Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

to robert j,

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).

But Paul did not say Galatians 1:15-16 in according to the scriptures or written (in the scriptures).

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

But Paul did not say Philippians 2:10 in according to the scriptures or written (in the scriptures).

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

Here Paul suggested he was interpreting Genesis 17, but he gave the reason why he took that seed as being Jesus: "seed" in Genesis 17 is singular.

But for 1 Corinthians 15:4, I do not see Paul interpreting Hosea. No evidence whatsoever.
It is so obvious that Hosea 6:2 cannot refer to Christ being raised from the dead, that Paul could not have entertain that idea. And if he did just that to his audience, that certainly would put him in trouble.

Can you find other examples where Paul said he quoted something from the scriptures, but obviously which cannot refer to Jesus Christ in any way here, that is without a long stretch?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to robert j,

Can you find other examples where Paul said he quoted something from the scriptures, but obviously which cannot refer to Jesus Christ in any way here, that is without a long stretch?

Cordially, Bernard

Romans 10:11 <----> Isaiah 28:16

They are all somewhat of a stretch since the Jewish scriptures were not about the NT Jesus Christ. But I'm not going to quibble over what constitutes a "long stretch".

My larger point is that Paul took great liberties with the scriptures. He used them extensively but did not always say so.

He chose to cite his evidence (the scriptures) for the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus in the formulaic passage (1 Cor 15:3-8) which Paul used to remind the Corinthians of what he had already told them (1 Cor 15:3). Paul used this passage in the context of his wider argument in chapter 15 to support his doctrine of resurrection in the face of apparent skepticism from some in the congregation (1 Cor 15:12).

I’ll leave you with the last words for now, if you wish.

robert j wrote: Romans 10:11 <----> Isaiah 28:16

They are all somewhat of a stretch since the Jewish scriptures were not about the NT Jesus Christ.

Yep.

robert j wrote: My larger point is that Paul took great liberties with the scriptures. He used them extensively but did not always ...say so.

Yep.

robert j wrote: [Paul] chose to cite ... 'the scriptures'.. for the sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus in the formulaic passage (1 Cor 15:3-8) which [he] used to remind the Corinthians of what [he said] he had already told them (1 Cor 15:3). Paul used this passage in the context of his wider argument in chapter 15 to support his doctrine of resurrection in the face of apparent skepticism from some in the congregation (1 Cor 15:12).

Yep.

Bernard Muller wrote:It is so obvious that Hosea 6:2 cannot refer to Christ being raised from the dead, that Paul could not have entertain that idea. And if he did just that to his audience, that certainly would put him in trouble.

What about Isaiah 49.8?


It is so obvious that the "favorable time" is in (pseudo-)Isaiah's own day, in connection with the restoration of Judeans to their homeland, that Paul could not have entertained any other idea. Yet he says in 2 Corinthians 6.1-2:


What do you think? Is Paul stretching?

Ben.

Or what about Hosea 13.14?


This is obviously a summons to death/Sheol to do its worst against Ephraim. Yet when Paul quotes this verse in 1 Corinthians 15.54-55...:


...it becomes a taunt against death after having been defeated!

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

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

FYI verses 11:23-32 are not attested in Marcion. Paul makes very clear he received no tradition in Galatians, rather a revelation. Nowhere does he say the Lord gave him a tradition, as verse 11:23 states. (compare Galatians 1:12 παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). The tradition which follows 11:23 is lifted almost verbatim from Luke 22:19-20 - and a rather late variant form at that ⌐ ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον for καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως (variant not found in B p75 א U 579). Were Paul to take tradition from the Gospel it would be unique to say the least, and it would introduce an entirely new set of problems.

Regardless we have to reject the comparison with respect to the Marcionite text because those set of verses 11:23-32 are not likely (definitely not securely) part of the Marcionite text. Catholic to Catholic vocabulary usage comparisons are fine, Marcionite to Marcionite are fine, but you can't mix and match and get meaningful results. There is no instance in the attested Marcionite text of Paul receiving a tradition, regardless of source.

to robert j,

Romans 10:11 <----> Isaiah 28:16

Here Paul modified a verse from Isaiah 28:16 in order to apply it to Jesus:
Isaiah: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. (RSV)
Romans: "The scripture says, "No one who believes in him will be put to shame.""
Very different of the situation between Hosea 6:2 and 1 Corinthians 15:4, where Paul (or rather the interpolator) did not modify a verse from the OT. He even did not quote from the OT.

Paul used to remind the Corinthians of what he had already told them (1 Cor 15:3).

That would be easy for a later interpolator to claim that: by that time Paul's audience was dead.

Cordially, Bernard

Stuart wrote:

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: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

FYI verses 11:23-32 are not attested in Marcion.

Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.8.3:


To me this sure looks like a Tertullianic claim (A) that the sacrament was in Marcion's text of 1 Corinthians 11, (B) that Tertullian was not going to deal with it here because he already dealt with the Lucan version in book 4, and (C) that the passages on judgment in verses 29 and 32 were present (and thus "refute" Marcion).

None of this specifically touches your views on receiving tradition, but (pending an explanation on your part) it seems overstated to claim that the whole of 11.23-32 is unattested.

Ben.

to Ben,

What about Isaiah 49.8?

Yes Paul quoted a verse from the OT, which taken out-of-context, can apply, without modifications, to Paul's times and expected soon Kingdom (in heaven).
But again a very different situation between 1 Cor 15:4 and (allegedly) Hosea 6:2 (as I described earlier for robert j).

Actually picking up out-of-context wording from the OT scriptures was very much a practice, not only by Paul, but also the authors of 'Hebrews', '1 Clement', etc.

Or what about Hosea 13.14?

Ditto, except Paul modified Hosea 13:14.

I wrote: "Can you find other examples where Paul said he quoted something from the scriptures, but obviously which cannot refer to Jesus Christ in any way here, that is without a long stretch?"

Well, according to your postings and the one of robert j, I agree these examples can be found. However, Paul made his quotes from the OT fit his agenda by either ignoring their OT context, or modifying the citations, or both.

But any relationship between 1 Cor 15:4 and (unevidenced) Hosea 6:2 is very unlikely because Hosea 6:2 is in itself out-of-context (without looking to the adjacent verses) and is not modified (for a good reason: it's not quoted).
Yes we are a very long stretch for your two examples and the one of robert j.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

What about Isaiah 49.8?

Yes Paul quoted a verse from the OT, which taken out-of-context, can apply, without modifications, to Paul's times and expected soon Kingdom (in heaven).
But again a very different situation between 1 Cor 15:4 and (allegedly) Hosea 6:2 (as I described earlier for robert j).

Actually picking up out-of-context wording from the OT scriptures was very much a practice, not only by Paul, but also the authors of 'Hebrews', '1 Clement', etc.

Or what about Hosea 13.14?

Ditto, except Paul modified Hosea 13:14.

Not in any way that would turn it into a taunt against death.

I wrote: "Can you find other examples where Paul said he quoted something from the scriptures, but obviously which cannot refer to Jesus Christ in any way here, that is without a long stretch?"

Well, according to your postings and the one of robert j, I agree these examples can be found. However, Paul made his quotes from the OT fit his agenda by either ignoring their OT context, or modifying the citations, or both.

How does that differ from the question at hand? 1 Corinthians 15.4 would be ignoring the context of Hosea 6.2.

But any relationship between 1 Cor 15:4 and (unevidenced) Hosea 6:2 is very unlikely because Hosea 6:2 is in itself out-of-context (without looking to the adjacent verses)....

Yes, that sounds just like what you said above: "Paul made his quotes fit his agenda by... ignoring their OT context...."

I feel like you may be trying to say something that is not coming out right.