/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>717626

Your exegesis is flawed, as I will show. To do this I will use ten criteria that fall under three headings with reference to NT Scholarship. The first four concern definition of terms, specifically ‘baptism’, ‘for’ and ‘the dead’. The next three criteria highlight matters of continuity, involving syntax, theology and history. The final three explore the logic of Paul’s argument, with reference to baptism, Paul’s opponents, and resurrection.

Criteria 1:nature of the ‘baptism’ involved

Foschini, in his extensive analysis, chose to divide his study according to the three alternative explanations for baptism: metaphorical, literal but not sacramental, and sacramental. He reasoned that in every other passage where Paul speaks of baptism it is in reference to sacramental baptism.6 This argues against the metaphorical interpretation of Murphy-O’Connor, following Schurmann and John Lightfoot, in which baptism refers to the suffering and dangers of apostolic ministry.7 Similarly, it makes the interpretation of Theodore Beza unlikely, in which baptism refers to the washing of dead bodies before burial.8 In my proposed explanation, the baptism being carried out is the standard Christian sacramental baptism of new believers, consistent with Paul’s use of the word elsewhere.

2)deadness’ of ‘the dead

While Paul does use the word ‘dead’ metaphorically elsewhere (e.g. Rom 8.10), he is using the literal meaning not only throughout ch. 15, but even in the second half of v. 29, linked directly to the first half with (‘If dead aren’t raised at all, why are they baptised for them’).9 This immediate context undermines metaphorical interpretations such as that of Murphy-O’Connor mentioned above (note 5), and similarly the most ancient orthodox interpretation, held by Tertullian and later the Greek Fathers from Chrysostom onwards, in which baptism is ‘for [their own] dead bodies’ (against this interpretation see also criterion nine).10 In our proposal ‘the dead’ are genuinely dead, apostles awaiting the resurrection.

>>717627

3)identity of ‘the dead

Jeremias notes the consistent distinction throughout chapter fifteen ‘between nekroiand oi nekroi, nekroi without an article denoting the dead in general . . . oi nekroi denoting the deceased Christians’.11 Thus the context again undermines interpretations such as that of Richterus, who included the preceding phrase ‘what will they do’ to arrive at the meaning, ‘What will those being baptised gain beyond the (unbaptised) unbeliever?’, and likewise the practice of the Mormons, who are baptised vicariously for dead ancestors not of the Mormon religion.12

Once we accept ‘the dead’ to be Christians, the question remains whether they were baptised before death or not. On the basis presumably of his interpretation of ‘for’, Fee declares that baptism on behalf of unbaptised dead believers is easily the most ‘plain understanding of the Greek text’.13 This assumes perhaps greater certainty than the text itself allows, for the same reason that were I to say, ‘I cheered for Michael’, the hearer would be unlikely to conclude that Michael was ‘obviously’ mute; the ‘plain’ meaning of this text depends on the common Corinthian understanding of baptism rather than unverifiable assumptions about the dead.14 Despite our professed ignorance regarding the baptismal state of the dead, Reaume is correct to maintain that ‘The normal practice in the early church was for baptism to follow immediately after conversion’.15 Death before baptism would be quite exceptional, therefore one might assume that ‘the dead’ believers had been baptised.

Here, ‘the dead’ probably refers to those dead already mentioned earlier in the chapter, that is, those from among the ‘more than five hundred’ witnesses to the resurrection who had already ‘fallen asleep’ (15.6). Paul’s redundant emphasis in this verse on the dead witnesses may perhaps be deliberate, a meaningful acknowledgment of certain witnesses or apostles who were known by the Corinthian church. Apostles/evangelists who died would have had followers who continued to propagate their leader’s uniquely ‘authorised’ message and ministry, making converts who would then be considered the fruit of the testimony of the witness who had died.16 Our proposal does take ‘the dead’ to be Christians, and while we may justifiably assume they were baptised, this has little bearing on the meaning of our text.

>>717628

>butthurt Baptist cannot exegete

4)meaning of ‘for’

The Greek for (‘for’) when used with the genitive carries the primary meaning of transfer, either a transfer of responsibility (‘on behalf of’)17 or of benefit (‘for the benefit of’),18 as well as two further meanings of cause (‘on account of’)19 and goal (‘for the sake of’).20 A fifth meaning, a spatial reference to ‘over’ or ‘beyond’, was common in classical Greek, but completely supplanted in New Testament times by the other meanings; the spatial sense was expressed by use with the accusative.21 Thus Luther’s opinion that converts were baptised ‘over’ or ‘above’ the ‘sepulchres of the martyrs’ is problematic.22 Fee points out that ‘on behalf of’ is the usual meaning connected with a personal object, just as ‘on account of’ is more common with impersonal objects.23 However, a transfer of responsibility (‘on behalf of’) may often be understood as equally a transfer of benefit (cf. 1 Cor 4.6, ‘that none of you may become arrogant for one [teacher] against another’), making this less persuasive as an argument for specifically vicarious activity. Interpretations which prefer the first meaning, ‘on behalf of’, in terms of vicarious baptism will be considered under criteria six and seven. Similarly, interpretations preferring the meaning ‘on account of’ will be discussed under criterion ten, and those preferring ‘for the sake of’ under criterion nine. In our proposal, the primary meaning of ‘for’ is ‘for the benefit of’. One might allow for the meaning ‘on behalf of’ if it were the baptisers who were under consideration: the privilege of baptising converts, while normally belonging to the witness responsible for the conversion (e.g. Acts 8.35–38), would have to be done ‘on his behalf’ by his followers if he were absent (cf. John 4.1–2; Acts 19.1–3). However, 15.29 places the emphasis on those receiving baptism rather than administering it, making this meaning improbable. Instead, new converts were being baptised ‘on account of’ the testimony of the dead but ultimately ‘for their benefit’. Olshausen preferred this meaning of ‘for’, and interpreted the benefit to the dead in terms of completing the ‘full number’ of believers (cf. Rom 11.12–25) needed to bring about the glorious Resurrection.24 This interpretation makes assumptions about the Corinthians’ theology,25 as well as being too widely applicable in light of Paul’s reference only to a small group of baptised Corinthians in our verse (cf. criterion nine). We propose instead that baptism was generally undergone as a public expression of allegiance to particular apostles to bring them greater honour, and Paul is highlighting the inconsistency of those who are seeking to benefit dead apostles through baptism while denying the resurrection, the only circumstances for such honour to be realised.

5)syntactical continuity, that is, the use of ellipses or repunctuation of the text.

It has often been suggested that Paul was using ‘the dead’ as an abbreviation for a longer term, assuming that readers would fill in missing words. Ellipsis can be a valid explanation of Paul’s more obscure passages, as long as abbreviations are relatively simple and natural. For example, Robertson and Plummer dispute the interpretation of the ‘Greek expositors’ in which ‘the dead’ refers to a phrase in the baptismal creed, ‘the resurrection of the dead’;26 the more natural abbreviation would retain ‘the resurrection’ instead.27 Similarly, Reaume queries the interpretation of Findlay, Raeder, Jeremias, Thiselton and others, in which baptism is ‘with the purpose of becoming united with their deceased Christian relatives in the resurrection’,28 due to the ‘significant ellipsis’ required to convey this meaning.29 In addition to ellipsis, some scholars have effected grammatical discontinuity by repunctuating the text. Thompson and Foschini represent the two standard variations of punctuation, but in neither case does the repunctuation either introduce a meaning not already proposed on the basis of standard punctuation or avoid their associated problems. Thompson’s interpretation, inserting a comma after ‘baptised’ and a question mark after ‘raised’, relies on the common but improbable definition of ‘the dead’ as ‘their dead bodies’;30 furthermore, he gives no explanation for the randomness of a baptism reference at this point in Paul’s argument.

Foschini’s interpretation, fragmenting the verse with three question marks after ‘baptised’, ‘the dead’, and ‘baptised’, and a full stop at the end, requires an unusual use of ‘for’ with the final sense – ‘baptized to belong to, to be numbered among the dead’. He anticipated but failed to answer the question as to why ‘into’ was not used instead of ‘for’ and ultimately his choppy repunctuation contributes nothing to his argument.31 In our proposal, neither ellipsis nor repunctuation is required, and the traditional punctuation known at least as early as Tertullian is allowed to stand.

6)Paul’s theological consistency in his treatment of this Corinthian practice

Ambrosiaster believed that v. 29 refers to vicarious baptism for the dead, but that Paul did not approve of the practice. In support he appealed to the contrast between ‘they’ of v. 29 and ‘we’ of v. 30.32 Foschini instead adduced the ‘also’ of v. 30 as evidence of Paul’s agreement with the baptism in v. 29,33 but even the simple lack of any explicit condemnation of this practice by Paul is significant, since it touches on such ‘a fundamental aspect of his theology’.34 If Paul were to cite a practice he did not agree with to support his argument for the resurrection, his opponents could justly accuse him of theological inconsistency.35 Therefore interpretations involving vicarious baptism ‘on behalf of’ thebdead, as propounded by Collins, Conzelmann and many others,36 do not fit with Paul’s treatment of this practice here

7)historical consistency

It would be expected that a baptismal practice existing in Corinth in the mid-first century ce would have parallels or precedents of some sort which may be cited as evidence for this type of baptism, whether in Jewish, pagan, orthodox Christian or heretical religious practice. Fee opts for the vicarious explanation of baptism here, despite acknowledging that ‘This is a genuinely idiosyncratic historical phenomenon’.37 However, Foschini, Schnackenburg and others consider this a powerful argument against that interpretation.38 For our proposal, there is a clear parallel within the same epistle to baptism undertaken in order to express allegiance and bring honour to apostles (1 Cor 1.13–17),39 as well as apparent historical precedent in the contemporary baptism of disciples ‘into John’s baptism’ (Acts 19.3). Comparisons could also be made with Corinthian ‘patrons’ and the archaeologically attested practices carried out to bring them public honour, even after death.

8)logical significance of the reference to baptism in this verse

Thomas Edwards notes that ‘oi baptizomenoi is not in the apostolic age the name for “converts”, but oi pisteuonte~. Cf. Acts ii.44. The reference must be, not to the faith signified, but to the act of baptism.’41 This is cited against the interpretation of ‘John Edwards of Cambridge (Enquiry into Four Remarkable Texts, 1692)’, in which those baptised have been converted due to the ‘heroic behaviour of the Christian martyrs’. It is equally effective against the interpretations of Foschini and of Findlay, Raeder, Jeremias, Thiselton and others (both summarised under criterion five) as well as that of Cleric, in which baptism is received ‘in order to take the place of the dead in the Christian Church’.42 In our proposal, the reference to baptism has a significance beyond simply conversion, as a public ritual performed to bring honour to the convert’s patron(s) (cf. 1 Cor 1.14–15).

9)logical scope of the group who practised baptism for the dead.

Fee notes that the ‘unusual use of the third person plural’ when referring to ‘those who are baptised’ in v. 29 ‘suggests that it is not the action of the whole community’.43 Therefore interpretations of the verse must account for this specificity rather than being general statements about Christian baptism, as are the interpretations of Cleric (‘to take the place of the dead’) and Chrysostom (‘for their own dead bodies’).44 In our proposal, the group referred to would only be a small number within the church, specifically those who had been converted due to the testimony of apostles or witnesses who had already died. Second, ‘the group at Corinth that was practising [baptism for the dead] must be roughly coextensive with the group that denied the resurrection of the dead’, because the practice is cited by Paul as an example of their conduct contradicting their beliefs.45 If this is the case, the popular interpretation of Findlay, Raeder, Jeremias, Thiselton and others, in which baptism is undergone ‘with the purpose of becoming united with deceased Christian relatives in the resurrection’,46 makes little sense in Paul’s overall argument. Those denying the resurrection of the dead would surely not engage in such rituals in the hope of the resurrection, but if they were not, they might have easily dismissed this argument by declaring such individuals to be foolish dreamers.47 In our proposal, those denying the resurrection may well belong to this group, but even if they do not, the remainder of the passage (vv. 30 through 32) draws the rest of the church into the scope of Paul’s argument (see below under context). The focus of ‘baptism for the dead’ is not on the resurrection, but rather on bringing honour to Christian patrons.

10)logical connection drawn between baptism for the dead and the resurrection.

Paul’s argument demands that the practice of baptism for the dead be rendered fully ineffectual by a recognition that the dead are not raised – it is shown to be ‘the highest expression of absurdity’.48 This is not the case in the interpretations of Reaume, who describes converts being baptised ‘because of the influence of deceased Christians’, or of White, who similarly explains the baptisms to be simply ‘on account of’ figuratively ‘dead’ apostles as an expression of allegiance to them.49 In either case these baptisms, focused on the past, could continue unabated alongside a denial of the resurrection. In our proposal, the baptism was specifically intended to bring honour to one’s ‘patron’ apostle. If patrons who were already dead were not going to live again, such honour could never be received, and the question would indeed arise ‘What [else] will they do . . .?’ (15.29), that is, how else can they fulfil the cultural obligation to honour ‘patrons’?