What the Radicals and Conservatives Have in Common

Elsewhere, I have written about my annoyance with mainstream New Testament scholars. Here I sum up the situation: “Only scholars who are ‘off the radar screen’ ever say things like ‘all of the epistles are patchworks.’ Ehrman, a relatively moderate scholar, observed, ‘Sometimes a letter attributed to Paul is at odds with what Paul says elsewhere.’” To give an example, I commented, “There is no problem with holding the view that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, but there is a problem with believing that the same person who wrote 1 Corinthians 15 also wrote 2 Corinthians 5. Read the teachings for yourself.” To his credit, I wouldn’t know about the obscure teaching found in 2 Corinthians if it weren’t for James Tabor. Unfortunately, I can’t help but get annoyed when Tabor writes as if there is no discrepancy between the two letters. It’s not just me who saw a discrepancy. An actual scholar, Willi Marxsen, didn’t think you could reconcile the teachings ("Christian Faith as Resurrection of the Dead," 1978, Jesus and the Church, 1992, 103). I remarked, “Willi Marxsen argued that by the time Paul wrote 2 Cor. 5:1-10, he ‘modifies his statements,’ but this view is, perhaps, more offensive than the interpolation/forgery hypothesis.” I believe I’ve found another situation where the mainstreamers can’t apparently harmonize the traditions that have come down to us. Ironically, the conservatives and the radicals, not bound by mainstream critical scholarship, are in agreement about some verses because harmonization is not a problem for them. For example, Gary Habermas bases his case for the resurrection on 1 Corinthians 15:11. Robert Price, the radical, agrees with Habermas on the interpretation of that verse: “clearly the whole point of 1 Cor 15:11, and at least the clear implication of verses 5-7, is that the quoted creed is the mainstream of the tradition” (https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html). Price doesn’t have to worry about harmonizing the letter with other historical traditions because he can argue that the section is an interpolation. Mainstream scholars can’t do that (yet? See below for an exception). Conservatives don’t have to worry about harmonization because they can always harmonize the texts if they are really determined to. Ehrman, however, takes the “doubt tradition” seriously (See my post about it here: https://jmgiardi.wixsite.com/stubborncredulity/post/how-jesus-became-god-ten-years-later). Being mainstream, he also has to accept the authenticity of 1 Corinthians 15. In my opinion though, it’s very difficult to harmonize the doubt tradition with 1 Corinthians 15. Ehrman does believe that there is an interpolation in 1 Corinthians, just not in Chapter 15, and he conceded that you could argue for an interpolation based on the “internal” evidence alone (https://ehrmanblog.org/paul-and-the-status-of-women/). If the interpolation hypothesis is too radical, why can’t someone argue that these letters are actually compilations of multiple letters (See Reginald H. Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1962, 68 & 69)? Ehrman admits that there are several forged letters that aren’t actually from Paul. Why can’t there be “partitions” that are actually forgeries? Perhaps, the doubt tradition can be harmonized with 1 Corinthians, and there’s no problem, but I don’t see why we have to twist the text when there are other options. In a footnote, Burton Mack wrote, “If one suspects that Paul was the one to add the list of appearances to the kerygmatic formula…” (A Myth of Innocence, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988, 113, fn). If Paul added the list, then the conservative interpretation of “This is the message we gave, and this is the message you believed” (1 Corinthians 15:11 Worldwide English) is sort of precluded. The noun “this” is always problematic unless it’s obvious what the noun refers to. Does the noun “this” refer only to the kerygmatic formula? If I read him correctly, Habermas didn’t think the formula ended with “he appeared to Cephas”. However, if it extends any longer, then I don’t see how one can harmonize the doubt tradition with the kerygma formula. Although the doubt tradition is only found in the Gospels, it’s, in my judgement, historical because there’s no reason why later Christians would make it up. It’s also hard for me to believe that Paul just added the appearances to the teaching, but it’s possible. He sent the Corinthians an earlier letter that didn’t survive. That letter may have only contained the kerygmatic formula portion, so it would have been clear what Paul meant by the noun “this”. Mack had reasons for thinking that Paul added the list of appearances, so maybe the apostles weren’t preaching the entirety of verses 3 – 7. If Paul actually wrote that part of the letter, it raises questions that may never be resolved. Even if Paul didn’t mean to say that Peter was preaching all of verse 5, one still has to wonder how Paul could make all of these claims if the doubt tradition renders the appearance to “the Twelve” to be unhistorical. Again, these problems could be resolved by just saying that 1 Corinthians 15 is part of a forgery or a partition or an interpolation, but that’s out of bounds. The conservative interpretation—to say that “the Twelve” didn’t really mean literally twelve people or to say that Jesus appeared to the Twelve after Judas was replaced (even though that appearance is never narrated anywhere, not even in Acts, which is supposed to be a history of the early Church)—has its own problems. When a text causes so many problems, I am curious to know why it has to be authentic.