I Corinthians 15:1-11

[Ecurb Noselrub]

First, I commend you for putting together such a thought-provoking post.  It will take me awhile to respond to the arguments, so I won't be able to accomplish that all tonight.   Second, I have no real expectation of convincing you of my position.  However, I think that there is value in putting contrary arguments side by side so that people see them and evaluate their choices.

Verse 3, "received/delivered" (paralambanein / paradidonai) is possible technical jargon for the handing down of rabbinical tradition. That Paul should have delivered the following tradition is neither here nor there; but that he had been the recipient of it from some third person creates an ineluctable problem for Pauline authorship. Do not forget the contradiction between the notion of Paul's receiving the gospel he preached from an earlier third person and the cavilation in Gal. 1:1, 11-12 that "I did not receive it from man." If Paul is speaking in either passage, he cannot be speaking in both. 

This is the main thrust of your argument, it seems - I Corinthians 15:1-11 is inconsistent with Galatians 1.   While it could be inconsistent if your interpretation of every phrase is adopted, it is not necessarily inconsistent for reasons that I state below.  Since we do not know exactly what is in the mind of any author, if there is a plausible interpretation of two writings that removes any apparent inconsistencies, that is the interpretation that should be adopted. This is a rule of construction used by courts in interpreting statutory provisions, and I find it useful in interpreting ancient documents, as well.  The text (not just a biblical text, but any ancient text) is given the benefit of the doubt, since we do not know every purpose of the author.

"Received/delivered" does not have to be used as a formula for rabbinical transmission. It is clear that Paul does not use it this way in I Corinthians 11:23, where he gives the form of the Eucharist.  There, he "received" the information from the Lord (divine revelation) and "delivered" it to the Corinthians.  There is no reason that he could not have been using the terms in a similar fashion in I Cor. 15.  However, even if the form of I Cor. 15:3-7 is an official creed or statement that he did receive from the apostles in Jerusalem, this does not mean that he could not have had personal knowledge of the essential facts that were contained in it.  He claims to be a Pharisee - he quite possibly could have been in Jerusalem when Jesus was crucified.  In such a case, he would have known that Jesus died and was buried.  This much would have been within his personal knowledge.  Then he would have seen Jesus personally in the final resurrection appearance, as he mentions in v. 8.  So the essential facts of the gospel - the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus - would have all been within his own knowledge.  The revelation of certain aspects of the death ("for our sins in accordance with the scripture) and the resurrection ("on the third day according to the scriptures") could also have been part of his own experience of "the gospel" as received from the Lord. 

The list of witnesses in 5-7 would not have been in his personal knowledge, as he was not a disciple at the time. This was probably received from his encounters with Cephas, James, and/or John, which encounters are mentioned in Galatians 1-2.  So it is possible that Paul received the core of the gospel (death, burial, resurrection of Jesus) by personal knowledge and divine disclosure, but received other facts (list of witnesses and overall kerygmatic formula) from others.  With this interpretation, there is no inconsistency with Galatians 1. He has the personal revelation of the resurrected Christ which, added to his own personal knowledge of Jesus' death and burial, gives him new insight into the meaning of the Old Testament scriptures.  His gospel comes from his own revelation, not from man.

Furthermore, Paul's account of his own experience with the resurrected Christ is clearly Pauline.  He characteristically is simultaneously self-effacing and self-glorifying.  He's the "least of the apostles" (v. 9) and yet he "labored more abundantly than they all" (v. 10).  An interpolation up to v. 7 doesn't make sense in this context.  Why would an authentic statement of Paul about the resurrection suddenly appear, unless he had also written the antecedent passage about the other witnesses?  He clearly wrote the entire passage, which is why you find absolutely no manuscript evidence of an interpolation.

[Gawen]

No argument needed, but perhaps you'd indulge me one request for clarification.

That was an ooops and fixed.

- - -

And parenthetically, I can't help but compare the two below statements--one from your last post and the other from your autosignature--and scratch my head...

As it stands now, although unverifiable, the above claims are significant plausibility for making sense of the passage as interpolation

The essence of the mind is not in what it thinks, but how it thinks. Faith is the surrender of our mind; of reason and our skepticism to put all our trust or faith in someone or something that has no good evidence of itself. That is a sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith is not.

What is more plausible, faith that Paul said and did all the above, or that 1 Cor 15: 3-11 is more than likely interpolation? What is more plausible...unverifiable and implausible Paul sayings in 1 Cor. 15: 3-11...or unverifiable but plausible 3-11 interpolation ?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

There is a problem with the "thens" in verses 6-7 which cannot be ignored:
to Cephas
then [he appeared] to the Twelve,
then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time,
most of whom are still alive,
though some have fallen asleep,
then he appeared to James
then [he appeared] to all the apostles.

Some think the "Twelve" as an interpolation to harmonize with the Gospels. Many others think the 500 brethren and of Paul himself as later additions. It is sufficient to note that the two scattered parts or fragments in verse 5 and 7 with their parallel eita/epeita structure represent independent formulae in their own right and later blended into the current formula.

Nothing here is clear.

Including your own argument. It appears that you are relying on what "some think" or "many think" are interpolations.  It's much simpler just to accept that Paul was reciting an official list of witnesses received from his encounters with the Jerusalem apostles.  If an editor was attempting to harmonize with the gospels, certainly they would have included Mary Magdalene and the women.  No such effort was made, because the passages are original with Paul.  I've already shown why the passage about Paul's experience is original, so there is no reason why the "500" can't also be original.  There is nothing in the gospels about the "500", so why would a later editor add something that was previously unknown?  

Paul names two people: Cephas and James. Where do Cephas and James fit in? Are they members of both groups, members of neither group, rivalries from separate camps? Later additions? Apologists typically suppose that Cephas corresponds to the Peter of the gospels (apparently only one person in the entire first century Palestine bore the name Cephas).

He refers to "the twelve" and to "all the apostles", which is nowhere explained in any of Paul's letters. And of course, I would suspect that at least some of Paul's readers would have wondered whom he meant by "the twelve" and "the apostles". Apologists typically respond to these kinds of questions by alleging that Paul's audiences would have known whom he had in mind. That explains that.

The recipients of this letter were the Corinthians, who had already been evangelized by Paul. They had heard the stories of the life of Jesus, and according to I Cor. 1:12 they had knowledge of Cephas (Peter).  Perhaps Cephas had been there preaching, or some of them had heard him elsewhere (people did travel in those days).  There was a common fund of knowledge about the general facts of the gospel, so Paul didn't have to explain every reference to a person or event that he made.  They knew who Cephas, James, and the Twelve were.  This was not the first time they had heard the names.

What difference does it make whether Cephas and James fit into the group of the Twelve or the apostles or not?  The point is that they all saw the resurrected Jesus. They are the witnesses.  

There is a persistent and annoying perhaps-ical nature to all this that apologist seem to love to fill. However, the questions naturally arise:
What exactly did Paul teach the congregations he visited on his journeys, and
How can we know what he taught?
If his letters are an indication of what he taught, what do they tell us about "the twelve", "all the apostles", Cephas and James and what relationships they may have enjoyed with each other? Positively nothing. I Cor. 15:3-8 is the only passage in all of Paul's letters where he makes reference to this mysterious "twelve," and it is nowhere near clear that "the twelve" and "the apostles" are the same or different groups. Moreover, if the author is simply repeating a creed here, it is quite possible that the author actually did not know the "twelve", "apostles" and quite plausibly, Cephas, James and the relationship any of them had with each other.

He mentions Cephas, James, and the "apostles" in Galatians.  I'm not sure what you are getting at here.  You seem to be requiring that every time he mentions someone that he has to give a complete history of that person.  Paul is writing just as you or I would write if we were writing to people whom we knew and who shared a common fund of knowledge.  This explains all your questions.

The clauses modifying the appearances to the 500 and to Paul himself ("most of whom are still alive..." and "as to one untimely born") are additions by a later hand, whether Paul's or someone else's because they break the formal structure. The same sort of later embellishments are in the Decalogue's of Exodus 20 and 34. One, however, cannot lose sight as the focus is on notable leaders. The mention of the anonymous 500 screams intrusion and implies the entire list is an apologetic, especially because the reference of most of them are available for corroboration.

What's that? Corroboration? How in the world would any of the Corinthians be able to investigate any of the things he mentions in I Cor. 15:3-8? He does not identify a place where these people reside, so where would they begin? Where would a Corinthian go to seek confirmation on Paul's claims with "the twelve"? Is any one Corinthian encouraged to do so? And what of the anonymous 500 brethren? In both cases, not one name is given, let alone a time, place or setting. So the defense that the Corinthians could have at any time gone out and checked out his claims is dubious and any suggestion that the Corinthians were challenged to check him out, borderlines the ludicrous. If Paul really wanted his readers to check up on his claims, he should have done much more than make the passing references that he gives in I Cor. 15:3-8.

Remember that he had already given all this information previously to them, as shown by v. 3.  He's just reminding them of what he already told them.  Since the time that he first mentioned the 500 to them personally, some of those 500 have died.  Why could he not have identified them all in person, and now he is just reminding them of what he had previously delivered to them in detail?  Isn't that a simpler explanation than a totally unsubstantiated interpolation?

It does appear the list began as a list of credentials for Cephas, the Twelve, James, and other apostles, and someone later inserted the 500 brethren. Therefore, the reference to the 500 and Paul himself would seem to be an added piece of apocrypha. After all, if the claim of 500 witnesses and Paul himself were early tradition, can anyone explain its total absence from the gospel tradition?

I can explain it - the gospels didn't tell every single thing that happened in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.  The gospels would not have mentioned Paul's conversion, anyway, since they don't go past the ascension.  The gospels were later than Paul's writings, anyway, and may have been partially focused on including things that they considered to have been missed by Paul or the early creedal statements, such as the appearances to the women and to the disciples at Emmaus. Why does every book have to include the exact same facts?

More problematic, Paul gives no details on any of the people he mentions that may have actually seen or witnessed the resurrection. Did they see a resurrected man? How would they know that the man they saw was once dead? If the word "witness" enjoys a very loose meaning for many of today's Christians, why suppose it did not enjoy similar flexibility among the Jewish Christians? Christians today are constantly exclaiming how Jesus is present with them. They obviously do not have a physical person in mind when they make these kinds of declarations, so why suppose the early Christians were speaking about a physical Jesus when they claimed to have "witnessed" him?

Again, Paul has met the Corinthians in person.  He is giving an overview of the gospel in this passage - no need to repeat every detail.  Christ died, was buried, and rose again.  It's pretty obvious from that passage that he is talking about a dead man being resurrected.  I don't know of any Christian today who claims to have seen the physical Jesus.  As Paul said in II Cor. 5:16, he once knew Christ in the flesh, but now he no longer knows him that way.  The essential character of the modern believer's relationship with Jesus is spiritual now.  That does not prevent a different experience for the first believers. The tenor of the whole passage is that the dead and buried Jesus rose from the tomb and was seen.

[Gawen]

It's late here (for me) and will get to your comment/questions tomorrow.

[Gawen]

When I get home from work, I'll have time to proceed. But first consider this:
An unknown Jewish religious agent arrives in a fairly large and busy Roman port city. He encounters fellow Jews. Our agent is a sectarian of a novel and miniscule faction within Judaism. Unwelcome in the synagogue where he tries to win converts, he is able to set-up shop next door because an early neophyte happens to live "hard to" the synagogue. The strident Jews of the city reject his message – except for the very leader of the synagogue and it would seem the man who replaces the leader. The pagan city treasurer is also won over, even running errands for our agrent to far off cities.

Our agent escapes arraignment before the provincial governor and continues on. A thriving church is established and our bold evangelist moves on with his "good news" to convert in new pastures.

The concatenation of Paul's fortuitous events strains credulity. And yet such are the claims made for Paul, self acclaimed apostle to the Gentiles, in the city of Corinth. It wouldn't even make a good movie.

[bandit4god]

Unless your name is Robert M. Price, you owe that gentleman an apology for lifting his text word for word and posting it here as your own.  Next time, encourage you to simply post the link and let us read it there:
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

I will give you this, at least it was the third link down in a Google search of "corinthians interpolation"...

[Ecurb Noselrub]

It's going to take me so long to respond to your massive initial posts that I'm never going to get around to responding to your responses.  But all we have is time, I suppose.

More on the 500

I have no idea why anyone is conceding these appearances as "facts." As if I have to explain how 500 people saw a physically resurrected Jesus. No...all I have to do is explain how someone claims 500 people saw a physically resurrected Jesus. And the naturalistic explanation that the redactor made it up is far more plausible and probable than Jesus DID actually rise from the dead. The whole point is that the interpolation is Paulinist pseudepigraphy. Of course, one could be busy explaining away the amazing coincidence of how Joseph Smith just happened to stumble on those ancient Golden Plates and then manage to lose them...

I think you are mischaracterizing what Paul is saying.  As I argued before, he has already spoken to these people, and is now reminding them in writing of what he previously told them in person, and probably in a lot more detail.  I agree that this statement itself is not proof of the existence of the 500, but in the context of what he is telling the Corinthians it makes sense.  If he had told them previously the general identities of the 500 and generally where to find them, it would make even more sense.  He's just reminding them of the existence of a large group of witnesses, and then adding that some of them have died since he told them about them the first time.

Think of it as imagining a person claiming to believe that 70,000 people saw the sun dance in the sky at Fatima in 1917 and that 20 plus years afterward some of the people who witnessed it were still alive. Of course this would not have meant anything more than that person had heard the story and believed it was true. It would not have meant that they had actually talked to any of the witnesses. By the same token, Paul may have heard a story about Jesus appearing to 500, but there is no reason to think that he actually heard it from anyone who was there or knew any of them by name.

On the contrary, there is reason to think that he knew some of these witnesses, as he was from Jerusalem and knew that some of them had died.  He's mentioning them so that the Corinthians (who, as seafaring people, could travel around the Mediterranean) could go check out their stories personally, if they were so inclined and capable.  What else could he do?  Let's assume that there were 500 people who saw the resurrected Jesus. What would Paul do with that information?  He would tell the Corinthians about them, just as he did here so they could independently verify the story.  There's nothing strange about informing people about other witnesses to an event.

Imagine a witness who came into court but could not say where or when most of the relevant events took place, did not know what the key person said or did, and claimed that what he did know he learned from a ghost that appeared to him. These are the type of "facts" Paul claims and apologists agree. The same kind of "facts" as the empty tomb. If one cannot even show that there was a grassy knoll, how can he show that there was a second gunman?

In a law suit, this particular type of information would not be admissible into evidence from Paul, as it would be hearsay (since Paul himself didn't have personal knowledge).  However, it would be something that Paul would be expected to disclose in the discovery process.  Litigants routinely disclose "persons with knowledge of relevant facts" to the other side.  That's what Paul is doing here, in effect.  He's showing the Corinthians to whom they can speak if they want independent verification.  Some of the Corinthians were saying there was no resurrection (see the remainder of ch. 15), and Paul is reminding them that there are living witnesses who can verify it.

So Jesus, a resurrected dead person is said to appear to 500 yet some doubted (Mt. 28:17). Is it possible as many as 380 all died or left the belief 'cause by Pentecost there were only 120 left (Acts 1:15)?

We don't know if Matthew's group is the same as the 500.  Furthermore, it's possible that most of the 500 could have been from other cities or even countries, and were only in the area of Jerusalem for the feast of Passover.   Eventually they could have returned home, leaving the 120 mentioned by Luke.  This is a completely plausible explanation.

Jesus allegedly appeared at the unspecified place in Galilee where he would be most recognized. And some doubted. But a little while later Peter makes a sermon to people who have NOT seen a resurrected body and 3000 people converted! Makes a lot of sense, does it not? A sarcastic question, to be sure, the answer really is...it makes no sense at all.

It may not make sense to you, but to anyone who has ever been "under the conviction of the Holy Spirit" (to use a religious phrase from my youth), it makes perfect sense.  That's what happens - people hear the gospel, and some are radically affected by it due to the inward working of the Spirit of God.  It doesn't have to make sense to you - millions of Christians would tell you, however, that it makes sense to them.

But apologists can be expected to make the most of Paul's mention that most of the 500 are still alive. But they do not take heed to not read more into Paul's words than what the words actually say. Apologists typically assume that Paul's words confirm that Jesus' death and resurrection were recent. Paul's own treatment has the alluded effect of rubber-stamping Jesus appearances as recent, but not the death, burial, and prompt resurrection, which he merely says occurred 'in accordance with the scriptures'."
How do you spell interpolation?

I haven't got a clue what you are arguing here.  Why does Paul have to give a date for the death, burial and resurrection?  You continue to ignore the fact that Paul has already preached the gospel to these people, and doesn't need to go back and explain every single fact in this letter.  He is reiterating the kerygma to remind them of the basic facts of the gospel.  If most of 500 witnesses are still alive, then the resurrection was relatively recent.  And if the resurrection took place "on the third day", then the death and burial was likewise relatively recent.  It all ties together rather nicely, unless one has an agenda of asserting an interpolation that has no manuscript evidence.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I have time to respond to this one tonight.  More tomorrow, I hope.

What about James the Just? Well, that has problems as well as the gospels differ strongly whether James the Just was a disciple before the resurrection or afterwards. John 7:5, Mark 3:21, 31-35 and Matthew 12:46-50, are clear that he was no friend of Jesus. Luke (Luke 8:19-21 and Acts 1:14), strongly implies that Jesus's entire family were 'Christians' from the very beginning. Luke is somewhat in common with Hebrews and other late pro-James traditions (Gospel of Thomas, logion 12, for example).

What difference does it make if James was a disciple before or after the resurrection?  He was the brother of Jesus (as explained by Paul in Galatians 1:19).  According to the lists in the Gospels, he may very well have been the eldest of the other brothers of Jesus.  Why wouldn't Jesus appear to a brother who may have been very close to him in age?  He was certainly a disciple after the appearance, as he became the leader of the Jerusalem church. 

There is no conversion of James from unbeliever to believer; only an appearance granted to a disciple. Nowhere do we find Jesus' appearance to James to parallel Pauls: the enemy of Jesus turned to friend. James' resurrection vision is not exceptional, as might be expected if the appearance had turned an enemy into a friend (noted in verse .  The agenda of many apologists seek to assuage the suspicions that Jesus appeared only to believers. At any rate, it is an exegetical ghost. We have an unbelieving James, a believing James, and a vision of the resurrected Jesus to James, but the relationships between the claims is textural gobbledegook. A note of interest: the James story parallels Ali, the son-in-law and nephew of Muhammad.

You are wandering all over the place here.  First, the point of our discussion is whether this passage is an interpolation.  All it says is that Jesus appeared to James.  The Corinthians could go to James, leader of the Jerusalem church, and hear his story for themselves.  That's Paul's point here.  Are you arguing that this interpolation was done even after Muhammad?  What is the point of your Ali reference?  I have no agenda that Jesus only appeared to believers - that point is irrelevant to me.  He appeared to James, and Paul reminds the Corinthians of that event - very simple.

This is important. The implication then is that the tradition of the 500 is apocryphal and post-Pauline and the appearance to James the Just was an original part of the list, which denotes the entire list as post-Pauline, while the 500 is an even later interpolation.

This is a non sequitur of the highest order.  I refer you to my previous arguments. None of it is post-Pauline, as it all fits very nicely into Paul's purpose of reminding the Corinthians what he had previously told them in person about the resurrection.  There were some there who doubted the resurrection, and Paul is referring them to other witnesses of this relatively recent event.  Most of those witnesses were still alive, if the Corinthians wanted corroboration.

What about the Cephas (Peter)/James polemic? Some people do not see a problem here, but it seems there is a division; two separate rivalries. I'm in the R. H. Fuller camp for the most part on this one.
1)   If the two independent formulae had been added onto the death and resurrection kerygma of verses 3-5, then we would have to leave that kerygma ending in its original form with "appeared" and that seems implausible because of the symmetry that would exist between the short fragments "that he was buried" and "that he appeared."
2)   The appearance to the 500 is isolated. It does not belong to the Cephas part or to the James. In either position it would destroy the parallelism between the two and then only be explained as an independent tradition or as a Pauline or later insertion. 3)   The evidence would seem to suggest a rivalry between Peter and James (Gal 2.9-10). There is polemic aimed at James (John 7:5; Mark 3:21, 31-35), another pro- polemic aimed at Peter (Matt 16:18-19) and anti-Peter polemics (the denial narratives of all the gospels). And then contrast the above with the mild dark shading of Peter in favor of the Beloved Disciple in John. Despite the evidence, Fuller thinks a rivalry is speculative. I think it quite plausible.
4)   There is no question that the eita/epeita (then) structure of the list implies a temporal sequence; but this may simply be the gratuitous wishful thinking of the redactor imagining Paul taking Luke's normal role as a pilgrim in the Holy Land seeking out remaining living 'saints' willing to reminisce about the great days of old when angels whispered in one's ear and dead men tapped one on the shoulder. Read E. F. F. Bishop, "The Risen Christ and the Five Hundred Brethren for a good understanding.

You are adding speculation upon speculation.  The foundation is bad and the building is crumbling.  The simplest explanation is that Paul is giving a list of witnesses that he learned from his encounters with the apostles.  He knew about the death and burial himself, and he knew about his own encounter with the risen Christ.  He had previously informed the Corinthians about all of this personally, and now is giving a written outline of the kerygma. It's very simple.  Occam's Razor applies here – entities should not be multiplied needlessly.  Why look for an intepolation when the simplest explanation is that Paul is just reminding the Corinthians about the facts of the gospel and pointing them to witnesses of the resurrection?  Whether Cephas and James had a rivalry, and whether Paul had rivalries with them both is irrelevant.  Jesus appeared to Cephas, Jesus appeared to James, and Jesus appeared to Paul. Case closed.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

What is more plausible, faith that Paul said and did all the above, or that 1 Cor 15: 3-11 is more than likely interpolation? What is more plausible...unverifiable and implausible Paul sayings in 1 Cor. 15: 3-11...or unverifiable but plausible 3-11 interpolation ?

The most plausible is that Paul wrote what is in I Cor. 15:3-11. Whether what he wrote is true is another issue.  We are, I think, arguing authenticity rather than credibility here.  You would be in a better position if you simply said "Paul wrote this passage, but there was no resurrection."  I've noticed a tendency among atheists to go too far in their arguments. They not only want to show that Jesus wasn't the Son of God and did not rise from the dead, but that he never existed, and that every writing about him was edited, tampered with or interpolated in some fashion.  Or at least this is a general trend.  Your strongest position is simply to agree that Paul wrote this, but that he was wrong.  Since no one can prove the resurrection conclusively, anyway, why do you need to do more?  Just say "the evidence doesn't convince me," and no one can prove you wrong. The motive to go beyond that puzzles me at times.   

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Well, I got a second wind and decided to respond to your last opening post.

In verse 7, many apologist scholars get their undies all bunched up over the meaning of the "all" in "all the apostles". Some think it is a larger group of missionaries as well as the Twelve. Some think "all the apostles" excludes the Twelve, since the Twelve were not regarded as apostles until the second century - when Luke combines the two categories. There would indeed be no polemic....but...
But what if, as others suggest, "all the apostles" means to exclude James and include Peter and the rest of the Twelve? That would plausibly be seen as a polemical counter to "Cephas, then to the Twelve". And that would mean resurrected Jesus appeared to James first, and then to the apostles, including Cephas...not Cephas first, followed by his colleagues. Seen this way, it becomes obvious that the James principle is the later of the two, since its very wording presupposes the Cephas principle.

This is a complete red herring.  What difference does all of this make?  Paul is using words that were known to the Corinthians, to whom he preached the gospel previously.  Why is it so difficult to assume that they knew what he was talking about?  Again, if I write a letter to a group that shares a common fund of knowledge, I don't have to explain everything to them.  They know what I'm talking about when I make general references.  If there are differences between "the Twelve" and "all the apostles," and if either or both Cephas and James were excluded or included in either group, so what?  Paul's point is that Jesus appeared to all of them.  You are missing the forest for the trees.  The Corinthians probably had a good idea to whom he was referring, and they could go to Jerusalem at that time and verify what Paul was telling them.  He was arguing for the historicity and actuality of the resurrection, and these were the witnesses.
Personally, I think the "Twelve" was an accepted phrase for the initial 12 disciples who became apostles, but that in Paul's mind there were other apostles besides them.  Paul and Barnabas are both referred to as apostles in Acts 14:4.  Perhaps there were others who were considered apostles beyond the 12.  But regardless of who they were, the point is that Jesus appeared to them, and the Corinthians probably knew what Paul was talking about. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.

One must remember that these two groups are not connected until Luke-Acts. Nowhere in earlier New Testament material is this connection made, including Paul, who always keeps the Twelve and the apostles separate. This separation of 'the twelve and the apostles' denotes it happened not only after Luke, but after Paul. Could there still be animosity between the two camps of believers so late (after Paul)? Read apocrypha like the Letter of Peter to James, which subordinates Peter to James.

Or, perhaps "the Twelve" and "all the apostles" are referring to essentially the same people, or maybe a few more people were added as apostles after the 12.  What difference does it make?  Jesus appeared to them.  That's all Paul is saying.  That we don't know exactly how he was using the words is irrelevant, unless you want to base your argument primarily on speculation.

A diversion to another question: Is the 50's CE to early for the shaping of the tradition? Who is to know the sectarian evolution of it all? Who is to know its factions and the polemics that stem from them? The two lists are integrated or perhaps "meshed" is a better word, and should be apparent. Why is it scholars cannot see the redactor was most likely an early catholic (as seen in Luke) and not during the time of Paul?

There was no redactor here.  The 50's is plenty of time for the early church to assemble its evidence for the resurrection. That's about 20 years.  It's not a matter of a tradition, anyway. It's a matter of who witnessed an historical event.  Paul witnessed the resurrected Christ, and he gives us the identities of others who also witnessed it.  Why does there have to be a "tradition" and a "redactor"?  You are making this too complicated.

Was Paul really an eye witness? I'll ask a question to answer that. If the author of this passage were an eyewitness of the resurrection, why would he try to shore up his claim by appealing to a third-hand list of appearances formulated by others and delivered to him? Had he forgotten the appearance he himself had seen?

Yes, he was an eyewitness.  No, he had not forgotten it.  He's basically saying "if you don't believe me, ask these other guys who also saw him."

Verse 8 is embarrassing. It is a bare assertion that there was an appearance to Paul. Would an eyewitness of the resurrection, who could read and write, have more to say about it once the subject had come up? I certainly think so. Luke certainly thought so, in his tireless ranting of having Paul describe in impressive detail Acts 22.6-11; 26.12-18. The point is that an actual eyewitness would hardly be as tight-lipped as "Paul" is in 1 Cor 15:8.

What is embarrassing about saying "I saw X"?  He's probably already explained all this to the church personally, and now he's just reminding them that he was also a witness. Acts makes it clear that he founded this church and was there personally, and he indicates as much in his two letters. You are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

In particular, 1:10, Paul is fighting against claims for Peter's primacy being circulated in Corinth by Peter's faction. Paul is adamant in asserting his own equality (and Apollos) with Cephas. When he talks of the resurrection in chapter 15, why would he risk everything by introducing a principle that points in the direction to the primacy of Cephas as the first witness of the resurrection? Would it not have been better for Paul to have said nothing? Would it have been safer to appeal to his own memories?
Verse 8, like the whole passage, is no more the work of "eye-witness Paul" than the Gospel of Matthew is the work of Jesus' disciple.

I'll agree with you that Matthew is not the work primarily of Matthew.  Matthew may have been responsible for recording the sayings of Jesus (perhaps the illusive "Q"), but he did not write Matthew.  Matthew was assembled by someone who took Mark and added the logia of Jesus, plus a birth story, genealogy and ending.  But you are totally wrong about Paul – I Corinthians is his work from beginning to end.  The fact that Paul and Cephas had a rivalry does not detract from the fact that Cephas saw Jesus before Paul.  Paul never claimed to be one of the original disciples. Yes, he would include Cephas as a primary witness over himself, because that is exactly what happened.  He's giving an outline of the gospel facts, and Cephas was an earlier witness than he was.  That's called integrity.

The third-person reference would have been changed to the first person by a Paulinist who set it into the context of verses 3, 9-11. These verses are themselves an interpolation into the argument which once flowed smoothly between verses 2 and 12. They are now a part of an apologia for Paul. The redactionist wished to vindicate Paul's controversial apostolship in the eyes of his fellow proto-catholics.  Luke did the same at about the same time: tying in Paul to the Twelve and James. Verse 10 looks back in history.

It flows smoothing all the way from 15:1 to 15:12, unless one is searching for a reason not to accept what is obvious.

Kamoi does not mean "also me," but "even me," because the point is that Jesus condescended to appear to the chief sinner (1 Tim 1:15-16). The Pauline apologist altered the text to kamoi when he changed the third-person reference to a first-person reference, in order to tie it in more securely.

And your manuscript evidence for this bold assertion is ...... non-existent.

On the whole, there is a lack of continuity between the pericope (verses 3-11) and the rest of the chapter and the most probable solution is that verses 3-11 constitute an interpolation...but why?

The pericope has complete continuity all the way from 15:1-15:12 and beyond.  But, you are convinced, so what can I do?

Is it possible the redactor could strengthen the chapter as a whole by starting it with a list of evidences for the resurrection? Is it possible that he was not interested in or perhaps even aware of the original function of the list as credentials? It would seem that by the late time this was inserted, it would have been a non issue. That no one disputed the authority of any of the names and they were now all regarded as sainted figures of the past and taken for granted?
So instead, the value of the list is a piece of apologetics for an historical resurrection. And it could very well have been the same person who interpolated the reference of the 500, a clearly apologetic intrusion. In the process, his bomb drop overshot the target by not trimming the extraneous verses 9-10, where they are not unlike John 13:16 where a list of mission instructions are much like Matthew 10 - the same saying occurs in Matt. 10:24 and retained the pointless John 13:20 along with it (Matt. 10:40).

John 13:16 and I Corinthians 15:9-10 are not even closely related. Did you read John 13:16?  Maybe you misquoted.  In any event, I Cor. 15:9-10 is quintessentially Pauline: self-effacing and self-aggrandizing at the same time. He had that down to an art.  It's authentic to the core.

The bent of 1 Corinthians 15: 3-11 is a 'catholicizing' apologetic (later than the Gospels) and the John/Peter polemics are alien to Paul. Ill fitting and linguistic differences appear in the text but they are not pivotal. A case for an interpolation grows stronger if it can be shown its reliance or relatedness to other text (the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle of Peter to James, and Luke-Acts) known to be later in time than the text in question and that can be done. Extra Biblical citations are indecisive; they either do not answer the questions or the genuosity of the citations are open for debate. For example, Marcion and Ambrosiaster lack "what I also received" in verse 3. 

Please give me a reference to the Marcion and Ambrosiaster citations.  That is interesting to me.  I see a minor variation from Ambrosiaster on v. 10, but nothing on v. 3.  At this time, my final argument (unless you continue to argue the points) is as follows:
1.   There is no manuscript evidence supporting the idea of an interpolation;
2.   The simplest explanation for the passage is that Paul is reiterating the core gospel message to a church that he founded and knew personally.  He references his own personal knowledge and experience, as well as information about other witnesses to the resurrection that he had received from the Jerusalem apostles;
3.   He reminded the Corinthians of these facts, which he had probably explained before, because some in the church were denying the core historical fact of the gospel – the resurrection;
4.   The entire passage flows naturally, and ends with a characteristic Pauline flourish (v. 9-10), which is clearly authentic and bears no marks of interpolation or redaction.
5.   This passage is the earliest and best evidence of the historicity, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, and is based in large part on the personal knowledge and eyewitness testimony of Paul of Tarsus.

[Gawen]

Bruce, the red herring is not my doing. It's not even a red herring. I am not responsible for what apologists think, I am just letting you know. What difference does it make? That everyone cannot seem to come to terms with it? That those scholars and apologists that do not agree with your interpretation of it seem to find a difference.

Did Paul ever visit Corinth? Did he do the things he said he did? On available yet spurious evidence it does not seem likely. Paul's supposed conversions in the Greek city are too quick and much too spectacular. He receives an encouraging visitation from Jesus, assuring Paul that He already had "many people in this city" (Acts 18.9-10). Who on earth converted them?

Paul's converts fall away just as rapidly as they are made, despite his unspecified "mighty deeds" and divine support. Paul, the "wise masterbuilder" seems to have only limited success in Corinth. If we are to believe him, he had a surprisingly strained relationship with "his" church there. The epistles make clear that opponents and rivals had a following even within the miniscule Christian community and apparently, the "whole church" of Corinth could meet in the house of Gaius (Romans 16.23), which far from suggests "many" believers.

Something is not quite right here and the existence of the Corinthian epistles, amounting to more than one-third of the Pauline corpus alludes to another and perhaps more sinister origin and purpose.
What/who is Paul?                                                                                                              Tireless founder of churches                                                                                   
Evangelist extraordinaire                                                                                                   
The first and most influential theologian of the Church

The seeds of predestination, original sin, the trinity and salvation and judgment theology are all found in his letters. How extraordinary that orthodoxy was defined so comprehensively at such an early date and battled triumphantly with hundreds of heretics all the way to the middle of the 4th Century. All that Paul says is orthodox – a remarkable achievement considering how many heretics two and a half centuries produced. Indeed, for the next couple centuries nearly every writer who wrote under the banner of Christianity, to a greater or lesser extent, strayed into heresy.

But not Paul. He provides the "proof text" of the resurrection, defines the sacrament of the Eucharist and determines the rules for Christian conduct. He remains a hero to the Orthodox, Catholic, Evangelical and liberal churches.

How does the saying go: If it's too good to be true...

To recap (and add a bit more), the most celebrated of the Corinthian letters is 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8. It claims a remarkably early date by Christian apologists and is used as evidence of the Resurrection. The so-called creed is a ubiquitous aide memoire of the first Christians lest they forgot precisely who saw the risen Christ!
Still, this "creed", is only found in this letter.                                                                   
Not one of the four gospels agrees with the list or the sequence of resurrection appearances.                                                                                                                   
Mark and John credit the first witness to Mary Magdalene yet 1 Corinthians has no women witnesses);                                                                                                                       
Luke credits "Cleopas and another" on the road to Emmaus;                                   
Matthew cites the "two Marys".                                                                                       
The gospels say nothing of any appearance to James,                                                         
to the "500" or,                                                                                                                     
to Paul, and,                                                                                                                       
the Gospels refer to eleven disciples, Judas being dead and Matthias not yet elected.

1 Cor. 15 gives Cephas/Peter/Simon primacy as witness to the resurrection even though Paul had "opposed him to his face" (Galatians 2.11) and was aggravated by a Cephas faction. Paul stresses several times the independence of his gospel from any man, yet appeals to a third-hand list of other witnesses.
The primary placement of Cephas/Peter alludes to a less than perfect 2nd century early Catholic harmonization of diverse apparition/appearance stories, with the Prince of the Apostles (second from the chief Apostle) who sinned the most and moved to top of the totem pole.

Late editing explains the awkward wording of Luke 24:34, where the 450-word story "on the road to Emmaus" is oddly eclipsed at its climax (the two witnesses have rushed back to Jerusalem but their own "good news" is upstaged by "The Lord has appeared to Simon,") without a word of explanation.

1 Corinthians 15 is late, fake and casts a very dark shadow over the authenticity of the Corinthian letters. They are quite plausibly composites of documents melded together by and for didactic and proselytizing purposes.

Who gains from the lie?

[Tank]

Unless your name is Robert M. Price, you owe that gentleman an apology for lifting his text word for word and posting it here as your own.  Next time, encourage you to simply post the link and let us read it there:
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

I will give you this, at least it was the third link down in a Google search of "corinthians interpolation"...

Morning b4g

You posted the above below a post by Gawan, implying it was his post you were refering too. Was that the case? I ask as I can't find any evidence that the key element in Gawan's post is in the linked document. So I'm a little confused.

Chris

[bandit4god]

Unless your name is Robert M. Price, you owe that gentleman an apology for lifting his text word for word and posting it here as your own.  Next time, encourage you to simply post the link and let us read it there:
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

I will give you this, at least it was the third link down in a Google search of "corinthians interpolation"...

Morning b4g

You posted the above below a post by Gawan, implying it was his post you were refering too. Was that the case? I ask as I can't find any evidence that the key element in Gawan's post is in the linked document. So I'm a little confused.

Chris

G'morning!  Yes, Gawan's long posts starting on the first page of the thread is 80+% comprised of sentences lifted directly from the article.  Nothing illegal, of course, since this is just a forum and not a literary setting, but still disappointing from an academic/intellectual representation standpoint.

Thanks for looking into this!

[Too Few Lions]

Unless your name is Robert M. Price, you owe that gentleman an apology for lifting his text word for word and posting it here as your own.  Next time, encourage you to simply post the link and let us read it there:
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

I will give you this, at least it was the third link down in a Google search of "corinthians interpolation"...

Morning b4g

You posted the above below a post by Gawan, implying it was his post you were refering too. Was that the case? I ask as I can't find any evidence that the key element in Gawan's post is in the linked document. So I'm a little confused.

Chris

G'morning!  Yes, Gawan's long posts starting on the first page of the thread is 80+% comprised of sentences lifted directly from the article.  Nothing illegal, of course, since this is just a forum and not a literary setting, but still disappointing from an academic/intellectual representation standpoint.

Thanks for looking into this!

personally, I don't see what the problem with that is, although maybe Gawen could have also included the link for further reading.

This is also rather the pot calling the kettle black, as you did exactly the same thing in your posts on 'a less selfish Pascal's wager', lifting things from this website without mentioning that your posts were directly cut and pasted from the site;

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

I think everyone is going to source information from somewhere, and Gawen doesn't make any claims that this is all his own research. It makes more sense to cut and paste and include relevant points in your post than to just have links, that doesn't make for a very strong or coherent argument. Plus, it was a post on an internet forum, not an academic paper!

[Tank]

Unless your name is Robert M. Price, you owe that gentleman an apology for lifting his text word for word and posting it here as your own.  Next time, encourage you to simply post the link and let us read it there:
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

I will give you this, at least it was the third link down in a Google search of "corinthians interpolation"...

Morning b4g

You posted the above below a post by Gawan, implying it was his post you were refering too. Was that the case? I ask as I can't find any evidence that the key element in Gawan's post is in the linked document. So I'm a little confused.

Chris

G'morning!  Yes, Gawan's long posts starting on the first page of the thread is 80+% comprised of sentences lifted directly from the article.  Nothing illegal, of course, since this is just a forum and not a literary setting, but still disappointing from an academic/intellectual representation standpoint.

Thanks for looking into this!

Please provide a specific example, quoting the post, highlight the section in the post that you feel has been copied from from another site and provide a link to the site.

Thanks