^{page 439 note 1} Barth, K., Die Auferstehung der Toten, 1924 (E.T. The Resurrection of the Dead, 1933),Google ScholarBultmann, R., ‘Karl Barth, “Die Auferstehung der Toten”’ (1926),Google Scholar in Glauben und Verstehen, I, 1958 ³, 38–64.Google Scholar

^{page 439 note 2} Schmithals, W., Die Gnosis in Korinth (² 1965). Cf. esp. pp. 146–50.Google Scholar

^{page 439 note 3} See below, pp. 448 ff.

^{page 440 note 1} Schmithals, op. cit. pp. 150, 324 is of the opposite opinion. Though evidence for such a disagreement seems conspicuous by its absence from chapter xv, Schmithals correctly raises the Putative question with regard to any alleged gnostic orientation of the Corinthian opponents. To continue, however, as he does by suggesting that the point is blurred because the Corinthian ‘gnostics’ belived in Jesus' ascension, and for Paul ascension and resurrection are one, is to ignore the entire thrust of vv. 20–8. Furthermore, if the differences between Paul and its opponents go back to disagreement over the facticity of the resurrection, it is curious that Paul should fail to understand and underline this point. If one is not persuaded that the Corinthians are gnostics in any usual sense of that term, the putative question turns out to be irrelevant.

^{page 440 note 2} There are no grounds for supposing that the custom is limited to some group distinct from the τινες of υ. 12; nor does Paul register any opinion about its propriety, perhaps because he is utilizing the example to his own advantage in this argument. In any event, that means that Paul identifies the practice with those against whom he argues.

^{page 440 note 3} So Robertson, A. and Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (² 1914), pp. 239 f.Google Scholar, though they allow the possibility of an Epicurean view in Corinth. Weiss, J., Der erste Korintherbrief (1910), p. 345,Google Scholar sees Paul struggling against a Greek mentality, but also seeking to avoid a too materialistic conception of resurrection, and thus searching for a ‘Mittelbegriff”.

^{page 440 note 4} Bultmann, op. cit. p. 55 and Theology of the New Testament, I (1951), 169;Google ScholarSchniewind, J., ‘Die Leugner der Auferstehung in Korinth’ in Nachgelassene Reden und Aufsätze, hrsg. Kähler, v. E. (1952), pp. 110–39.Google Scholar

^{page 441 note 1} Barth, , Resurrection, p. 151.Google Scholar

^{page 441 note 2} When Barth, ibid. p. 172, objects to the apocalyptic appearance of the language and erroneously seeks to soften it by adopting the readings of Hofmann, he actually acknowledges how very critical the passage really is.

^{page 441 note 3} Cf. below, pp. 448.

^{page 443 note 1} Interestingly enough, Weiss must finally himself despair of the logic he tries to identify: ‘This argument ad hominem is in no sense of a logical nature’, op. cit. p. 354.

^{page 443 note 2} G. u. V. I, 53–4, where Bultmann is in essential agreement with Barth before him. On this reading, vv. 12–19 show that where Christ is denied as a special category, faith really is in vain. To say that Christ is a special category is to say that the kerygma, and hence faith, rests on revelation, on miracle. Without this revelation there would be no basis for faith.

^{page 444 note 1} Bultmann chooses this path because he concentrates solely on the nature of faith, and wishes to insist that it is not the same as inferential knowledge. That is to say, the kerygma itself is not propositional and cannot be objectified. As regards vv. 12–19, there is a subtle strength in this interpretation, because he keeps it consistent with what he conceives to be the true and proper limits of xv. 3–8, which he ‘cannot accept … as kerygma’, Kerygma and Myth, ed. Bartsch, H.-W. (1957), p. 112.Google Scholar

^{page 444 note 2} It seems unlikely that if these were the circumstances Paul would fail to hear the implicit answer to his own question in ν. 29, namely, that his own guess about the Corinthian position regarding resurrection must be wrong.

^{page 444 note 3} Whatever the origin and meaning of the custom, it does not imply that death is considered the normal route to resurrection. It is Paul who seeks to make the custom and the claim appear mutually exclusive.

^{page 445 note 1} As found in RSV.

^{page 445 note 2} I am indebted to Prof. Paul W. Meyer for this and other suggestions made in an unpublished paper on the problem of NT tradition and its control, though even in regard to ν. 19 and certainly with reference to the larger pattern of argument in I Cor. xv there would be significant differences in our interpretation of the problem.

^{page 445 note 3} Mμστ⋯ριον is probably the correct reading in ii. 1, but even if μαρτ⋯ριον were preferred, the almost periphrastic construction with καταγγ⋯λλειν and once again the barbed context (‘testimony in lofty words or wisdom’) would suggest a Corinthian milieu. Otherwise, μαρτ⋯ριον is not used for the gospel message in the undisputed Pauline letters (cf. II Thess. i. 10).

^{page 446 note 1} As it is of the Pastorals (cf. I Tim. ii. 6 and II Tim. i. 8), where the same problem of collapsed eschatology is evident. II Tim. ii. 18.

^{page 446 note 2} The use of ⋯μ⋯ν/ὺμ⋯ν (υ. 14), εὺρι7sigma;κ⋯μεθα,υ 15 and ὺμ⋯ν (bis)υ. 17 would makeitappear that Paul is simply rehearsing the structure of the argument and drawing the obvious implications about himself and other Christian preachers. But nothing precludes the possibility that this is more nearly a direct quotation from preachers within Corinth.

^{page 446 note 3} Though π⋯ς only infrequently refers to ‘manner’ in NT (Bauer, cf. J., ‘Πωσ in griechischen Bible’, Nov. Test. II (1957), 81–9),CrossRefGoogle Scholar nothing would exclude such a use here.

^{page 447 note 1} As will become evident below, the Corinthians have executed a subtle manoeuvre in erecting their theological scaffolding on this kerygmatic platform. Whether they intended to or not, they have forced the whole issue of warrants for the kerygma.

^{page 448 note 1} This point is too well established and the literature too well known to require documentation here. A good sampling of the discussion will be found in the citations in Hahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel (² 1964), pp. 197 ff.Google Scholar, and Wegenast, K., Das Verstädnis der Tradition bei Paulus und in den Deuteropaulinen (1962), pp. 52 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 1} Jeremias, Cf. J., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (1955), pp. 129–30.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 2} Hahn, op. cit. pp. 197–8; Wegenast, op. cit. pp. 54–5; Schmithals, W., Das Kirchliche Apostelaml (1961), p. 65.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 3} Klein, Cf. G., Die zwöIf Apostel (1961), pp. 39 ff. and below, pp. 450 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 4} Holl, K., ‘Der Kirchenbegriff des Paulus in seinem Verhältnis zu dem der Urgemeinde’ (1921), reprinted most recently in Das Paulusbild in der neueren deutschen Forschung, ed. Rengstorf, K. H. (1964), pp. 144–78.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 5} For these see Allen, E. L., ‘The Lost Kerygma’, N.T.S. III (1957), 349Google Scholar and the references in Wegenast, op. cit. p. 54 n. 4.

^{page 449 note 6} There is a median stage represented by those who can, by positing rival traditions in vv. 5 and 7, account for some of the accumulation. But they shed little light on v. 6, and thus evade the central matter itself. Cf. Harnack, A., ‘Die Verklärungsgeschichte Jesu, der Bericht des Paulus (I Kor. 15, 3 ff.) und die beiden Christusvisionen des Petrus’, Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaft, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse (1922), pp. 63–4;Google ScholarSass, G., Apostelamt und Kirche (1939), pp. 97 ff.Google Scholar; Bammel, E., ‘Herkunft und Funktion der Traditionselemente in I Kor. 15: I-II’, T.Z. II (1955), 401–19.Google Scholar

^{page 449 note 7} This assumption has almost canonical status in current interpretations. So, for example, Bultmann, , G. u. V. I, 54–5,Google Scholar who finds this a vain effort on Paul's part; Kümmel, W.-G., Kirchenbegriff und Geschichtsbewusstsein in der Urgemeinde und bei Jesus (1943), p. 4;Google Scholar Bammel, op. cit. p. 403 (complete in a ‘juridical’ sense); Schmithals, , Apostelamt, p. 64;Google ScholarKlein, , Apostel, p. 43;Google ScholarLietzmann, H., An die Korinther, I, II (⁴ 1949),Google Scholar erg. von W.-G. Kümmel), p. 77. In his supplement, p. 192 (to p. 79, line I), Kümmel modifies his earlier stance enough to explain how this testimony can be seen as referring to an event historically ‘datable’ but only eschatologically ‘perceptible’.

^{page 450 note 1} Cf. above, p. 440 n. I.

^{page 450 note 2} If υυ. 6 and 7 were to be regarded as traditional and pre-Pauline, they could reflect an original desire to warrant the unparalleled claim that Jesus was raised from the dead. They could also reflect the desire to warrant a different claim, the claim to a commission for those to whom the appearances were vouchsafed. The question, however, is whether Paul uses them for either purpose. It is not their status as tradition but their function within vv. 1-11 which is central here.

^{page 450 note 3} Schmithals' argument to the contrary misses the point (Apostelamt, p. 68). The question is not whether the apostles were called singly or en masse. Granted, the best evidence we have is Paul himself, and the answer is thus clear. But the question here is, in light of all that, why would Paul of all people give or leave the impression of a single event of this collective nature? When Schmithals goes on to argue that comparisons with ειτα τοīς δώδεκα are illegitimate because that is a pre-Pauline tradition, he fails to see that this is precisely the clue.

^{page 450 note 4} Holl's thesis that ‘all the apostles’ is a cumulative reference to the previously mentioned twelve plus the immeditaley preceding James now appears an aberration in a persuasive line of interpretation stretching from Lightfoot, J. B. (The Epistle of St Paul to the Galatians (1962) ⊏3rd ed. repr.⊐, pp. 92 ff.)Google Scholar to Schmithals (Apostelamt, p. 66). On balance Klein's assessment of the problem is most judicious and satisfactory: ‘It is certainly not excluded that the expression τος άπΣτóλς παΣν implies the δώδεκ, but every proof contructed from this passage is purely and simply a petitio principii’ (op. cit. p. 43).

^{page 450 note 5} Op. cit. p. 41.

^{page 451 note 1} ibid. p. 40.

^{page 451 note 2} ‘The excursive character of the statements in υυ. 8 ff. is a telling symptom of their tendentiousness.’ Ibid.

^{page 451 note 3} It is not too surprising that Klein (ibid. p. 42 n. 174) and Schmithals, (Apostelamt, p. 67 n. 100)Google Scholar cannot agree in their running argument on what Schmithals has in fact said.

^{page 451 note 4} ibid. p. 67.

^{page 452 note 1} Elsewhere Schmithals has pointed out that there can be little connexion between I Cor. 9 and 15, referring to the phrase ⋯λ⋯χιστος τ⋯ν ⋯ποστ⋯λων as ‘quite harmless’ (Gnosis², p. 86).

^{page 452 note 2} Schmithals repeats Klein's error of referring to the ‘polemic’ of υ. 10. While it may be true that in polemical contexts Paul ‘deprecates’ himself (by choice or necessity?), it does not follow that every such instance is indicative of a polemic concerning his apostolic authority, or that it even grows directly out of such a background. To discuss the shape of apostolic authority in Paul's view and the characteristic modes of expression he employs for it is beyond the scope of our present task. It can be shown, however, that such deprecating language is at the very core of Paul'positive evaluation of apostleship so that its presence is not necessarily evidence for specific attacks on Paul or for defensiveness on his part.

^{page 452 note 3} In Gal. v. 11, for example,κηρύσσειν could scarcely be replaced by εὐαγγελìℑεσθαι.

^{page 452 note 4} E.g. with κηρύσσειν, Gal. ii. 5; I Thess. ii. 9.

^{page 452 note 5} In the indicative of the finite verb Paul uses the present tense of κηρύσσειν nine times and the aorist twice. Since the aorist of II Cor. xi. 4 is intended to balance the present tense there, only I Thess. ii. 9 stands out from this general usage. On the other hand,εύαγγελíℑ7epsi;σθαι is used far less frequently as a finite verb in the indicative, but four of the six occurrences are aorist. Again, there is a contrast built into the direct discourse of Gal. i. 23. As a simple condition, Gal. i. 9 scarcely constitutes a noteworthy exception; there the verb is used in its most technical sense, as the context indicates.

^{page 452 note 6} This also explains the vagueness of éκεīνοι, υ. II. While the most logical referent may be ‘all the apostles’ (Lietzmann–Kümmel, op. cit. p. 78), the very general nature of the pronoun suits Paul's purposes admirably.

^{page 453 note 1} There is no need to interpret this as a defensive move on Paul's part designed to counter some allegation that his preaching does not square with that of the apostles (Barth, , Resurrection, p. 118).Google Scholar

^{page 453 note 2} Paul's desire here is twofold: To move (1) to an equation of general apostolic preaching with the paradosis, and (2) to an elaboration of apostolic activity in terms of his own experience. This accounts for the awkward shift from ‘all the apostles’ to ‘last of all he appeared also to me…the least of the apostles’. It is precisely because Paul's claim to be an apostle is not an issue that the awkwardness can stand unresolved. It is precisely on the basis of this claim that his experience is illustrative of generic apostolic activity that he moves from ‘all the apostles’ to himself, the ‘last’, in the first place.

^{page 453 note 3} There is no dearth of evidence to support the claim that Paul regards apostolic life as the manifestation of apostolic authority, as is evident from the Corinthian correspondence alone with its emphasis on the gospel as the proclamation of God's weakness and Christ's death, and the correlation of this with apostolic weakness as power (I Cor. i. 17–ii. 5; II Cor. x–xiii). Another primary text is Gal. i–ii.

^{page 454 note 1} Schneider, J., art. ‘έkgr;τρωμα’, T.D.N.T. II, ed. Kittel, G., trans Bromiley, G. (1964), 466.Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 2} Fridrichsen, A., ‘Paulus bortivus’, Symbolae Philologicae O. A. Danielsson octogenario dicatae (1932).Google Scholar

^{page 454 note 3} Munck, J., ‘Paulus tanquam abortivus (I Cor. xv. 8)’, New Testament Essays, Studies in Memory of Manson, T. W. 1893–1958, ed. Higgins, A. J. B. (1959), pp. 180–93.Google Scholar Cf. also Boman, T., ‘Paulus Abortivus (I Kor. xv. 8)’, Studia Theologica I8 (1964), pp. 46–50.Google Scholar

^{page 455 note 1} The definite article need not indicate this. Björck, Cf. G., ‘Nochmals Paulus Abortivus’ in Coniectanea Neotestamentica, 3, ed. Fridrichsen, A. (1939), pp. 3–8.Google Scholar For access to this and the article by Fridrichsen (above) I am indebted to Prof. Nils A.Dahl.

^{page 455 note 2} ibid. p. 184.

^{page 455 note 3} For texts and discussion cf. Munck, ibid. pp. 185–7.

^{page 455 note 4} As assumed by Kittel, G., art. ‘έσχατος’, T.D.N.T. II (1964), 697.Google Scholar

^{page 456 note 1} I Cor. iv. 8 ff. and ix. I ff. are basic texts, but see also ii. I ff., iii. 5 ff., iv. I ff., etc., and Dahl, N. A., ‘Paul and the Church at Corinth According to I Cor. i, 10–iv. 21’ in Christian History and its Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, ed. Farmer, W.R. et al. (1967), pp. 313–35.Google Scholar

^{page 456 note 2} Bultmann, R., art. ‘καυΧάομαι etc,’, T.D.N.T. III (1965), 650 n. 43:Google Scholar ‘By the renown I have won in you’. Similarly Lietzmann (–Kümmel), op. cit. p. 83. Weiss, op. cit. p. 364, takes it as the pride which Paul has in the Corinthians.

^{page 456 note 3} Neugebauer, F., In Christus (1961), p. 123,Google Scholar although he misses the contrast between Paul and the Corinthians. His distinction between καυχησις (act of boasting) and καυχημα (object of boastng) is doubtful. He imself, positing it in reference to this passage, goes on to obliterate it in reference to Phil. i. 25 (p. 124).

^{page 456 note 4} Bultmann says (Theology, 1, 129): ' Paul's discussion with his gnosticizing opponents in Corinth shows how one's understanding of “freedom” and “authorization” (εξομσíα) ieacjs to a particular way of living.’ This is true for his opponents, but the situation is rather the reverse for Paul, for whom the apostolic mode of life is the given element from which is derived his definition of freedom and authority.