1 Cor 15 as evidence for historical Jesus

[_TAK]

Nevo:

As far as I can tell, scholars are pretty much unanimous in agreeing that the formula is pre-Pauline--and therefore dates to the early to mid-30s.

I am still not fully understanding why this creed is so certain to be within 10 Years of Christ's presumed death.

Regardless I don’t think its unanimous in what it all means..

http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

Perhaps I should have used Kloppenborg's wording: it is "almost universally acknowledged." Robert M. Price, as usual, may be the exception to the rule (although I'm not sure that Price actually denies that v. 3b-5 derives from a pre-Pauline formula).

Well not exactly..
From the link w/ emphasis added:

William O. Walker Jr., has suggested that, contrary to those opinions just reviewed, "in dealing with any particular letter in the corpus, the burden of proof rests with any argument that the corpus or, indeed any particular letter within the corpus... contains no interpolations." Among the reasons advanced by Walker is the fact that


the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted by the historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of the second and third centuries... In short, it appears likely that the emerging Catholic leadership in the churches 'standardized' the text of the Pauline corpus in the light of 'orthodox' views and practices, suppressing and even destroying all deviant texts and manuscripts. Thus it is that we have no manuscripts dating from earlier than the third century; thus it is that all of the extant manuscripts are remarkably similar in most of their significant features; and thus it is that the manuscript evidence can tell us nothing about the state of the Pauline literature prior to the third century.

[_Nevo]

Well not exactly..
From the link w/ emphasis added:

William O. Walker Jr., has suggested that, contrary to those opinions just reviewed, "in dealing with any particular letter in the corpus, the burden of proof rests with any argument that the corpus or, indeed any particular letter within the corpus... contains no interpolations." Among the reasons advanced by Walker is the fact that the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted by the historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of the second and third centuries... In short, it appears likely that the emerging Catholic leadership in the churches 'standardized' the text of the Pauline corpus in the light of 'orthodox' views and practices, suppressing and even destroying all deviant texts and manuscripts. Thus it is that we have no manuscripts dating from earlier than the third century; thus it is that all of the extant manuscripts are remarkably similar in most of their significant features; and thus it is that the manuscript evidence can tell us nothing about the state of the Pauline literature prior to the third century.

How does this relate to my post?

[_TAK]

Well not exactly..
From the link w/ emphasis added:

William O. Walker Jr., has suggested that, contrary to those opinions just reviewed, "in dealing with any particular letter in the corpus, the burden of proof rests with any argument that the corpus or, indeed any particular letter within the corpus... contains no interpolations." Among the reasons advanced by Walker is the fact that the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted by the historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of the second and third centuries... In short, it appears likely that the emerging Catholic leadership in the churches 'standardized' the text of the Pauline corpus in the light of 'orthodox' views and practices, suppressing and even destroying all deviant texts and manuscripts. Thus it is that we have no manuscripts dating from earlier than the third century; thus it is that all of the extant manuscripts are remarkably similar in most of their significant features; and thus it is that the manuscript evidence can tell us nothing about the state of the Pauline literature prior to the third century.

How does this relate to my post?

When you state: "although I'm not sure that Price actually denies that v. 3b-5 derives from a pre-Pauline formula" you are twisting what he did say and that is the creed may well be an interpolation ..

[_Nevo]

Well not exactly..
From the link w/ emphasis added:

William O. Walker Jr., has suggested that, contrary to those opinions just reviewed, "in dealing with any particular letter in the corpus, the burden of proof rests with any argument that the corpus or, indeed any particular letter within the corpus... contains no interpolations." Among the reasons advanced by Walker is the fact that the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted by the historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of the second and third centuries... In short, it appears likely that the emerging Catholic leadership in the churches 'standardized' the text of the Pauline corpus in the light of 'orthodox' views and practices, suppressing and even destroying all deviant texts and manuscripts. Thus it is that we have no manuscripts dating from earlier than the third century; thus it is that all of the extant manuscripts are remarkably similar in most of their significant features; and thus it is that the manuscript evidence can tell us nothing about the state of the Pauline literature prior to the third century.

How does this relate to my post?

When you state: "although I'm not sure that Price actually denies that v. 3b-5 derives from a pre-Pauline formula" you are twisting what he did say and that is the creed may well be an interpolation ..

Well, yes, Price does include vv. 3-5 in his proposed post-Pauline interpolation. That much is clear from the title. But he doesn't offer any reasons why vv. 3-5 should be included, apart from the fact that it seems to contradict Gal. 1:11-12. And later he acknowledges that the "stylistic and linguistic differences" evident in vv. 3-5 "could . . . denote pre-Pauline tradition taken over by the apostle." In any case, Price appears to be alone in arguing that vv. 3-5 are part of a post-Pauline interpolation.

[_richardMdBorn]

Nevo:

As far as I can tell, scholars are pretty much unanimous in agreeing that the formula is pre-Pauline--and therefore dates to the early to mid-30s.

I am still not fully understanding why this creed is so certain to be within 10 Years of Christ's presumed death.

Regardless I don’t think its unanimous in what it all means..

http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

Perhaps I should have used Kloppenborg's wording: it is "almost universally acknowledged." Robert M. Price, as usual, may be the exception to the rule (although I'm not sure that Price actually denies that v. 3b-5 derives from a pre-Pauline formula).

Well not exactly..
From the link w/ emphasis added:

William O. Walker Jr., has suggested that, contrary to those opinions just reviewed, "in dealing with any particular letter in the corpus, the burden of proof rests with any argument that the corpus or, indeed any particular letter within the corpus... contains no interpolations." Among the reasons advanced by Walker is the fact that


the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted by the historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of the second and third centuries... In short, it appears likely that the emerging Catholic leadership in the churches 'standardized' the text of the Pauline corpus in the light of 'orthodox' views and practices, suppressing and even destroying all deviant texts and manuscripts. Thus it is that we have no manuscripts dating from earlier than the third century; thus it is that all of the extant manuscripts are remarkably similar in most of their significant features; and thus it is that the manuscript evidence can tell us nothing about the state of the Pauline literature prior to the third century.

There are other explanations for the lack of complete manuscripts from earlier than the 3rd century. Diocletian ordered the confiscation and burning of the Bible. And besides, the biblical texts were already widely disseminated by then which make widespread manipulation difficult.

[_Trevor]

This is my favorite part of the Price piece, the one I think says it all:

"I SUBMIT that even if the post-apostolic character of the James material were not apparent, we would still be able to recognize the spurious character of the whole tradition from one simple but neglected fact. If the author of this passage were himself an eyewitness of the resurrection, why would he seek to buttress his claims by appeal to a third-hand list of appearances formulated by others and delivered to him? Had he forgotten the appearance he himself had seen?"

[_richardMdBorn]

This is my favorite part of the Price piece, the one I think says it all:

"I SUBMIT that even if the post-apostolic character of the James material were not apparent, we would still be able to recognize the spurious character of the whole tradition from one simple but neglected fact. If the author of this passage were himself an eyewitness of the resurrection, why would he seek to buttress his claims by appeal to a third-hand list of appearances formulated by others and delivered to him? Had he forgotten the appearance he himself had seen?"

Which James material are you referencing? I Cor 15 is Pauline and no once claims he was a witness of the resurrection.

[_Trevor]

Which James material are you referencing? I Cor 15 is Pauline and no once claims he was a witness of the resurrection.

Go read that section of the Price piece. Paul was supposedly a witness of the resurrected Jesus, no?

[_richardMdBorn]

This is my favorite part of the Price piece, the one I think says it all:

"I SUBMIT that even if the post-apostolic character of the James material were not apparent, we would still be able to recognize the spurious character of the whole tradition from one simple but neglected fact. If the author of this passage were himself an eyewitness of the resurrection, why would he seek to buttress his claims by appeal to a third-hand list of appearances formulated by others and delivered to him? Had he forgotten the appearance he himself had seen?"

Passages like the following are questionable:

The sheer fact of James' blood relation to Jesus is by itself so powerful, so sufficient a credential that when we find another, a resurrection appearance, placed alongside it in the tradition, we must immediately suspect a secondary layer of tradition.

He need to reconcile this with

46 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 Someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” 48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers! 50 “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

Mat 12
This comment is ridiculous

I SUBMIT that even if the post-apostolic character of the James material were not apparent, we would still be able to recognize the spurious character of the whole tradition from one simple but neglected fact. If the author of this passage were himself an eyewitness of the resurrection, why would he seek to buttress his claims by appeal to a third-hand list of appearances formulated by others and delivered to him? Had he forgotten the appearance he himself had seen?

He mentions in v 8 that Jesus appeared to him (Paul) so he obviously remembered this. But Price’s attempt to tell Paul what arguments are strong is a bit ridiculous. Most people, when faced with a claim that a person was resurrected and appeared to people, would place priority on those who knew in life the resurrected person. This is precisely what Paul did. The testimony of a close friend, Peter, is rightfully given priority, and then the twelve. If Paul had only cited his own case, the counterargument would have been, how do you know that it was Jesus. You didn’t know him in life. The testimony of Peter, James, the twelve, etc. is far more convincing since they knew Jesus well.

[_Trevor]

He mentions in v 8 that Jesus appeared to him (Paul) so he obviously remembered this. But Price’s attempt to tell Paul what arguments are strong is a bit ridiculous. Most people, when faced with a claim that a person was resurrected and appeared to people, would place priority on those who knew in life the resurrected person. This is precisely what Paul did. The testimony of a close friend, Peter, is rightfully given priority, and then the twelve. If Paul had only cited his own case, the counterargument would have been, how do you know that it was Jesus. You didn’t know him in life. The testimony of Peter, James, the twelve, etc. is far more convincing since they knew Jesus well.

It's called a logical inconsistency. The strongest witness of the resurrection for Paul is Paul himself. Price does a decent job of showing how the list of witnesses is problematic, and from the ongoing discussion he refers to it appears that many other scholars have wrestled with part or all of it too. New Testament scholars commonly look for these kinds of logical inconsistencies and the padding of testimony to strengthen the case. Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption is one place you can read about such things.

Price is not attempting to tell Paul anything. He, understanding, as many others do, that we are dealing with texts that have passed through many hands, is trying to lay out what was most likely there in the autograph. You see the evidence cutting in a different direction, and I have no problem with that. I simply don't find your criticism of Price, or your explanation for that matter, very compelling.