Page 2 of 7

Re: Carrier's take on 1 Corinthians 15:6

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:33 am
by John2
Outhouse wrote:
Nowhere in the pre-Pauline scriptures there is anything about someone rising on the third day
My understanding is that 1 Cor. 15:4 ("he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures") is based on Hos. 6:2.

http://biblehub.com/hosea/6-2.htm

Likewise it seems reasonable to suppose that 1 Cor. 15:3 ("Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures") is based on Is. 53.

Re: Carrier's take on 1 Corinthians 15:6

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 12:58 pm
by Gerhard Ebersoehn
Jesus had ascended to heaven ten days before Pentecost. Paul speaks of Jesus' appearances as the risen Christ before his ascension. Luke, Paul's associate, recorded no appearance of Jesus on Pentecost. It is therefore reasonable that 1 Corinthians 15:6 means 500 brethren and not Pentecost. Paul could not have meant to write 'pentecost brethren'; it speaks for itself.

1 Corinthians 15
2 I preached to you . . . 3 I delivered to you . . .
That Christ died . . . 4 and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures;
2 I preached to you . . . 3 I delivered to you . . .
5 That also [kai hoti] He was seen of Cephas—in fact also [eita] was seen of the twelve—in fact even [epeita] was seen once [ephapacs] of more than five hundred brethren!— of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep (...in case you wanted living confirmation of what) 2 I preached to you . . . 3 delivered to you.”
Note the escalating stress, 'kai hoti ... eita ... epeita ... ephapacs' ---from one (unknown disciple) to 12 (known disciples including Paul) to 500 disciples... 500 at once!
Possibly Cephas was the companion of Cleopas--Luke 24.
Paul and Luke stress Jesus' appearances to the apostles, the men. Mark and Matthew the appearances to the women. John the first appearance to Mary Magdalene only.

Re: Carrier's take on 1 Corinthians 15:6

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 2:04 pm
by Gerhard Ebersoehn
John2 wrote:Outhouse wrote:
Nowhere in the pre-Pauline scriptures there is anything about someone rising on the third day
My understanding is that 1 Cor. 15:4 ("he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures") is based on Hos. 6:2.

Likewise it seems reasonable to suppose that 1 Cor. 15:3 ("Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures") is based on Is. 53.
Correct. Jesus' Last Passover Suffering was the fulfilment, of all, the Scriptures. Luke 24:26,27,32,44-46.

Particularly Jesus' Last Passover-Suffering, was, "the Passover of Yahweh" and it's most primitive type, was the exodus passover's "three days thick darkness"… during which three days none of the three days could be distinguished by the sun, but both night and day of each day were for the Egyptians, darkness, and for Israel, light of the cloud.
The “three days thick darkness” of the “plague”, were of or had, ONE date, "the FOURTEENTH day of the First Month" which encapsulated the three nights and three days of all three days of the plague..
The night and day of each of the three days are nevertheless demarcated in the record,
The first night in chapter 12:8-33 and the first day(light) in verses 34-39;
The second night in chapter 12:40-47 and the second day(light) in 12:50,51; 13:2-4; 17-20; 14:2-12;
The third night in chapter 14:13-26 and the third day(light) in 14:27-31 continuing through chapter 15:1-21.

The Last Three Days before Jesus resurrected from the dead again, were THESE, PROPHETIC DAYS’, ANTITYPE.

Re: Carrier's take on 1 Corinthians 15:6

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2016 3:50 pm
by Bernard Muller
1 Cor 15:3b-4 "... Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures"
Nowhere in the pre-Pauline scriptures there is anything about someone rising on the third day. But it seems our interpolator knew about gLuke!

The bolded part is a certainty on two levels . One he demands we follow his assumption there is an actual interpolator, and that said possibility knew about Luke.

These are certainties on his part, regardless of possible historicity levels of plausibility.
outhouse forgot to indicate why I thought the interpolation was written by someone knowing gLuke.
From http://historical-jesus.info/9.html:
>> However, "third day" came later with Matthew's gospel (Mt 16:21, 17:23, 20:19) and Luke's one (Lk 9:22, 13:32, 18:32). And in the later, "the third day" is according to the scriptures:
Lk 24:45-46 "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,"
Let's compare the above quote with:
1 Cor 15:3b-4 "... Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" <<

I did not assume there was an interpolator: I demonstrated it with 8 arguments. Ant I said "it seems" our interpolator knew about gLuke. Why? because of the close resemblance between 1 Cor 15:3b-4 and Lk 24:45:46.
Nowhere in the pre-Pauline scriptures there is anything about someone rising on the third day.
My understanding is that 1 Cor. 15:4 ("he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures") is based on Hos. 6:2
In Hos 6:2, the ones to be raised are the people of Ephraim, but not from the dead, rather from their distress after the devastation of their land by the Assyrians. I should have specified:
Nowhere in the pre-Pauline scriptures there is anything about someone rising from the dead on the third day.

Cordially, Bernard

Re: Carrier's take on 1 Corinthians 15:6

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 7:36 am
by Gerhard Ebersoehn
Bernard Muller wrote:
1 Cor 15:3b-4 "... Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures"
Nowhere in the pre-Pauline scriptures there is anything about someone rising on the third day. But it seems our interpolator knew about gLuke!

The bolded part is a certainty on two levels . One he demands we follow his assumption there is an actual interpolator, and that said possibility knew about Luke.

These are certainties on his part, regardless of possible historicity levels of plausibility.
outhouse forgot to indicate why I thought the interpolation was written by someone knowing gLuke.
[Cut]:
>> However, "third day" came later with Matthew's gospel (Mt 16:21, 17:23, 20:19) and Luke's one (Lk 9:22, 13:32, 18:32). And in the later, "the third day" is according to the scriptures:
Lk 24:45-46 "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,"
Let's compare the above quote with:
1 Cor 15:3b-4 "... Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" <<

I did not assume there was an interpolator: I demonstrated it with 8 arguments. Ant I said "it seems" our interpolator knew about gLuke. Why? because of the close resemblance between 1 Cor 15:3b-4 and Lk 24:45:46.
Nowhere in the pre-Pauline scriptures there is anything about someone rising on the third day.
My understanding is that 1 Cor. 15:4 ("he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures") is based on Hos. 6:2
In Hos 6:2, the ones to be raised are the people of Ephraim, but not from the dead, rather from their distress after the devastation of their land by the Assyrians. I should have specified:
Nowhere in the pre-Pauline scriptures there is anything about someone rising from the dead on the third day.

Cordially, Bernard
"The Scriptures" to Paul are the Old Testament Scriptures; not Luke or some imagined "~gLuke~".
The Scriptures for Paul was "first of all that which I also received" through his own study of it and under Gamaliel --- the Old Testament Scriptures, in particular the "Law" which "first of all" meant the Torah about which Paul had a great deal to say exactly BECAUSE the Law is the main source of knowledge about "That which I received (from my sources) : How that Christ died according to (them) the (Old Testament) Scriptures (the Law) and how that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to (them) the (Old Testament) Scriptures (the Law)."

Re: Carrier's take on 1 Corinthians 15:6

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 9:00 am
by Bernard Muller
to Gerhard Ebersoehn,

From which scripture passage Paul would have find: "He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures"?

From which scripture passage Luke would have find: "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,"?

Cordially, Bernard

Re: Carrier's take on 1 Corinthians 15:6

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:01 pm
by robert j
Bernard Muller wrote:Lk 24:45-46 "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,"
Let's compare the above quote with:
1 Cor 15:3b-4 "... Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" <<

...In Hos 6:2, the ones to be raised are the people of Ephraim, but not from the dead, rather from their distress after the devastation of their land by the Assyrians. I should have specified:
Nowhere in the pre-Pauline scriptures there is anything about someone rising from the dead on the third day.

Cordially, Bernard
I think you are missing two important points here.

First, the author of gLuke promoted the concept of Jesus as a fulfillment of the scriptures. But he knew some were a stretch, including this one --- hence his perceived need for Jesus to say so prior to this specific "prediction" of rising on the third day. He had Jesus say, "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.” --- in other words, one must have an open mind (and even some help) to understand some scriptural prophesies because many are not at all obvious or even relevant. Putting those words in the mouth of Jesus was an apologetic touch by the author of gLuke.

And second, Paul often played fast and loose with his scriptural sources, in various ways to suit his needs. A number of examples could be cited, but here are 3 --

The one consecrated by god to be a prophet to the nations even before coming forth from the womb in Jeremiah 1:4-5 --- wasn’t really Paul (Galatians 1:15-16).

And the one to whom every knee shall bow in Isaiah 45:23-24 --- wasn’t really Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:10).

And the seed of Abraham in Genesis 17 --- wasn’t really Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:16).

Re: Carrier's take on 1 Corinthians 15:6

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:12 pm
by Stuart
The attested Marcionite text is much simpler, which I show here from my reproduction, with footnotes
15:1 Γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν, (1) ὃ καὶ παρελάβετε, ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἑστήκατε,
Now I make known to you, brothers, the Gospel which I preached to you, which you received, in which you also have stood,
15:2 δι᾽ οὖ καὶ σῴζεσθε, τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν εἰ κατέχετε, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῇ ἐπιστεύσατε.
if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless in vain you believed.
15:3 παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις, (2) ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν
For I handed on to you, in the very first things, that Christ died for our sins,
15:4 καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη, καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ, (3)
and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day,
15:11 εἴτε οὗν ἐγὼ εἴτε ἐκεῖνοι, οὕτως κηρύσσομεν καὶ οὕτως ἐπιστεύσατε. (4)
Therefore whether I or they, so we preach and so you believe.
Footnotes:
(1) Epiphanius P42 "on the raising of the dead" γνωρίζω δὲ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν
(2) Western non-interpolation (Latin b, Ambrosiaster, Irenaeus latin, Tertullian) "that which I also recieved" ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον was almost certainly not in Marcion, as it implies a teacher-student relationship, clearly rejected by Marcion (see Galations 1:11-12, 15-17a)
(3) M 3.8.5; Tradidi enim, inquit, vobis inprimis, quod Christus mortuus sit pro peccatis nostris, et quod sepultus sit, et quod resurrexerit tertia die. 'For I delivered, he says, to you first of all, that Christ died for our sins, and that he was buried, and that He rose again the third day'; DA 5.6 Epiphanius P42 ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανε καὶ ἐτάφη καὶ ἐγήγερται τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ and ~ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ support F G K L P Ψ 049 maj, but not reflected in Tertullian; both accounts delete – κατὰ τὰς γραφάς (probably also delete verse 5ff)
(4) AM 1.20.4 sicut et alibi, Sive ego, inquit, sive illi, sic praedicamus. AM 4.4.5 Sive ego, inquit Paulus, sive illi, sic praedicamus; Epiphanius P42 οὕτως κηρύσσομεν καὶ οὕτως ἐπιστεύσατε
None of the witness accounts is attested in Marcion's version. This is hardly surprising. But the differences are greater than that. Here is a brief list
15:3 ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον "that I also received"
This is a reference to Paul receiving the tradition of Christ rising, e.g., the Jerusalem council. This contradicts the statement in earlier part of the verse παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις "which I handed down to you FIRST." This serves to make Paul's message less singular, part of a larger tradition. This is very different from the Marcionite Paul who is introduced in the Marcionite letters with Galatians 1:1 and 1:12 where he receives no tradition from men or any man but from direct revelation from Jesus Christ.
15:3 and 15:4 κατὰ τὰς γραφάς "according to the scriptures"
This is a reference to the claim of Christ fulfilling the OT prophecies, an anathema to Marcion's Paul. Again it is an authority other than Paul's revelation. This is the same adjustment in the Catholic introduction of Paul in Romans 1:2.

Then comes the appearances. I think the key think is the order
1) to Cephas (Peter)
2) to the five hundred (not part of the eleven/twelve apostles)
3) to James
4) to the Apostles
5) to Paul

These are in effect a ranking. And it is a ranking of teachings. We know that Peter is considered the orthodox here, Paul the Marcionite and Gnostic. So their being first and last respectively has relevance and should not be surprising. James is generally associated with Ebionite type sects. The Apostles is a bit more varied, but we could assume its the traditions of Catholic letters (Jude, John, etc) and various Acts (Thomas, Judas, Philip, et al.) of various schools. The five hundred is more of a mystery, so I'm happy to just see what other think and know of this myth which is the basis of the thread.

In fact verses 15:8-10 are chalk full of antidotes to the Marcionite presentation of Paul, to reduce his stature and minimize his authority.

In 15:3 Paul says he first (ἐν πρώτοις) handed down the tradition of Christ raised - that is he was the first one to do so. But in 15:8 he is "last of all" (ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων) to know the tradition, to have seen Christ risen. Paul's authority from Galatians 1:15-16 is said to have been exalted and set apart from other men even before birth (ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου) to have Christ revealed (ἀποκαλύψαι) in him. But in 1 Corinthians 15:8 Paul's birth is denigrated, compared to a shameful abortion (ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι). These are not compatible. Finally Paul humbles himself, almost prostrate in verse 15:9, not as the first (πρώτοις) but as the least of the Apostles (ὁ ἐλάχιστος τῶν ἀποστόλων). This is as far from the Marcionite Paul as one can get. A refernce is made to the Saul persecution story from Acts as reason for this lowly status. And as a final coup de grace to his authority, in verse 15:10 he says his teachings are not so much from him as because of the grace of God, as if he were a mere vessel for it to pass through.

The focus of the material found in our received version is clear when contrasted with the Marcionite version. It is a reflection of the internal sectarian conflicts of the second century church, with the author attempting to reduce the stature of Paul's teaching within the overall church presentation. The traditions of the appearances are legends, not so much historical as representative of rank and order of the schools the heroes in each account represent. Carrier ignores this and so his conclusion in this case is weak, since it ignores the context of the material.

The writer of the traditions may well have no clue to the relative veracity of any of the appearance accounts. That is not his aim. He wants to establish rank of schools each tradition represents, his own the highest, the Gnostic/Marcionite the lowest.

Re: Carrier's take on 1 Corinthians 15:6

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:34 pm
by Ben C. Smith
Stuart wrote:In fact verses 15:8-10 are chalk full of antidotes to the Marcionite presentation of Paul, to reduce his stature and minimize his authority.
That is a great point.

Re: Carrier's take on 1 Corinthians 15:6

Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 2:12 pm
by Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Stuart wrote:But the differences are greater than that. Here is a brief list
15:3 ὃ καὶ παρέλαβον "that I also received"
This is a reference to Paul receiving the tradition of Christ rising, e.g., the Jerusalem council. This contradicts the statement in earlier part of the verse παρέδωκα γὰρ ὑμῖν ἐν πρώτοις "which I handed down to you FIRST." This serves to make Paul's message less singular, part of a larger tradition. This is very different from the Marcionite Paul who is introduced in the Marcionite letters with Galatians 1:1 and 1:12 where he receives no tradition from men or any man but from direct revelation from Jesus Christ.
Not necessarily as 1 Cor 11:23 shows
ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you