outlined in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7. I suspect they had no idea how to explain the odd set of “appearances”. Origen, however, is honest about being perplexed. In his self-admitted apologetics about why Jesus Christ didn’t appear to all men after his resurrection like he did before, Origen cites 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, trying to spin the words to his current task, but seemingly admits that he really doesn’t know how to understand or to explain the odd set of events --- apparently Origen didn’t get the memo either ---
But I come not to tear down the passage, but to uphold it.
The elephant in the room for the passage in question is the widespread and all-too-firmly-established belief that the formulaic story is about post-resurrection appearances of a risen Christ. I think the intention of the author was quite different, and that the passage makes perfect sense in a Pauline context. Part of the problem is the commonly used translation of the Greek ophthe (ὤφθη) as "appeared”, instead of as “was seen” in the sense to perceive, to come to understand, to see with the mind. An example of this use of the verb is found in Romans 15:21 and Isaiah 52:15 (LXX).
The formulaic 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 reveals Paul’s wider story of how the faith in Jesus Christ began with scriptural revelations, and how that faith originally spread. I think Paul told the story to each of his congregations during his evangelizing visit in order to provide tradition, the perception that his system was part of a wider spiritual movement taking place in the Jewish homelands, Here is what I think the passage is really about ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=674
And 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 fits together with portions of chapter 1 of Galatians like lost puzzle pieces. Together they demonstrate how Paul used the scriptures to create his personal back-story, and how Paul’s self-identification as the ektroma is entirely compatible with his claim of having been selected from the womb --- viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2396
No, Not clear nor obvious at all.
robert j
1/ BeDuhn, Jason D., The First New Testament, 2013.
2/ Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Paul, 1975. [not that Paul himself was a Gnostic, but rather the book is about how the Valentinians applied their own interpretations and used Paul’s letters in the development and support of their system; Pagels discusses the Valentinian use of 1 Corinthians 15:8 on pages 80-81].
Notes:
Only one of the several references to 1 Corinthians 15:3-10 in Tertullian is used specifically for anti-Marcionite purposes. This reference is not in Book 4 of his Five Books Against Marcion with his discussion of the letter 1 Corinthians, but rather in Book 3 in a refutation of Docetism. Tertullian follows his partial citation of 15:3-4 with allusions to portions of 1 Corinthians 15:12-18 in support of his concept of resurrection from the dead for both Christ and for “us”. Just because Tertullian found one single opportunity in his 5 long Books against Marcion to use a pair of incomplete verses from 1 Corinthians 15:3-10 to argue against a Marcionite doctrine, doesn’t lead to the conclusion that the passage in question is an anti-Marcionite interpolation.
The multiple partial references by Tertullian in Against Praxeas to verses 15:3-4, and the use of a portion of verse 15:8, are aimed, not at Marcionites, but rather at a Monarchist heresy claiming a unity of the Godhead instead of a Trinity. And Tertullian’s use of portions of verse 15:3-4 in his Treatise on the Soul is contained in a discussion of the nature of Hades and Christ’s descent.
None of the references to the passage in question in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies are specifically anti-Marcionite. In Book 3, the primary topic of Docetism and whether Jesus and Christ were separate and distinct beings might be seen as anti-Marcionite. But it is Valentinian doctrines that are specifically mentioned in chapter 18.3 directly leading-up to this citation of 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.
In Book 4, Irenaeus’ focus on God the Father as one God, as creator, and as father of Jesus Christ can certainly be seen as anti-Marcionite, and Marcion and Marcionites are addressed in several sections of Book 4. But Irenaeus’ focus in Book 4 is much wider than just Marcionites ---
And the reference by Irenaeus to 1 Corinthians 15:10 in Book 4, chapt. 24.1 is not specifically anti-Marcionite, but is a rather mundane elaboration on the role of Paul and others teaching about Jesus Christ to Gentiles and Jews, respectively, and the role of the Jewish scriptures in those efforts.
--- fin ---