The road to Gospel publication went through the New Jerusalem, which geographically looked suspiciously like the old one, only the councils were much better, and sweet and sour pork was on the menu (or could have been if they had owned woks).
This faith was confessional and catechetical from the outset, and must have been in order to follow rabbinical traditions, which themselves were framed in light of the requirement for ecclesiastical oversight and "covenantal epistemology." Sacred knowledge was to be transmitted from generation to generation, with the canon growing and building upon previous revelation, and shunning all would-be additions from the traditions of men.
We can see this with the "Ten Words" very early under the supervisorship of Moses. These were to be memorized, "Written on the heart and mind." The proverbs reiterate this sentiment almost endlessly demanding that the law of the Lord be indellibly inscribed by constant use upon the heart of covenantally-minded men (fathers, teachers and kings). The Psalms say no less, and Solomon had clearly learned their lessons (from his father and mother) well. Kings were to read from the law daily, and "blessed is the man who watches daily at the gates" of wisdom.
The apostles, who were prophets and scribes by the command of God, followed the practices of the earlier chronicling prophets. They, following the commands of the wisdom literature to memorize the Word, and following the teachings of our Risen Lord, inscribed the basic elements of the Christian faith upon their hearts, and upon the hearts of their "children," which is precisely how the apostles saw their converts, as newborn babes in Christ. Paul called Timothy his "son in the faith," and John repeatedly calls his rabbinic disciples "little children," which is today "toddlers."
These were thus catechized relentlessly by the apostles, as good parents in the faith. This did this by forming (under the leadership of Jesus Himself) a specific menu of Christological teachings based upon the Law, Psalms and Prophets - particularly the Psalms, since these were sung in Israel from ones youth, and thus the Psalter provided a ready evangelistic platform throughout the synagogues, scattered about the Mediterranean (more heavily in the east at first), sometimes called "Diaspora Judaism."
Paul and the apostles were rabbis. They did the things that good rabbis did. This was their culture and training, founded upon the word of God. These put into practice the commandments of Christ, self-consciously eliminating from the dominical and pre-testamental (i.e. from the first testament) Christ-centered apodosis all the traditions of men, and every thought which set itself up against the knowledge of God. The did this first in the very act of crystallizing a set of truths about Jesus essential to the salvation and nurture of their children in the Lord. When a man first hears the Gospel, there are some truths of the Word more needful for him at that initial stage than others.
These of the dominical and apostolic "form of sound words" are those most essential to such persons -- initiates (novices in the faith). Only those fully catechised might be suited for the ministry of the Gospel. As mentioned before, because these literary units had a special "salvific" or kerygmatic function, they arose in an environment that was heavily Jewish, and their linguistic features, and even their (often chiastic, or symmetrical) structures reflect this fact.
Consequently, not just the wording, but "their packaging," looks specially "Semitic," and "Aramaic." Much of the Aramaic flavor of the later epistles, for instance, owes itself to these facts. Paul characteristically went to the synagogues of any town or city first, where he was often able to convert Jews and "God-fearing" Gentiles alike. These could then help Paul make further evangelistic inroads into the culture in question. Luke, for instance, appears to be a God-fearing Gentile saved by the preaching of Paul in Troas. He was also a doctor, and a prophet by spiritual gifting.
With this background in mind, we can proceed to our next mining expedition in holy writ, from the epistle to the Corinthians we call (somewhat erroneously) "1st Corinthians." Just go with it.
1 Corinthians 15:1-7 below forms the basis for today's investigation, but I have included the following 5 verses after the actual apostolic "sound word," which Paul preaches and calls "the gospel," for the sake of providing important contextual indicators. These, as we shall see, will help us to "get a clue." The mystery is on [for Paul calls the gospel the mystery of God preached among the Gentiles], and so let the sleuthing begin.
Here, I will begin by highlighting in the quotation from the AV some of the more salient features relevant to our study.
"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that 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: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles."
"And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"
First, we find that Paul has preached this message to the Corinthians. We may infer from this, and from the poetic structure of the "sound words" in the apostolic pattern of sound words -- not quite a sing-song quality, but one full of devices like alliteration (where similar sounds repeat [e.g. in English "awesome olives always allure"]) -- that Paul catechizes his congregations using these pre-approved, christological tidbits -- and then expounds upon them in sermons, filling out the details from the larger Gospel accounts known to the Church from its earlier years.
The Gospels of the evangelists, I will eventually argue, take just this same form. They are clearly built up around the approved littany ("form of sound words") filling in the details which catechumens like Theophilus would want to know. Converts presumably were not privy to the whole ministry of Jesus by way of eyewitness, as were the apostles, and some of the Christian prophets. What is more natural than a man desiring after greater knowledge of the one whom he worships? The refrain, "Please tell me more about Jesus the Christ" would surely have occasioned the Gospels.
Second, Paul implies that this literary unit, which I am happy enough to name a "pericope," despite my urgent resistance to all "Bultmanic" doctrines, was in fact part of the apostolic creedal corpus, in saying, "Therefore whether it were I or they, so **we** preach, and so ye believed." Here, the claim "So we [the apostles] preach," indicates that the apostles do what Paul does: lay down the gospel or kerygmatic pattern, and then preach from it to the congregations. The basic gospel message in the pattern is designed to set forth the most basic and essential Christian doctrines regarding the Lord Jesus Christ, and the biographic details about Him most relevant and necessary to the salvation of souls.
"So" means "in just this way." Paul does what the other apostles do in his catechising, and the basic approach to preaching the Gospel. First, he teaches them the pattern handed down unchanged for memorization among the saints. This is indicated by the technical langauge of rabbinic teaching methods, "received .... delivered," which Paul uses again in 1 Corinthians 11, to cite the dominical quotes from and about the Lord Jesus regarding the last supper.
This is how the apostles "set the Church of God in order." By following this meticulously similar pattern of establishing churches, it matters little in terms of WHICH apostle or group of apostles established just which church. Each comes out with an understanding most nearly exactly the same as all the other churches. Only the length of time a church has been established makes a primary difference in their maturity of understanding, and secondarily, the particular philosophical characteristics -- this or that heresy or challenge to the Gospel -- native to the region in which the church lives and grows. Thus, Paul speaks of the Colossians being rooted and established (by the teaching of sound words), and then of them as being "built up" by the elaboration upon those sound words from sermons which fill them out, according to the larger literary Gospels and their own personal (eyewitness-based) knowledge of the Lord Jesus.
This explains the symbolic 7 identical (ecclesiastical) lampstands in terms of the chosen "didactic mechanics" which our Lord so carefully and wisely set forth for the apostles and prophets to follow so as to many doctrinal and liturgical purity in the Church of God.
They are saved "if they keep in memory" those things which they were taught. To "remember" emphasizes covenant-keeping, the treasuring and keeping of that which they received from previous generations of faithful instructors, who received the faith from the prophets, and they from the Lord.
The aspect of covenant-keeping known as "inheritance" requires the memorization and doing -- keeping in memory -- of what is handed-down (received and delivered) without change. This is called "remembering," but conveys the sense of re-enactment, not merely a mental exercise of memorization (though not less than that either). The Word of God the Lord put into writing almost from the beginning, so that His testimony might be public, and all men might know just what He said as a preventative measure against the many corruptions of men and the malice and deceptions of Satan. The biblical concept of covenant-breaking is therefore associated with "forgetting," but forgetting has both individual and community aspects to it. When Hilkiah the priest found the law of Moses written in a book, and gave it to Josiah with a verbal shrug, Josiah realized the entire community -- upon reading it -- had forgotten (as a community) to keep and do the commandments. He tore his robe when he realized the import of that fact. It had everything to do with inheritance or disinheritance. And Josiah knew this.
Third, we may also note that the pattern of sound words aims at the salvation of souls (as mentioned) so that the Lord chose their content "according to the Scriptures," a phrase repeated by the Holy Spirit immediately so that we understand without doubt that the First Testament provides the content which forms the basis of this "pattern of sound words. If the Lord can repeat Himself for such an important point, then I also: This proves that the Older Testament is NOT the word of God emeritus, but the living and acting powerful and infallible Word of the living God. And that those who say, "It is only a set of books for the Jewish people of old" say so at the risk of their own salvation. Salvation here is the point of these sound words, and the First Testament (primarily, though certainly not exclusively, the Psalms I will argue later) remains their basis. The Book of Daniel played a prominent role as well, as noted.
To understand the New Testament aright, one must become thoroughly familiar with the Older. Moreover, the Older has a kind of prima facie greater importance in one respect, that of the fifth commandment. The fifth commandment requires that we give GREATER importance to the First Testament in our studies, and that we never neglect the Newer, for it is the very account of greater detail of the promised Messiah Himself. Now how many people prior to this post have told you that the fifth commandment has hermeneutical implicates? All the commandments do. But that is another 10 posts.
As far as I am concerned, Bibles we peruse in "Christian bookstores" should just as easily be found with "the words of Moses in red." For the Holy Spirit who gave them is one and the same Spirit in all the prophets, and each part of the biblical system of teaching is mutually necessary and supportive of, and with, all others (I do not say "with, in and under" as the Lutherans would urge upon us).
Paul "declares" to the Corinthians the Gospel. This is the same language he used in the initial Roman pericope to explain that the Holy Spirit "declared with power [the Lord Jesus] to be the Son of God" by raising Him from the dead. Paul regards the very act of raising Jesus as an act of preaching the most powerful of all messages: the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This proves that although Paul resolves to "preach Christ crucified" in a lonely fashion, never does this preaching exclude the resurrection of Christ, the essence of the Gospel itself. The several christological features, the condescending of Christ to become man, born under the law, and so forth, both leading up to, and following, his crucifixion, Paul would have us to know under the title "Christ crucified. We have seen from the Philippian, Christological "sound word" that the cross of Christ forms the central point of focus, but that the humiliation and exaltation of Christ always provide its context. Paul does not begin, nor end, with the cross, when he preaches "Christ crucified." Nevertheless, the cross remains at the center.
This was an apostolic sound word, not merely a Pauline "trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance." So we can understand that Paul's focus was not unique, only that "the grace of God worked more powerfully" with him than the rest to preach this Christian message. But the apostles were not left at didactic liberty to preach in some whimsical fashion as many have imagined. They followed the same dominical pattern of sound words, rooted in the First Testament (according to the Scriptures, which eventually became the four Gospels). This means the Gospel accounts of the New Testament we will find upon close scrutiny to bear a pattern consistent with the Old Testament teachings of Christ, as the New Testament believers understood them. I suggest, based upon my own studies (and those of others) that the sermons of the book of Acts in chapters 1-12 primarily reveal this substructural Gospel literary pattern.
This forms the basis of a New Testament view of "Gospels-critical" development. In other words, this is the biblical antidote to the rampant Bultmania so popular among New Testament scholars today. And it's actually true too, which gives it a distinct advantage over the competition. Bultmania, as some have unchristened it, is quite ironcially the product of legendary growth -- itself about a fictititous story of legendary growth. This is a literary form of Lex talionis.
Fifth, in preaching the gospel of resurrection to the Corinthians, Paul has simply delivered over t them that which he also received, and which all the apostles teach. The source is Christ Himself, having taught them forty days all things concerning Himself in the Scriptures from the Law, Psalms and Prophets, and concerning the Kingdom of God which He inherited. Paul summarizes the "Law, Psalms and Prophets" with "according to the Scriptures."
Contrary to the assumptions of many today, Paul shows that the Gospel is not only consistent with the Law here, but that it ARISES FROM the law of the Lord, "according to the [prophetic] Scriptures."
Far from being at odds one with another, the biblical notions of law and Gospel are in fact interchangeable, for all the law speaks of Christ in its commandments, as well its rhetorical devices (e.g. alliterations, etc) and linguistic features (e.g. pronouncements, questions, exclamations and the like), down to the least stroke of a stylus (pen). These were the horns and flourishes of Hebrew letters, or small parts of individual letters, about which Jesus said, "It is easier that heaven and earth should pass away than the least stroke of a pen disappear from the law" ). The KJV has it (Luke 16:17), "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." When it comes to Word of the Lord, whether its commandments (law) or promises (Gospel), there will be no failing.
Sixth, we will want to notice the Aramaic features which stand out from this text. These are many. I shall simply list them numerically. 1. Cephas as a name for Simon Peter 2. Peter and James only, mentioned by name. These are the same whom Paul said he saw in Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18). 3. The apostles are named simply "the twelve," after the 12 tribes of Israel. This suggests the formula existed prior to Paul's conversion, in say, A.D. 33-ish.
Note: this is intolerably early from all Bultmanic perspectives, and such scholars will have to regard this as nuts. But Paul clearly has to add a non-formulaic qualifier on the early tradition to explain why He is not mentioned in it. Paul's conversion was a trophy to the Church and should have been listed at length. But Paul even says he came late to the redemptive historical office, as one "born out of due time." This is not a pre- but post- mature birth. He acknowledges that he was later than all the other apostles, but emphasizes the point at hand: that it made no difference since this "form of sound words" was apostolic, meaning from the twelve, from a source prior to Paul. The twelve spoke Aramaic, and called Peter "Cephas."
When "the twelve" formed these sayings, and ministered by them, Paul was out christian-hunting.
Now He preaches just what they preach by the appointed catechism from the Twelve. This shows a reversal. Paul now submits to those whom he formerly persecuted, and Paul preaches more aggressively than all of them that to which God had called him. His recounted resume of beatings, stonings, times left for dead, jailings, and shipwrecks is most impressive. Paul had an extraordinary "evangelistic rap sheet," such that he could say, "I bear the marks of Jesus in my body. Let no man trouble me." A missionary medical doctor -- Luke was the original red cross -- was his traveling companion.
We know Paul's "Seen of me also" phrase forms an addition since it switches from the third person to the first person, but mimicks the "seen of" phrase which was part of the original. This forms 4. The divine passive (seen of) 5. "received .... delivered ... remembered" triad is an Aramaism of rabbinic tradition which sometimes appears only in a couplet using but the first two verbs in the phrase. Paul repeats it in chapter 11:1-2.
Here, Paul writes [with my interpretive aid in brackets like these],
"Be ye followers of me [be true disciples of me, Rabbi Paul], even as I also am [a first-generation disciple] of [Jesus] Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things [i.e. you keep my doctrines and liturgy intact], and keep the ordinances, [just] as I delivered them to you [unchanged, from Christ, from whom we apostles received those ordinances to set the Church in order].
Later Paul asks, "shall I praise you in this? I do not..." showing that when he praises them, it indicates an area of submission to the rabbinic apodosis, and when the deviate from the faith once for all delivered to the saints, Paul chastises them instead of praising them. Paul's job, in many ways, was already cut out for him, and required little innovation (in fact, innovation was forbidden most places). Staying alive, on the other hand, required great innovation, the grace of God, and a good doctor.
God praises the man who submits skillfully, applying and doing what God commands without being tempted to take shortcuts or add his own "great ideas." Preservation (study, insight and exposition) of the original masterpiece is what the Great commission requires, while innovation is the stuff of the dominion mandate, not the Great Commission.
6. The very first part of this pericope opens with the triad, "died, was buried, was raised." This forms a more elaborate chiasmus in Philippians 2:6-11, where we see more fully what Paul means by it. Triadic repetition forms a common Aramaism, as in "Ask and it shall be given you; seek and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you; or again, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." These show up in the wisdom literature of the Proverbs of kings (Solomon chiefly), upon the lips of One greater than Solomon, the Lord Jesus Himself, and with the writings of Paul (who presents himself as a New Covenant "Bezalel," from the Greek text of 1 corinthians, with the LXX technical term "Mastercraftsman") on a regular basis.
7. "According to the Scriptures" sums up the way in which Jesus characteristically spoke of Himself as the fulfillment of the Law, Psalms and Prophets. Luke details this. Here, the phrase repeats in a prophetic doublet. This occurs often in prophetic, and especially apocalyptic, literature. The book of Revelation has numerous instances of such reiterative phrases. This highlights a perspective taken from the prophetic vantage point of the OLD TESTAMENT which looks forward to fulfillment in Jesus. Here, "the writings" (the Hebrew term for once section of the Older Testament, as well as the whole of it) looks forward to fulfillment in Christ, the way a Jew who was the target of its evangelistic efforts would see the world.
This way of writing suggests the authors see Jesus as the fulfillment of all things written in the first testament, "upon whom the consummation of the ages has come." Paul writes "teaching and warning every man" when he preaches (Col. 1:26) the gospel. Here, we find one such warning, where Paul uses the perspective of the Old Testament looking forward to warn Christians (New Covenant saints) in 1 Cor. 10:10-12:
"Neither murmur ye, as some of them [in the days of Moses and the beginning of God's covenant with Israel] also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for examples [as types for us]: and they are written [as Holy Scripture] for our admonition, [we who live at the end of days when Christ comes] upon whom the ends of the [Old Covenant] world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed [take this warning to heart] lest he fall."
This 40 year period of wandering in the days of Moses corresponds to the forty days of teaching that Christ used to instill the pattern of sound words within the apostles, just as God gave the Ten Words to Moses. This forty-day transitional teaching period precipitated the next phase in "all that Jesus began to do and to teach." The ministry of Jesus now passed onto the apostles, wherein Jesus, by the mighty working of another paraclete like Him, would continue. That ministry began in A.D. 27. It continued til about A.D. 66 when the Jewish war began that ended the Judaism of the Second Temple. Thus the ministry of Jesus to the ancient Jews lasted forty years.
Just as it is written: "Forty years they saw my works." Hebrews interestingly applies this to the new covenant generation, when it was said of the generation of Moses, and Hebrews directly compares Jesus to Moses, as a greater prophet. Hebrews sees Jesus then as the prophet "like unto Moses" who would come and teach all God's people. Anyone who did not listen to Him in all that He said would be completely cut off [read "A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalsem"] from among the people. Promised, delivered. The prophecy was written by Moses, and fulfilled by Jesus, One greater than Moses.
For God has in times past spoken to the ancients by the prophets, Says Hebrews, "but in these last days [not those last days still far off, but "these last days" of the Older Covenant represented by Moses], NOW, He has spoken to us by His Son, Jesus. Here is my brief rendition of that text for clarity:
"God ... Hath in these last days [forty years, until the Temple should be destroyed] spoken unto us by his Son [to us New Covenant saints upon whom the end of the [Old] world has come], whom he [The Father] hath appointed heir of all things [promised to Israel], by whom also he made the worlds [Of Genesis, i.e. kingdoms, of things in heaven, on the earth and under the earth]; Who being the [real] brightness of His [Temple] glory, and the express image of his [heavenly] person, and upholding all things [in heaven and on earth created from the beginning] by the word of his power, when he had by [the sacrifice of] himself purged our sins [once for all so that the Temple was now moot], sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high [In heaven, for which the Holy of holies stood as but a symbol and type]."
In short, the Lord Jesus overcame all things, crushed the opposition, and sat down in victory after making atonement for the sins of His people. Everything that made the Temple "The Temple" is now seated at God's right hand. God then gave the Jews a forty-year stay of execution because Jesus the great High Priest had prayed "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." The high Priest can cover sins of ignorance by his sacrifices. Here, Jesus pronounced them sinners in ignorance -- they do NOT KNOW what it is they do. This made them fit for atonement, of all who might repent. They did not kill Jesus with a high hand, but in a sin of ignorance. Judas was far worse off.
This was the redemptive-historical situation in which the New Covenant believers found themselves, a transitional 40 year period in which the old covenant order was on its way out, and the new world on its way in. And for forty years, Jesus and the apostles did many mighty works.
The Aramaisms of the Corinthian pericope bear out the fact that when it was formed, Saul was not yet converted to the faith once for all delivered to the apostles (and from them to the saints) in catechetical form. Paul was a latecomer, born "out of due time," meaning after the apostleship -- and its form of sound words -- had already been given by Christ to the rest of the twelve. Paul was not present for the forty-day teaching marathon (the "Sophiathon" in Greek). Some people go on shopping sprees, others on wisdom sprees. This was the latter.
Paul received his teaching from Christ nevertheless, most likely in the Arabian desert where he stayed some 3 years (Galatians 1) without explaining why. We know that Jesus startlingly and directly confronted him on the road to Emmaus. And Paul speaks of a man who knew who went to the third heaven, as did John in the description of Revelation 1. This "man" was in all likelihood, Paul himself who wrote of "inexpressible things." If they were inexpressible, how did Paul know of them unless he was the recipient of such knowledge? A better (and much lengthier case one can muster from various points in Paul's writings but that is not the purpose of today's post.
Finally, we note of the Aramaic-based pericope that God "bestowed" grace upon Paul. This refers directly to the holy Spirit as God's agent of grace to Paul, and speaks of Paul after the fashion of kings. The psalms speak of the crown of kings as "bestowed" upon them, not simply given them. Likewise, John speaks this way of Christians who have "an anointing from the Father." 1 John 3:1-2 uses just this verb, saying:
"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
Beloved [That is, "Jedidiahs"], now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him [Jesus, the Beloved Son] for we shall see him as he is."
For the Lord had declared, "This is my Beloved Son, Hear ye Him." One who is beloved of the Lord, like king Solomon -- for Jesus is King Solomon II -- the Lord of wisdom (the uncut version) -- upon such a one is bestowed the spirit of sonship, which makes one loved of the Lord, or rather shows the love of God. Heavenly love comes by the Heavenly Spirit.
Now John calls the saints, "beloved" [of the Lord]. Now this is love, not that we first loved Him, but that He first loved us. The love of the good shepherd compels Him to seek and save that which was lost. He does not wait for them to search him out, but goes after them. The phrase "what manner" comprises an Aramaic idiom meaning "not of earthly categories" (or "from heaven"). When the Lord calms wind and wave, they ask "what manner of man is this?"
Here, heavenly love that transcends earthly categories God "bestows" on his people [crowns them], making them (marking them) as "beloved" kings. For every son of the Most High King is also a king. This is confirmed by "we shall be like Him" -- kings and priests. John interchanges (the careful student will notice) bestow with "anoint." Anointing is a form of crowning. So is baptism. The baptism of the spirit is thus alternately an "anointing" (The Bible refering either to baptism or to that for which baptism stands by the same verb "to anoint"). One anoints prophets, priests, or kings with oil. The Messiah (Christ) is thus supremely the Anointed One, and christians are "anointed ones." This refers to outward public baptism.
It renders them members of the royal priesthood, and holy nation, participants in the Covenant of Grace. Baptism, like a kings crown, is bestowed upon persons "from above." So also the Spirit to whom John refers, who makes One a son of the kingdom. His chief fruit is love (Gal. 5:22-23) and so John refers to the Holy Spirit in the phrase "behold what manner of love" meaning "God has made us sons by bestowing upon us from above a heavenly Spirit of godly love. For this love fulfills the commandments (which are also from above, from the Spirit of love).
The 500 brethren who saw Christ "all at once" renders further proof that the apostolic documents and Gospel accounts carry the deuteronomic eye-witness obligation to its fruition by researching thoroughly that of which they write, and of submitting it -- as it were -- prior to publication by the apostolic editorial review board. The phrase, "500 brethren at once" does not in any way imply that these people were not in the same location. It only implies that they were all in the same one location when Christ appeared to them, and that all saw him.
Paul has to make a case against the doubters in the Corinthian crowd. The Corinthians are inveterate "Greeks," who had heard enough (already!) about resurrections of Isis, and of Hermes, and on AND ON, it went in the ancient world. To them the resurrection story was overdone, and by our standards something of a "B movie" waiting to happen. This text thus shows that resurrection elements of the Gospel accounts were in fact counterproductive features. Even the Greek "believers" didn't really believe in resurrections. They needed extra convincing from Paul, who says to them in effect, 'If you do not believe me, just go ask around downtown Jerusalem, where the better part of 500 people will tell you, "Yep, Seen Him." They are still there, and you can go ask for yourself.
Doubtless, some of them took Paul up on this. I would have, in a heartbeat. Luke did. Recall that the Gospels themselves record that this was the earliest point of counterattack on the Gospel claims by way of rumor, "The disciples came in the night and stole the body." The fact that the Gospels record what it would have been better to leave out -- a somewhat embarrassing "mundane" (and easier to believe) alternative to the extraordinary Gospel claims about dead people getting up and preaching -- shows that the Gospel writers knew very well the intellectual climate of opinion in their day and did not hesitate to say what others claimed against the Gospel. They could have omitted this. This claim shows up in rabbinic literature of later centuries as well, confirming the Gospel accounts.
So here, we have 3 points worth noting. Paul appeals to contemporary eyewitnesses of large numbers, which would have been meaningless -- or worse falsifying -- had they not actually existed. Second, this places a time limit of perhaps a few years on the pericope. It predates Paul's letter, and was adapted to it by citation. But even when the letter was written (say 20 years after the resurrection or so) most of those who saw Jesus were still alive.
The Corinthian resurrection pericope was much earlier. It also appealed to contemporary eyewitnesses, in one instance by a name by which the apostle Peter was no longer called -- the Aramaic "Cephas." No were the apostles called "the twelve" in later New Testament literature, suggesting (like Cephas) an early date by way of internal evidence. It mentions only the Jerusalem apostolic "pillars" -- James and Cephas -- by name, suggesting that at the time of its formulation, this particular urban Church was considered the bulwark of Christendom, as in Acts 15 and 21. This also suggests that it was formed in Jerusalem by "the twelve" within a timeframe consistent with the occurences it names.
In other words, it may have been formed as an adjunct event to the main events transpiring in Jerusalem around which the councils of Acts 15 and 21. Perhaps the rumors with which the Gospel had to contend eventuated their production, or simply (most likely) standard biblical and rabbinic "wisdom practices" would have required the words and deeds of Jesus commemorated both in memorized oral tradition and in writing. The greatest of the prophets, Jesus, had appointed scribes, and gave them "another paraclete" to recall to mind what they were taught by the man they all called "Rabbi."
The writings about Jesus could easily have begun by the scribes Jesus encountered and debated (or others who would have memorized his teachings as any good Rabbinic disciple would do) during Jesus' earthly ministry. After all records Luke, "the people hung on his every word." Surely memorizing or transcribing what fascinates a disciple was not outside the question, and Matthew the tax collector HAD to be able to write (calculate and defend his calculations) to do his job. So did Zacchaeus. People hated the tax collectors and would often accuse them to get them in trouble. The ones who stayed out of jail [They had CEO's in jail back then too, after a fashion] were natural-born apologists with numbers and explanations.
In one of the parables Jesus told of a "crafty steward" we find him writing. The calculators could write because they had to, at times to justify their numbers to their masters. Their world was not that different from ours in some ways, and one of those ways is called "an audit." You could always hire a second accountant to check on the first (or have the government do it for free if you accuse the guy enough times).
Conclusion: this apologetically-adapted pericope predated Paul's own conversion, and he received it from "the twelve" in Jerusalem, where Cephas and James ruled as pillars among equals. The Aramaic qualities of this segment show an Old Testament-oriented perspective, which sees Jesus the Messiah as a long-held future promise just now fulfilled. It seems to follow a chronological order, even in its details, Christ died, was buried rose, was seen, and is preached among men. This formula also fits that of the 1 Timothy primitive Christological pericope, which adds more detail, in the form of a humiliation-exaltation chiasmus.
The ascension and session of Christ to the Father's right hand come only later in this letter in chapter 15, which more openly and extensively treats the resurrection (which turns out to be quite the postmillenial event). Paul's opening salvo engaged by this pericope stops at the resurrection and proof of it one may obtain because of the occasion for which this letter was written. Paul is doing apologetics and the topic is resurrection.
Paul reinforces that what he teaches by this pericope all the apostles teach and preach. This is formal doctrine established by the eyewitness testimony of the twelve, and of the better part of 500 "brethren." The post-resurrection appearance convinced them. So they would be friendly to any Christian inquiry about the matter. They were available for the asking Paul challenged. Paul must have met some of them in Acts 15 or earlier through the Christian prophet "Ananias," who healed him of his post-conversion blindness.
But these were doubtless in Jerusalem, as is everything mentioned in this Corinthian pericope. More can -- and Lord willing shall - be learned by justaposing and overlapping this pericope with the other sound words from the apodosis we have so far briefly investigated.
With certainty, we can say this pericope has a primitive, but high Christology, consistent with that of the other "sound words" of the dominical corpus. It is based on eyewitness testimony, of the apostles and the 500 in Jerusalem (whom doubtless Luke interrogated at length). Perhaps Paul includes the two on the road to Emmaus in this group, not mentioning them separately as Luke does. Luke knows a great deal. And Paul knows Luke well. The apostles read and approved Luke's gospel. They were Rabbis, and (according to the Gospels) such are responsible for the teachings and doings of their disciples. Thus, they said to Jesus, "Rebuke your disciples!" And He said, "If I cause them to cease, the very rocks will cry out" (meaning, "Mind your own business").
The Aramaic and Semitic features of this pericope testify in one voice with its details and chronological indicators. It came from Jerusalem. It came from the twelve. It came when Peter was still known as "Cephas" and when the Jerusalem presbytery -- yes, I said presbytery --was the central authority of the Christian Church. [Apparently, its authority did not reach as far as Asia Minor, where we find Jesus the priest-king walking in the midst of that presbytery, and reproving and praising the churches of said presbytery according to how faithfully the following the dominical and apostolic mandates -- note: the lampstands representing the churches were identical, while the churches themselves were not. Thus, discipline was in order since the churches -- minus two -- were not].
This pericope shows the same basic pattern as the other sound words, focusing on the resurrection and the proof for it over against the skeptical "Jesus Seminar" doubters of the day, who knew something about religiongeschichtliche -- comparative "resurrection" accounts of different religions. Paul's answer -- extended throughout the letter -- shows that Paul's christology includes the ascension and session of Christ (vis a vis Psalm 110:1), which for him is implicit in the pericope cited earlier (as we know from also from Php. 2:6-11, and 1 Tim. 3:16ff, where the same apostolic corpus is cited).
The resurrection proof centers on Jerusalem, and the events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. It focuses upon eyewitness testimony showing -- see 2 Cor. 13:1 -- that Paul understands the concept of historical proof in deuteronomic-legal terms. The OT case-law legislation forms the basis of NT historiography. Lukan-Pauline historiography is openly theonomic, and not tied per se to the ten commandments, but to the particular applications of those commandments found in the 616 "spiritual laws."
The doctrine of the bodily resurrection of Christ clearly forms a counterproductive element in term of evangelistic success among Greeks (as with the Sadducees, who said there is no resurrection, nor did any believe in angels), just as the crucifixion of Christ offended among all three major culture groups of Paul's day which formed evangelistic targets. In each case, the apostles met this skepticism with eyewitness testimony. This forms the bulwark of any true "Christian" historiography. There is no "Q." This non-referential term grew out of a set of postmodern legends about the historical trajectory of Gospel development, as Luke's prologues and the apostolic tradition make clear.
The "Q conspiracy" thus represents a myth of the kind postmoderns ascribe to early Christians, calling them "illiterate," when such contemporaries -- who cannot read the internal evidence of the Gospels themselves -- look like the better candidates for literacy-challenged epithets. Let us call them "historically-disadvantaged and apodictically-challenged scholars."
The specific theology of this pericope Paul sees as consistent with, and prophesied by, the Psalms. The early "sermon laden" chapters of the Book of Acts show this to be a common view among all the apostles. The christology therein represented remains part and parcel of the apodosis, and it comes from the Psalms. The apostles all concur that what the Psalms prophesy they have seen with their own eyes, together with some 500 others who converted after seeing Jesus all at the same time in some district of Jerusalem, shortly after the death of Jesus.
Paul here proclaims "the Gospel" from the sound-word tradition, and does not hesitate to put it in a decisively Psalmic context, the context from which the apodosis originated, as it was explained by Jesus over forty days to his disciples. Jesus showed them then all things in the three-fold Bible (according to the Scriptures) of the prophecies concerning Himself, and of the kingdom of God. The rabbinic apostles delivered this corpus to others (converts like Theophilus) just as they had received it -- without alteration.
So perfect was this tradition that upon thorough investigation, Luke found his researches totally consistent with the apodosis. The fruit of Luke's interrogations is worth reviewing just once more. Let's shall [with my bracketed interpolations as usual]:
"Forasmuch as many [Christians like Matthew, Mark and others] have taken in hand [with a pen called a "stylus"] to set forth in order [and in writing] a declaration [this refers to the Gospel, sacred writing requiring the utmost care and accuracy] of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning [Of Jesus' ministry] were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; [apostolic scribes]
[Here, note that we are told that the earlier MANY Gospel accounts which Luke has read all have one thing in common: these declarations of the Gospel all had to be "even as the apostles delivered such teachings to us from Jesus. I added "from Jesus" because Paul makes it clear that this is the source of the sound-word tradition by which the apostle operate when preaching the Gospel. This means Luke's Gospel, like the others, was undertaken with apostolic approval and final consent. THEY were the guarantors of all things published in the name of Christ or the Church.
It seemed good to me also [though not an apostle], [but since I observed them firsthand] having had perfect understanding of all things from the **very** first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, [The form of sound words] wherein thou hast been instructed" [catechised as a new convert who wanted to know more about Jesus like most people, which explains the MANY Gospel accounts written -- besides Matthew, Mark and John - all of which had to pass the apostolic editorial review board before publication."
And now for a positively unscientific postscript that will never make it on public television, where mediocre historiography reigns supreme.
These MANY accounts affirmed by Luke incidentally -- not as some proof or other -- show that:
1. John Dominic Crossan is badly mistaken on his illiteracy thesis. The early Christians burst forth with a veritable renaissance of education and literacy on account of their zeal for Jesus the way the Puritans made everyone literate so they could read what these Christians had earlier written. In case they still haven't noticed, biblicists tend to write alot. Find a minister whose bookshelf is but a few books long and I will show you a planet that does not orbit.
And they didn't have blogs yet.
2. Sacred writing required extraordinary controls, because God does not approve lies in His Name. This is a matter of keeping the third and ninth commandments, not simply a matter of scribbling out mutually-conflicting books to make money on the latest criteriologically-challenged portrait of the alleged "historical Jesus," where historical seems to mean "faddish."
This OT-based understanding of historiography -- historical writing -- precludes any sort of legendary growth in the nature of the case. The apostles deliberately prevented any ideological drift whatever, in the name of presenting and defending the faith of Jesus from error, to which all the NT testifies they gave their full attention.
3. These controls in every case were anchored in Jerusalem and consisted of people having had "a perfect [eyewitness-based] understanding" of what Jesus in fact did and said. They were collectively (not individually) eyewitnesses, and could write and compare notes, one with the others, at their leisure.
4. Everything about the form of sound words suggests they were Psalmic, Danielic, Deuteronomic, and extremely early in terms of their writing. They are highly Semitic compared with the surrounding texts into which they are embedded, and to which the apostles adapt them. Paul and the others plainly affirm that these were carefully guarded as the "Gospel of Christ," and were thoroughly researched repeatedly by "many" who wrote many accounts each which met with apostolic approval.
The evidence is far better than one could reasonably expect. On top of all this evidence, the apostles and prophets repeatedly worked miracles in their communities and transformed them into charitable and (by all accounts) the better citizens in the Empire -- except for those stiff knees and their "Caesar lordship" allergies.
5. Any criteriology used against the Bible's own historiographic traditions (as an arbitrary substitute which cannot justify itself) will self-destruct in the nature of the case, as has been shown repeatedly already. Many of those popular today cannot pass their own suggested implicates, cannot survive other criteria with which they are used, and simply (even if they could) do not manage what they pretend for oversimplifying or simply mistaking the actual historical situation of first-century Judaism(s?) and Christianity.
There is no good reason to reject or simply ignore the clear Lukan-Pauline-apostolic testimony to early Christian historical writing; and the contrary is logically impossible.
No comments:
Post a Comment