Resurrection according to Paul (Was: Crucifixion Burials - St. Paul)

Achilles achillesz@usa.net
Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:25:30 -0500 (00918649530, 06233258514222@unifour.com) 

On 9 Feb 99, at 20:48, Ray and Sandy Briggs wrote:


> >Achilles

> >Does Dougherty regard this as an interpolation? I don't remember him saying so, 

> >as I remember he is very conservative with that charge, and only suggests it in 

> >regards to 2 or 3 passages. I don't remember this being one of them... 

> >

> Ray:

> You are right about Dougherty but he does mentions a later interpolation as

> a possibility. Robert Price does argue it as an interpolation however. I

> think I referenced Dougherty's Jesus Puzzle because I discovered the article

> by Price through that link. Price definitely considers it a post Pauline

> interpolation and you can see his article at:

> http://daniel.drew.edu/~ddoughty/jhc.html 


Achilles
Thanks for the link. I had no problem finding Prices article. 

Price argues thus :


> The pair of words in verse 3a, "received / delivered" (paralambanein /

> paradidonai) is, as has often been pointed out, technical language for the

> handing on of rabbinical tradition.17 That Paul should have delivered the

> following tradition poses little problem; but that he had first been the

> recipient of it from earlier tradents creates, I judge, a problem insurmountable

> for Pauline authorship. Let us not seek to avoid facing the force of the

> contradiction between the notion of Paul's receiving the gospel he preached from

> earlier tradents and the protestation in Gal. 1:1, 11-12 that "I did not receive

> it from man." If the historical Paul is speaking in either passage, he is not

> speaking in both.

> 

> 17 See Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Oxford: Blackwell,

> 1955), 129.


This seems to be the strongest point for viewing this as an addition to the 
original text, because clearly if the text really does necessitate such a 
connotation then it would be very out of character for Paul, and contradict 
many other parts of his corpus in a major way. 

The rest of his arguments are not very good in my view, as they boil down to  
the fact that the passage makes no sense within the current paradigm. This may 
as well indicate a problem with the paradigm as with the passage, however. In 
this sense, the article was a bit of a letdown, just because it seems to me not 
to compare favourably with Prices other works I have read. 

While I appreciate Prices arguments against the very conservative view that 
requires textual evidence (conveniently non-existent until what, 300ad?) to 
sustain charges of alteration, I still think a conservative principle is called 
for here. You can't just decide a passage must not be authentic simply because 
it is an impediment to your theory. 

As to the meaning of "received" in verse 3, have you seen Doughertys treatment 
of it? He does a pretty thorough job, the best I can tell, of rebutting the 
notion that received here must mean "received (from men.)" 

Supplementary Article No. 6
THE SOURCE OF PAUL’S GOSPEL
The Idea of “Reception” (paralambano) in 1 Corinthians 15:3, 11:23 and 
Galatians 1:12
http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/supp06.htm

/Achilles     achillesz@usa.net

All rights reserved.

Random thought for the moment:

    If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science;
    it is opinion. 
           -- Lazarus Long in Time Enough for Love