Theological Significances of I Corinthians 15:29 in the Life of the Christian Community

Home , 2000 AD (comics)

Author Pryce-Davies, John

Published 2007

Thesis Type Thesis (Masters)

School School of Theology

DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/1320

Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/367643

Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au THEOLOGICAL

SIGNIFICANCES OF

I CORINTHIANS 15:29

IN THE LIFE OF THE

CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY

JOHN PRYCE-DAVIES B.A., B.D., M.Lit.St., M.Th.

A R.H.D. Thesis submitted to Griffith University in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of

Philosophy in December 2005 THESIS CONTENTS

Thesis Abstract and signed Certificate of Originality...... 1 Introduction...... 2 Section A: A Literature Review (since 1952 to 2000 AD) 1. Scholarly interpretations of I Cor 15:29 since Foschini (1952-75) ...... 7 2. Scholarly interpretation since Foschini (1976 to present) ...... 20 Section B: Issues and Debates Arising 1. Bultmann’s view and reactions to it...... 32 2. Jeremias/Raeder approach and supporters against the vicarious view and reactions to it ...... 47 3. Amended wording and punctuation approach of those opposed to vicarious view.58 4. The various context approach of those in favour of the vicarious view ...... 72 5. The various context approach of those against the vicarious view...... 85 Section C: The Mormon Position The Mormon literal application of the vicarious view and critiques of it ...... 99 Section D: Text and Context 1. An exegesis of I Cor 15:29 ...... 116 2. The immediate scriptural and socio-cultural context of I Cor 15:29...... 128 Section E: Some Relevant Comparisons Between I Cor 15:29 and Various Scriptures and Credal Formulae. Introductory Rationale ...... 145 1. Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and Extracts from Romans 148 2. Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and Other Pauline literature163 3. Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and Petrine literature...... 173 4. Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and Credal Formulae ...... 188 Concluding Reflections...... 195 Appendix I - Two classifications of various interpretations (Foschini and Thistleton)...... 205 Appendix II - The usage of u9pe\r within the principle of vicariousness and I Cor 15:29 ...... 223 Bibliography ...... 231 THESIS ABSTRACT

This thesis explores the theological significances of I Cor 15:29 in the life of the Christian community. The methodology for this exploration requires a literature review mainly over the past half century with some historical trajectories from previous eras. Various issues and debates arise from this review, which are critiqued along with the Mormon position. An exegesis of the original Greek text and its immediate and wider context allows for an exploration of the relevant comparisons of I Cor 15:29 with other Pauline and Petrine literature as well as Credal formulae. Concluding reflections finally distil some theological significances within the Christian Community’s life.

This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis itself.

………………………………………………….. J Pryce-Davies

INTRODUCTION

“Otherwise what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” NRSV (1Corinthians 15:29.)

This Thesis examines the theological significances of I Cor 15:29 in the life of the Christian Community. As such, yet another interpretation of this variously interpreted verse is not the object of this Thesis. Rather, the theological significances of how this verse has functioned in the Christian Community’s life, are its primary focus.

The examination of the theological significances of I Cor 15:29 is to be achieved in the five main sections of the Thesis with concluding reflections to follow. These five sections and concluding reflections are like facets of a gemstone which in themselves provide a different view on the Thesis as a whole. The five main sections of the Thesis are:

Section A: A Literature Review (since 1952 to 2000 AD). Section B: Issues and Debates arising. Section C: The Mormon Position. Section D: The Text and its Various Contexts. Section E: Some Relevant Comparisons to I Cor 15:29

Keeping in mind that the abovementioned sections function like facets of a gemstone on our topic, which is the Life of the Christian Community, then clearly a methodology is required.

When defining a ‘methodology’, two authorities state in order “…orderly arrangement of ideas…”(1) and “…a system of methods used in a particular field…” (2). In applying these two meanings one may identify the five sections of the Thesis as the ‘system of methods used in a particular field’ that is the Thesis topic. Within each particular section there will be an ‘orderly arrangement of ideas’ along with that in the concluding reflections. To apply these definitions to the task at hand then. 2

In the first section, the methodology will apply to a literature review from 1952 to around 2000(3). If one needs to explore earlier trajectories in terms of the various interpretations of our verse, then Appendix I has been provided. However, the past half century gives a convenient time line for a contemporary literature review. The main purpose here is to take note of the various theological significances in the contemporary scene.

Issues and debates arising among these scholars will form the next stage of theological significances in Section B of the Thesis. The methodology here is to identify the ideas which surface in the scholarly community. Reactions to these various issues and ideas will be critiqued in the debates. It will be noted that the ‘vicarious’ interpretation of I Cor 15:29 is a leading issue for debate.

In the whole of the Christian Community today, there is only one Church denomination which has actually implemented the ‘vicarious’ interpretation of this verse. In so doing, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, more commonly known as the ‘Mormon Church’, takes the ‘vicarious view’ from the abstract to the concrete. In Section C the Mormon position will be surveyed in terms of its theological significance for that Church along with a critique to follow.

At this point of the Thesis, an exegesis of I Cor 15:29 will be required from its original Greek text and also a leading English translation, the New Revised Standard Version (1989). The theological significances will be seen through both the exegesis and the context which follows. Our methodology in regard to the multi-faceted context will be to concentrate on the immediate scriptural context of the verse and the wider socio- cultural one. Thus the immediate context of the verse within Chapter 15 of I Corinthians, will be seen to be an ad-hominem argument within a deliberative rhetorical framework. On the other hand, the wider context of the verse, beyond its immediate scriptural one, will require a survey of the socio-cultural context that was first century Corinth.

The fifth section or facet of the Thesis topic will require making comparisons of other examples of scriptural and credal materials of relevance to I Cor 15:29. In undertaking such a task, one is seeking not to posit any direct influence of one upon the other as our

3 methodology used can at best only indicate indirect parallels of thought. Therefore, an exegesis of various New Testament examples in texts from the Pauline, Deutero-Pauline and Petrine Corpuses will be followed by Credal materials. The main purpose overall will be to see how I Cor 15:29 has, with these interesting parallels of comparison, functioned in both the Pauline(4) and Petrine Church Communities of the early Church. Credal formulae parallels bring the early church period to a close.

Finally, the Thesis has some concluding reflections which will present a further facet on the Thesis topic.

Thus, in all of the above, the Thesis itself as articulated in its topic, will be seen to be the gemstone examined through its various facets.

FOOTNOTES

(1) Oxford Dictionary of Current English (1951) O.U.P. Oxford, 749.

(2) Oxford Paperback Dictionary and Thesaurus (2001) O.U.P N.Y. 562.

(3) ‘Around’ is used here advisedly since some authors go just beyond 2000.

(4) The distinction between ‘Pauline’ and ‘Deutero-Pauline’ books will be delineated in the last section

THESIS SECTION A:

LITERATURE REVIEW

1) Scholarly Interpretations of I Cor 15:29 since Foschini (1952 – 1975) 2) Scholarly interpretations of I Cor 15:29 since Foschini (1976 – 2000)

A (1) Scholarly Interpretations of I Cor 15:29 since Foschini (1952 – 1975)

The next two chapters seek to lay the foundations for the thesis by noting the various scholarly opinions over the past half century since Foschini’s monumental work of 1950-51, as outlined in the last chapter. There are two main periods within this approximate 50 years down to contemporary times (1952-75 and 1976-2000), as will be indicated in the two chapter divisions of this section of the thesis.

The purpose of surveying these commentators on the interpretation of I Cor 15:29 is to set the scholarly context for various issues and debates arising from the significant number of commentaries and journal articles published over the past fifty years since Foschini’s seminal work. In this chapter and the next only brief reference will be given to those scholars who will be dealt with in more detail in the next section of the thesis..

AG Moseley Writing just after Foschini in 1952, A G Moseley in an article entitled “Baptised for the Dead”(1) proposes a strong probability that Paul was here referring to the baptism of believers in its symbolism of death, burial and resurrection.(2) He then states his grounds for such a view as being these: 1) The argument from the history of the practice; 2) The argument from the context in which the passage is found; 3) The argument from the dilemma questions that arise; 4) The argument from ‘hyper’, the preposition used; 5) The argument from the general trend of New Testament truth.(3)

Moseley then goes on to elaborate his case along these five lines of argument. In the first of these arguments, Moseley posits that it is reasonable to infer that a later misinterpretation of Paul’s words would lead to a proxy practice that was condemned by Epiphanius and Chrysostom.(4) Secondly, in regard to the context, Moseley identifies this in two ways. Prior to verse 29, the commencing word “else” (or ‘otherwise’) links it back with vv12-13 and the connection of baptism with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. He then poses the question Since the climactic element in death, burial and resurrection is the resurrection, why go on symbolizing in baptism these three elements if the dead are not raised

and thus the climactic element is missing?(5)

Harking back to v14 where Paul states the futility of his preaching if Christ is not raised, Moseley then links this with v30 and then poses another question (on Paul’s behalf): Why do we (I and my fellow workers) stand in jeopardy (of imprisonment or death) every hour, by going on with this Gospel ministry of which the resurrection is so vital a part?(6)

It is of interest to note at this point that he uses the same word ‘jeopardy’ as Foschini did also of verse 30, in a similar line of argument at this point. The location of v29 in a similar context to that already cited by Foschini(7) and to be cited by others to come, is a significant confluence of their thinking. Moseley elaborates further this ‘jeopardy’ context in his next line of argument or his two dilemma questions. These two questions are: “What shall they do who are being baptized for the dead?” and “Why stand we in jeopardy every hour?”(8) In regard to the first of these Moseley comments that the dilemma here is not one for the dead so much as for those being baptized.(9) Like Foschini, Moseley sees the baptism being spoken of here as benefiting the living and not the dead. In the case of the second dilemma, Moseley reiterates the Apostle’s words in the verses 13-14 about the futility of their proclamation if there be no resurrection of the dead.

Moseley’s fourth line of argument rotates around his translation of the Greek preposition used, namely ‘upe\r After discussing various options he proposes that it be translated as “concerning, with regard to, touching”.(10) He then goes on to incorporate this meaning in verse 29 as follows: What shall they do that are baptized with reference to the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they being baptized with reference to them?(11) The main problem with his translation is that he admits he has to use a meaning related to another similar Greek preposition peri, which is used in “a number of instances” (e.g. Rm 7:27; II Cor 1:8; I Thess 3:2; II Thess 2:1). However in citing these, Moseley is forced also to admit earlier that: “In the New Testament use of hyper (u9pe\r) its most general translation is ‘in behalf of” or its equivalents”.(12) His variant translation therefore suffers from his own subjectivity. Moseley concludes his article with his fifth argument along the lines of the “general

9 trend of New Testament truth”.(13) In essence his objection to proxy baptism on behalf of the dead is stated as: It violates the competency of the individual soul before God and ignores completely the New Testament doctrine of salvation through personal repentance towards God and faith in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.(14) At the beginning and end of his article he takes strong issue with the Mormon view and practices of proxy baptism for the dead.(15) Overall Moseley typifies a more conservative approach to the interpretation of this verse with a distinct unwillingness to concede to the usual meaning of the crucial preposition υπερ.

A more open approach by contrast to that of Moseley would be taken by such scholars as Bultmann, Jeremias and Raeder in Germany as their work was published in English by the mid-fifties. A further examination of their approach will be undertaken in the next section of the thesis.

E Stauffer As an example of one German scholar not to be treated later there is Stauffer who states: ...in I Cor 15:29 Paul pre-supposes that the potency of intercessory baptism for the dead reaches even to Sheol and there benefits men who in this mortal life have not been sealed with the name of Christ.(16)

A Richardson The English theologian Richardson writing in the late fifties presents a similar view to Stauffer, as follows: It may be added that no entirely satisfactory explanation has ever been found for the reference of baptizing for the dead in I Cor 15:29 – apparently a practice of baptizing by proxy on behalf of someone who had died. Perhaps in view of the N.T. evidence that the faith of a sponsor was considered to avail for a person – an infant or an epileptic – who could not answer for himself, it was the custom to baptize by proxy on behalf of the catechumen who had died before he could be baptized.(17) Richardson’s explanation offered here, whilst conjectural, as he himself concedes, does at least try to make sense of an otherwise inexplicable verse.(18)

Other Scholars in the Sixties Moving on into the 1960’s there is an ever increasing number of articles and commentators on the issue of the interpretation of I Cor 15:29. Among those scholars who will be dealt with it in depth in the next section are the following Beasley-Murray (1962); Rissi (1962); Thompson (1964); Schnackenburg (1964); Howard (1965); Hurd (1965) and Joyce (1965).(19)

H Schauerte In 1960 two articles appeared with their own distinctive slant on our topic.(20) Schauerte’s gave some indications of its particular scope being (in translation from the German) “The Baptism of the Dead” = Die Totentaufe. This article reported that in certain places the custom of baptizing the dead, especially new born (stillborn) infants, continued into the 18th and 19th centuries.(21) One suspects that this practice still continues today probably out of pastoral compassion, but strictly speaking it is somewhat irregular. However this particular article is strictly not relevant since the preposition “of” in this context has a totally different application to that of “for” and they should not be confused.

E Lussier More to the point is the second of these two articles by Lussier, which seeks to establish two supports for the doctrine of Purgatory. These are I Cor 3: 10-17, the parable of the builders and I Cor 15:29 baptism for the dead. Both of these together are viewed by this writer as implying some satisfaction after the judgment, which is equivalently what is meant by Purgatory.(22) This is not the time or place to debate this writer’s argument on this point so much as to note how he applies his interpretation of I Cor 15:29.

J Hering In an effort to change the vocabulary of the verse Hering in his commentary of 1962 suggests: “We should like to think that the apostle dictated ‘pistenousin (what) do they believe’ who are baptized for the dead, a verb which might easily have been corrupted to ‘poiesousin (what) shall they do’ ”.(23) But of course this suggestion is only Hering’s personal preference and has no textual support whatsoever.

G Deluz Deluz briefly examines the implication of belief or otherwise in the resurrection in the light of baptism for the dead and the various ways this practice has been interpreted.

He writes: The first consequence is that, baptism for the dead becomes absurd if we deny the resurrection. We know nothing at all about the practice of ‘baptism for the dead’ and the verse in which is mentioned is one of the most obscure in the whole of the New Testament.(24) He then goes on to survey the range of interpretations of this verse and states that there are at least thirty different explanations of this phrase. He continues and gives a few examples: According to Tertullian the early church carried out a kind of baptism by deputy; a living Christian would have himself baptized in place of one who had died without baptism on the dead, i.e. on the tombs of the martyrs. Others think the question is ironical. ‘If there is no resurrection why do these people have themselves baptized. They are going to end up as dead men’. As for Godet, he thinks it might have been a baptism, not of water but of blood, the baptism of martyrdom. ‘If there is no resurrection, what will the martyrs gain by undertaking their baptism by blood by joining the ranks of the dead’.(25) Deluz is not satisfied with any of the above explanations but returns to his original starting point that without belief in the resurrection, baptism for the dead is an absurdity.(26)

ME Thrall Thrall tends to support the viewpoint of Deluz when he observes: Various aspects of the Christian life make no sense if there is no resurrection. Why do some people receive baptism on behalf of the dead? It is uncertain what this practice was. Perhaps some members of the congregation underwent further baptism on behalf of friends and relatives who had received instruction in the Christian faith but had died before they had themselves baptized. If there was to be no real future existence, how could they possible benefit in any way at all?(27)

D Murphy Murphy, an Australian scholar, disagrees with both the vicarious view of baptism for the dead of Deluz and of Thrall. He prefaces his remarks by observing at least forty different explanations for the verse and difficulty in interpreting its meaning, but goes on: From what he says about baptism elsewhere we know that Paul would not approve a vicarious reception of the sacrament; consequently some think that he is merely arguing from a Corinthian practice with which he did not really agree. However, there is possibility that the text does not refer to real baptism at all.(28) Murphy does not indicate further this last statement’s claim nor does he substantiate why and where one may find evidence of Paul’s disapproval of vicarious baptism. Given that Paul frequently stated his opposition to other practices which he disapproved of at Corinth, it is odd that he doesn’t actually state his disapproval here. So Murphy’s view is largely speculative.

JH Wilson Wilson in his article concerned with those Corinthians who denied the resurrection(29) presents his variant view as follows: In verse 29 Paul is theoretically again on common ground with his Corinthian opponents. It is they who undergo baptism u9pe\r τω=n nekrw=n and he employs their own practice – without approving it – to make his point. If being baptized on behalf of the dead means the semi-magical act whereby the dead obtain the same benefits as would living participants.(30) Wilson alludes to the ad hominem usage by Paul of this practice for his argument. In my opinion he is incorrect in assuming those who practiced this rite were opponents of Paul. There is clearly more motivation to be baptized for the dead if one believes in life beyond death. Hence these persons should be seen to be supporting belief in the resurrection than being opposed to it as Wilson states above. To become baptized for another requires more motivation than purely the rite itself alone or alternatively out of concern for one’s deceased relatives and friends.

The First Half of the Seventies

The half decade (1970-75 inclusive) was to witness a number of commentaries along with journal articles, some of which will be dealt with in the next section of the thesis. For this concluding part of this approximate twenty-five year review the following main commentators will be surveyed CK Barrett (1971), FF Bruce (1971) and H Conzelmann (1975). Minor ones including FM Robertson (1973), F Salvone (1973) and GE Ladd (1974)(31) will be just mentioned at this point since they don’t add any new insights.

CK Barrett Barrett outlines his position as follows: The idea of vicarious baptism (which is most naturally suggested by the words used) is usually bound up with what some would call a high sacramental, others a magical view of baptism. Immersion in water is supposed to operate so effectively that it matters little (it seems) what body is immersed. The immersion of a living body can secure benefits to a dead man (at any rate, a dead catechumen).(32) Barrett goes on then to disassociate Paul with this view but also acknowledges there would have been people who died unbaptized, even though Christian.(33) He continues: But baptism was a powerful proclamation of death and resurrection, and in this setting it was not impossible to conceive of a rite practiced, it may be, only once – which Paul, though he evidently took no steps to establish it as normal Christian usage, need not actively have disapproved, and what would be the sense of it, if the dead are not raised?(34)

Barrett’s clear and concise presentation of the main aspects of the vicarious view along with Paul’s ad hominem approach is to be commended.

FF Bruce In the same year Barrett published his commentary Bruce also published his. Bruce commences his comments on this verse by admitting that the ‘prima facie’ meaning of these words “points to a practice of baptism by proxy”.(35) However he then rules out such a practice for unbelieving friends, which was the case later with the Marcionites and Gnostic groups.(36) However Bruce will allow for the practice rendered on behalf of believing friends, who have died unbaptized perhaps during an epidemic. Under these conditions, Bruce feels that it may have been mentioned by Paul

...in passing in an ad hominem argument with neither practice or blame. The reference has been explained by analogy with the practice of praying for the dead, commended in II Maccabees 12:39-45.(37) However for Bruce this analogy is “too distant to be convincing”.(38) Soon afterwards Bruce alludes to his own position on this issue as being the “only serious alternative interpretation”.(39) After commending Raeder’s article and approach, he posits: It is just possible to understand ‘on behalf of the dead’ in this way, which is free from the theological difficulties attaching to proxy baptism. Whether ‘the dead’ are those on whose behalf others are vicariously baptized, or departed Christians with whom their friends desire to be re-united, the baptism is pointless, says Paul ‘if the dead are not raised at all’: in the former contingency, vicarious baptism can do the dead no good; in the latter, there is no hope of reunion in any case – for Paul does not think of immortality or survival after death apart from resurrection.(40) Clearly Bruce prefers the Jeremias/Raeder ‘solution’ in his attempts to be free from the theological difficulties of proxy baptism.

H Conzelmann The great German New Testament scholar, Hans Conzelmann presents a thoroughgoing approach. His commentary on I Corinthians was published in English in 1975.(41) After admitting this verse to be one of the “most hotly disputed passages in the epistle”,(42) Conzelmann states his own position at the outset: “The wording is in favour of the ‘normal’ exposition in terms of ‘vicarious baptism’ ”.(43) He elaborates this further as: …in Corinth living people have themselves vicariously baptized for dead people, Paul does not criticize the custom, but makes use of it for his argument. This custom once again shows the sacramentalism prevailing in Corinth.(44) Conzelmann then goes on to note that Paul’s citing of this custom is an important argument against the presumption that he has misunderstood the Corinthian position.(45) On the contrary, he believes Paul to be well informed on the Corinthians views and practices and therefore does not accept that the Corinthians would believe that death is the end of everything. Rather Paul is surprised at the inconsistency of the Corinthians who state no resurrection on the one hand, yet on the other who practice vicarious baptism. Paul therefore desires the Corinthians to “reflect on the consequences of your custom”.(46)

Conzelmann raises the issue of taking the final sense of the meaning of the crucial preposition u9pe\r, meaning “for the sake of”. He then re-iterates his view that the wording demands a vicarious baptism interpretation for it is “idle to dispute that a magical view of the sacraments prevails at Corinth”.(47) Conzelmann then cites Rissi(48) in support of the latter’s vicarious view, but he disagrees with Rissi’s non-sacramental approach,(49)

We will have occasion to take note of Conzelmann’s views on this issue as they are applied to critique other scholars in the next section of the thesis. This third quarter of the past century (1950-75) shows some remarkable developments in the interpretation of I Cor 15:29 since Foschini. The final quarter of the last century to be reviewed in the next chapter was to be equally significant because it also provides a spectrum of opinion on this verse.

FOOTNOTES

1. Moseley, AG “Baptised for the Dead” (in) “The Review and Expositor” Vol XLIX, (Jan 1952), 57-61. 2. ibid., 57. 3. ibid., 57-8. 4. ibid., 58. 5. ibid., 59. 6. ibid. 7. Foschini, BM “Those baptized for the dead: I Corinthians 15:29: an exegetical historical dissertation” (5 articles) (in) Catholic Bible Quarterly (1951), (3rd article), 283. 8. Moseley, op. cit., 59. 9. ibid. 10. ibid., 60. 11. ibid., 61. 12. op. cit., 60. 13. op. cit., 61. 14. ibid. 15. op. cit., and ibid., 57, 61. 16. Stauffer, E “New Testament Theology” (1955), SCM, London, 273. 17. Richardson, A “An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament” (1958), SCM, London, 346. 18. ibid. 19. Beasley-Murray, GR “Baptism in the New Testament” (1962), Macmillan, London; Rissi, M “Die Taufe fur die Toten” (1962), Verlag, Zurich; Thompson, KC “ I Corinthians 15:29 at the Baptism for the Dead” (1964), Acadamie Verlag, Berlin; Schnackenburg, R “Baptism in the Thought of St Paul” (1964 ET), Blackwell, Oxford; Howard, JK “Baptism for the Dead: a Study of I Cor 15:29” (in) Evangelical Quarterly 37 (1965), 137-41; Hurd, JC “The Origin of I Corinthians” (1965), SPCK, London; Joyce, JD “Baptism on behalf of the dead; an interpretation of I Cor 15:29-34” (in) Encounter 26 (2 ’65). 20. Schauerte, H “Die Toten-Taufe” (in) Theologische Glauben 51, (3, 1960), 210-14; Lussier, E “The Biblical Theology on Purgatory” (in) the American Ecclesiastical

Review (4, 1960), 225-33. 21. Schauerte, op. cit., 210-14 22. Lussier, E, op. cit., 225-33 23. Hering, J “The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians” (1962), Epworth, London, 171. 24. Deluz, G “A Companion to I Corinthians” (1963), Darton & Longman & Todd, London, 239. 25. ibid. 26. ibid. 27. Thrall, ME “The First and Second Letters of Paul to the Corinthians” (1965), University Press, Cambridge, 109-10. 28. Murphy, D “The Apostle of Corinth” (1966), Campion Press, Melbourne, 227. 29. Wilson, JH “The Corinthians Who Say There is No Resurrection” (in) Zeitschrift fur Neuentestamentlicher Wissenschaft 59 (1968), 90-107. 30. ibid., 105. 31. Barrett, CK “A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians” (2nd ed) (1971), A & C Black, London; Bruce FF “I & II Corinthians” (1971), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids; Robertson, FM “The Epistles to the Corinthians” (1973), Macmillan, New York; Salvoni, F “Il battesimo per I morti” (I Cor 15:29) (in) Ricerche Bibliche e Religiose, 8, (4,’73), Milan, 7-17; Ladd, GE “A Theology of the New Testament” (1974), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 32. Barrett, op. cit., 364 33. ibid. 34. ibid. 35. Bruce, FF “I & II Corinthians” (1971), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 148. 36. ibid. 37. ibid., 148-9. In this last reference to 2 Maccabees, Bruce cites E Stauffer’s “N.T. Theology” (1955), 299. 38. ibid., 149. 39. ibid. 40. ibid. 41. Conzelmann, H “I Corinthians” (1975), Fortress, Philadelphia. 42. ibid., 275. 43. His parentheses here, i.e. around these two expressions.

44. op. cit., 275. 45. Contra Bultmann’s view on this point. More details in the Section on Bultmann. 46. ibid., 276. 47. ibid. 48. Rissi, M “Die Taufe fur die Toten” (1962), Zwingli Verlag, Zurich. 49. Rissi’s “Significatory” view of baptism is in Conzelmann’s view neither Corinthian, nor Pauline, but Barthian N (123), 277.

A (2) Scholarly interpretations of I Cor 15:29 since Foschini (1976 – 2000)

The last quarter of the twentieth century was to continue to witness an increasing number of commentators on I Cor 15:29 either in commentaries or journal articles. Most of the following list of scholars will be surveyed in the next section of the thesis. These(1) include WF Orr & JA Walther (1976); J Murphy-O’Connor (1978 inter alia); JC O’Neill (1980); ASM Wedderburn (1982); VC Pfitzner (1982); G Theissen (1982); J Downey (1985); G Fee (1987); B Witherington (1995); JD Reaume (1995); RE De Maris (1996); DG Horrell (1996); R Bieringer (1996); JR White (1997); RA Horsley (1998); RA Campbell (1999) and AC Thistleton (2000). These represent a plethora of scholarly opinion as will be observed in due course. As in the last chapter only those scholars not treated in the next section will be surveyed in this chapter, following in a chronological order.

J Ruef Ruef in his 1977 commentary states: Paul neither approves nor disapproves of the practice. Clearly it was condemned eventually and survived only among some of the heretical sects. It is upon this verse that Bultmann bases his claim that Paul has misunderstood the Corinthian statement: “There is no resurrection of the dead.” It is clear from this verse that the Corinthians were concerned for the dead as were the Thessalonians whom Paul admonishes not to ‘sorrow for the dead as those who have no hope’ (I Thes 4:13).(2) Ruef’s reference to Bultmann’s view will be taken up in the following section of the thesis and be also critiqued. His reference to the heretical sects who took up this practice indicates the Marcionites of the late second century and this will also be examined in the next section.

MA Getty Getty’s (1983) approach is as follows: Having shown the absurdity of the Corinthian hypothesis in contrast to the obvious validity of his own convictions, Paul resorts to ‘ad hominem’ arguments. He begins by asking what would be the point of some of the Corinthian themselves if Christ is not raised….If the dead are not raised, the custom apparently popular at Corinth, of being baptized for the dead is absurd.(3) Getty highlights the implications of unbelief in the resurrection.

TF Macarthur At the outset Macarthur (4) makes his position abundantly clear: We can be sure, for example, that it does not teach vicarious or proxy baptism for the dead, as claimed by ancient Gnostic heretics such as Marcion and by the Mormon church today. Paul did not teach that a person who has died can be saved, or helped in any way, by another person’s being baptized on their behalf(5). He then continues to rule out ‘baptismal regeneration’ as ‘unscriptural’(6) and that the idea of ‘vicarious baptismal regeneration’ is ‘still removed further from biblical truth’(7).

Having delineated his limits on the role of baptism in the process of regeneration either for the living or the dead much less, Macarthur then tentatively puts forward his own view. Thus he suggests that we could guess that Paul may have simply been saying that people were being saved (baptism being the sign) because of the exemplary lives and witness of faithful believers who had died. Whether this is the right interpretation of this verse we cannot be certain…(8) Macarthur therefore in his opinion seems to retreat a little from his earlier dogmatic statements about what this verse does not mean. In many ways Macarthur typifies the position held by the American fundamentalist wing of evangelicalism in that country both then and since.

L Morris In somewhat sharp contrast the Australian scholar Leon Morris takes a more open minded approach and at the same time illustrates the diversity of evangelical thinking around the world. In commenting upon our verse in his Commentary of 1985, Morris states at the outset that the “most natural” way to understand these words is to see it as a reference to ‘vicarious baptism’.(9) He observes It is perhaps significant that, while Paul does not stop to condemn that practice of which he speaks here, he disassociates himself from it (what will those do? (i.e. v29) contrast ‘why do we endanger ourselves?’ (v30).(10) After then alluding to the practice of vicarious baptism as attested by the Fathers citing Marcionite practices he observes: But the practice is not known from the first century, nor from the orthodox.

Strange things happened at Corinth, but perhaps this is too strange for Corinth.(11) He then briefly surveys other more contemporary interpretations including that of Jeremias/Raeder he concludes: There is little point in canvassing even the more plausible suggestions. The language points to vicarious baptism. If we reject this we are left to conjecture.(12) This appears to be a balanced position to take.

JJ Kilgallen Kilgallen’s (1987) commentary subtitled “an introduction and study guide”(13) gives the reader some idea of his approach at the very outset. He offers a novel idea in interpreting the text in these terms: The idea behind this practice seems to have been this, that Christ’s coming at a certain time in history surely did not cut off from the chance of salvation those who died just a few days or months or years before Jesus did, or just a short time before the preaching about him came to that town: (such too was the thinking behind the idea that Jesus after his death and before his appearance to the women at the tomb, visited the underworld to free all the friends of God from Adam to the time of the Resurrection: time should not work against the offer of salvation).(14) His main point and associated incident which gave rise to the Credal affirmation “he descended to the dead”(15) is easily overlooked. The final reminder that “time should not work against the offer of salvation” is salutary at this point and will be investigated further on in the ‘comparisons’ section of the thesis.

CH Talbert Talbert’s commentary on both Corinthian epistles at the end of the eighties decade aims to be a ‘literary and theological commentary’.(16) Talbert introduces his comments on I Cor 15:29 with references to the patristic authors dealing with this subject including Tertullian, Chrysostom, Epiphanius and Philaster and then indicates from their writings that: “there is no assurance that the practice was as early as the first century”.(17) He then feels that this text is better understood in connection with Rom 6:5 and I Pet 1:3 which in turn express the ideas of being united with Christ, through baptism in his death and resurrection. There is also the idea that believers’ bodies were immersed in a sure hope of the resurrection.(18) So understood, Talbert puts forward his translation of I Cor 15:29 as:

Otherwise (i.e. if there is not a future resurrection) what will those being baptized accomplish for the corpses? If corpses are not raised at all, why are they being baptized for them?(19) Ultimately Talbert ascribes his translation here to the Greek Fathers where “corpses refer to the bodies of people being baptized”(20) and he espouses the views of Thompson to be outlined in the next section’s chapter on alternative wording and punctuation. A critique of Thompson’s view applies equally here as well.

N Watson In the early nineties, N Watson (1992) wrote his brief commentary(21) where, after alluding to the most common reading of the text being the vicarious view he states: The problem about this reading of the text is that it would seem to stand in complete contradiction with Paul’s repeated insistence elsewhere on the need of a faith which is assumed to be a faith of one’s own.(22) However having stated this reservation, Watson observes that Paul accepts whatever the practice was and uses it as an ‘argumentum ad hominem’ for resurrection belief. In this he aligns himself with Barrett, Morris and Bruce,(23) as seen already.

SV Kistemaker In 1993, SV Kistemaker published his expositional commentary in I Corinthians in which he candidly admits: “In spite of all the exegesis, a satisfactory solution appears to be elusive”.(24) However he does at least outline seven of the various attempts to clarify the text. These also include his criticisms of each and are abbreviated as follows:(25) 1. Living members of the church were baptized vicariously for those believers who had died but had not received the sacrament of baptism. (His criticism) But what is the point of this practice (and) what will they gain by being baptized by proxy? 2. The Greek preposition ‘hyper = for’ in the phrase ‘for the dead’ is interpreted to mean ‘above the graves of the dead’. (His criticism)…Vicarious baptism for the dead requires us to think of the Corinthian’s faith in baptism as magical at worst[sic] or mechanical at best…. 3. Unbelievers sympathetic towards Christians who had died requested baptism on behalf of the dead and then expected to be in their company at the resurrection (Robertson, Plummer, Raeder, Jeremias and Howard).

(His criticism) The question remains whether these baptismal candidates expressed faith in Jesus Christ. 4. The phrase ‘baptized for the dead’ echoes a similar phrase ‘praying for the dead’ (see II Macc 12:40 and Stauffer). (His criticism) But the teaching of Christ and the apostles never include prayers for the dead. 5. The literal interpretation of the word ‘baptized’ is replaced by a metaphor…The text should then read “being baptized by experiencing death”. (His criticism) I think that this interpretation veers away from the message of the text. 6. Catechumens who were at the point of death asked for baptism. (His criticism) The problem is that this interpretation of the Greek preposition ‘hyper’ is contrived. 7. As a last resort, conjectures are suggested…. (His criticism) Conjectures; however, are highly subjective and should be regarded as nothing more than suggestions. Indeed we would be better off to admit that the text is unclear and non-communicative than to accept a superficial hypothesis…

After some further brief comments Kistemaker concludes with his own view: What is the meaning of this verse? Even though many scholars suggest a literal interpretation of this verse as vicarious baptism, the objections are formidable. In all humility I confess that the sense of the text escapes me: verse 29 is a mystery.(26)

We may admire Kistemaker’s candidness and humility in revealing his own limitations in advancing an interpretation of his own. He seems better able to critique the views of others especially the greater majority of scholarly opinion on the subject. At least he has summarised in brief the leading options for interpretation up to the early nineties.

K Quast In the mid nineties, K Quast (1994) wrote his introductory commentary on the Corinthian correspondence.(27) Quast observes the difficulties interpreting this verse and notes that:

For good reason, the Christian Church has not perpetuated the practice that some Christians had apparently observed.(28) He then goes on to admit that the most natural reading of the text suggests some were baptizing by proxy for the sake of those who had already died.(29) After discussing various other alternatives Quast comes down on the side of the “ad hominem” view when he sums up by saying: In any case, Paul neither condemns nor condones ‘baptism on behalf of the dead’, he simply points out that even the practice of some in Corinth betrays a hope for the body after death, without a physical resurrection, a bodily baptism is meaningless.(28)

On the way through to his conclusion stated above Quast critiques the interpretation encountered above in other writers, namely “the dead” means “nothing more than the dead body” but counters this line of thought: While this interpretation removes the theological difficulties of v29, it hardly does justice to Paul’s choice of words. Nowhere else does he use the adjective “dead” as a synonym for the physical body.(29)

T Engberg-Pedersen, JDG Dunn and DB Martin In the year 1995 there were three commentators on I Cor 15:29, these being T Engberg- Pedersen, JDG Dunn and D B Martin.(30) As far as Engberg-Pedersen is concerned, Paul “can be remarkably tolerant, condoning even baptism for the dead”,(31) whilst Dunn feels baptism for the dead could “possibly be related to social prestige”.(32) Martin comments that “the practice itself seems to suggest that the Corinthians believed in some sort of afterlife for their dead loved ones”.(33)

K Bieringer Another publication coming from the mid nineties is K Bieringer’s (1996) “The Corinthian Correspondence”.(34) This work is actually a symposium with a number of essays of which Bieringer is the editor. As such it represents a collection of essays mostly in English with some in other European languages including German. Perhaps the most relevant of all the various essays was C M Tuckett’s article entitled “No Resurrection of the Dead” (I Cor 15:12).(35) Whilst this essay is not on our thesis verse, it does enter into the debate as to whether those who practiced vicarious baptism

26 actually denied survival beyond death(36) to be dealt with further in the next section of the thesis.

This brings this particular survey to a close, keeping in mind the other contributors cited at the commencement of this chapter will be dealt with in the next section. Conversely not much further comment will be given on those commentators mentioned in this chapter.

However the fifty year period introduced by Foshini’s monumental work was to prove productive of a variety of approaches to the interpretation of I Cor 15:29. In “show- casing” these various interpretations over the past couple of chapters one gains a better appreciation of the great variety on the one hand and yet the similarities in the key issues being thrown up. These key issues which take the form of debates and reactions to the various leading scholars will be the main concern of the next section of the thesis. Once the key issues and debates have been surveyed and critiqued it is then possible to operate within a scholarly context. This in turn sets the scene for an exegesis of this text in due course.

FOOTNOTES

1. Further details on the following scholars cited in this reference are as follows:

i. Orr, WF and Walther, JA “I Corinthians” (1976), (Anchor Bible), Doubleday, NY. ii. Murphy-O’Connor, J “Baptised for the Dead (I Cor XV: 29) A Corinthian Slogan? (in) Revue Biblique 88 (1981), 532-543. (inter alia includes other works published by this theologian, examined in the next section of the thesis). iii. O’Neill, JC “I Cor 15:29” (in) Expository Times 91 (1980), 310. iv. Wedderburn, ASM “The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in I Cor XV” (in) Novum Testamentum 23 (1981), 229-241. v. Pfitzner, VC “First Corinthians” (1982), Lutheran Publishing House, Adelaide. vi. Theissen, G “The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays in Corinth” (1982), Fortress, Philadelphia. vii. Downey, J “I Cor 15:29 and the Theology of Baptism” (in) Euntes Docete, Rome, 38 (1,’85). viii. Fee, G “I Corinthians” (1987), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. ix. Witherington B “Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on I & II Corinthians” (1995), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. x. Reaume, JD “Another Look at I Cor 15:29, Baptized for the Dead” (in) Biblica Sacra 152 (1995), 457-475. xi. De Maris, RE “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (I Cor 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature 114 (4,’95), 661-682. xii. Horrell, DG “The Social Ethics of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interest and Ideology from I Corinthians to I Clement” (1996), T & T Clark, Edinburgh. xiii. Bieringer, R (Ed) “The Corinthian Correspondence” (1996), University Press, Leuven (Louvain) Belgium. xiv. White, JR “Baptized on Account of the Dead: The Meaning of I Corinthians 15:29 in its Context” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997), 489-499. xv. Horsley, RA “I Corinthians” (1998), Abingdon, Nashville. xvi. Campbell, RA “Baptism and Resurrection” (in) The Australian Biblical Review 47 (1999), 43-52. xvii. Thistleton, AC “The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a Commentary on the

Greek Text” (2000), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 2. Ruef, J “Paul’s First Letter to Corinth” (1977), SCM, London, 168. 3. Getty, MA “First and Second Corinthians” (1983), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 73. 4. Macarthur, JF “First Corinthians” (1984), Moody Bible Institute, Chicago. 5. ibid., 425. 6. ibid. 7. ibid. 8. ibid. 9. Morris, L “I Corinthians” (1985), (2nd Ed), Intervarsity Press, Leicester, 214. 10. ibid. 11. ibid., 215. 12. ibid. 13. Kilgallen, JJ “First Corinthians: and Introduction and Study Guide” (1987), Paulist, NY. 14. ibid., 135. 15. Apostle’s Creed. 16. Talbert, CH “Reading Corinthians: a Literary and Theological Commentary on I and II Corinthians” (1989), Crossroad, NY. 17. ibid., 99. 18. ibid. 19. ibid. 20. ibid. 21. Watson, N “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (1992), Epworth, London. 22. ibid., 171. 23. ibid., 172. 24. Kistemaker, SJ “Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians” (1993), Baker, Grand Rapids, 558. 25. ibid., 559-560. 26. ibid., 560. 27. Quast, K “Reading the Corinthian Correspondence: an Introduction” (1994), Paulist Murweh, NJ. 28. ibid., 93. 29. ibid.

30. i Engberg-Pedersen, T “Paul in his Hellenistic Context” (1995), Fortress, Minneapolis. ii Dunn, JDG “I Corinthians” (1995), Academic Press, Sheffield. iii Martin, DB “The Corinthian Body” (1995), Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn, 107. 31. Engberg-Pedersen, T, op. cit., 107. 32. Dunn, JDG, op. cit., 84. 33. Martin, DB, op. cit., 107. 34. Bieringer, K op. cit. 35. ibid. Bieringer, Tuckett’s essay is on 268-275. 36. Ibid.

THESIS SECTION B:

ISSUES AND DEBATES

1) Bultmann’s view and reactions to it. 2) Jeremias/Raeder approach and its supporters against the Vicarious View and reactions to it. 3) Amended Wording and Punctuation approach of those apposed to the Vicarious View. 4) The various contexts approach of those in favour of the Vicarious View. 5) The various contexts approach of those against the Vicarious View.

B (1) Bultmann’s view and reactions to it.

Bultmann’s View on I Cor 15:29 Rudolf Bultmann's “Theology of the New Testament” in 2 volumes was published in German in 1951 and translated into English 1952 and 1955. In the first of these volumes, Bultmann deals with I Cor 15:29 in a section/chapter on the sacraments within the Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church. At the outset of his discussion, Bultmann clearly defines his theological terms used and then illustrates them. He defines baptism thus: The meaning of baptism is determined by various factors which in part work together, in part independently. But in every case it is regarded as a sacrament - i.e. an act which by natural means puts supernatural powers into effect, usually by the use of spoken words which accompany the act and release those powers by the mere utterance of their prescribed wording. Indeed, the sacramental act may confine itself completely to the speaking of a word or a formula.(1)

Bultmann then goes on to define further the concept of sacrament along these lines: If the conditions are fulfilled (if, for instance, the prescribed formula is correctly spoken and the material is thereby “consecrated” - i.e. laden with supernatural power, and if the act is consummated according to the prescribed rite), then the supernatural powers go into effect, and the act, which apart from these conditions would be only a purely worldly, natural one like a bath or a meal, is itself a supernatural ceremony which works a miracle.(2) The way in which Bultmann has defined the above terms, albeit in a clinically exacting way, is in broad accord with that which most theologians would be prepared to acknowledge. However he proceeds on to the controversial with his concept that “though in the primitive state of the history of religions sacramental action can hardly be distinguished from magic...”(3). There would be many over the next couple of decades as his work became better known in the English speaking world who would take issue with Bultmann in his usage of “magic” to describe sacramental action in the primitive era. Be this as it may, he concludes his discussion of sacramentalism by saying: Finally, a sacrament can be etherealised into a symbol; then a psychological(4) effect results instead of a miraculous one. Having made this important distinction, Bultmann then begins to illustrate his definition of terms by stating:

It is clear that in earliest Christianity the sacrament was by no means a symbol, but a miracle-working rite - most strikingly shown for the sacrament of the Eucharist in I Cor 11:29ff (see below), and for baptism in I Cor15:29.(5) Most relevant to this study are his words on this latter verse: When people have themselves baptised for the dead, as they did in Corinth – i.e. when their intention is to have the supernatural powers that the sacrament bestows made effective for the dead - then no distinction is made between the sacrament and a magical act.(6) Bultmann identifies the sacrament with magical act as hinted at earlier and now illustrates the identification. He states that such practices were not introduced by Paul or other Jewish-Christian missionaries. He finds it no less understandable that it was eliminated by the church even if gnostic sects practiced it for a while.(7)

Further, he finds it significant that Paul mentions the custom “without any criticism whatever...”.(8) At this very point Bultmann again ventures into the controversial when he gives his reason for Paul's attitude: ...for the mode of thought behind it is precisely his own, too, as it was for earliest Christian thought in general (with the exception of John).(9) Bultmann’s identification of early sacramentalism with “magical acts” as being illustrative of Pauline thinking in regard to I Cor 15:29 shows graphically his “history of religions” approach as he earlier acknowledged.(10)

Bultmann again makes comment on I Cor 15:29 elsewhere in his first volume. It is essential to observe these instances for they show other facets of his thinking on this verse. In citing his three interpretations of the sacrament of baptism - these being purification, sealing by the Name and bestowal by the Spirit he adds a fourth “very important one” that is “Baptism imparts participation in the death and resurrection of Christ”.(11) He attributes the origin of the understanding to the Hellenistic Church.(12)

In concluding this line of thought, Bultmann observes: It is also implied, finally, by I Cor 15:29; for what else did this vicarious baptism for the dead, which Paul already found in use, intend by just this: to give even those who had died the benefit still of the life provided by Christ’s own resurrection?(13)

Notice Bultmann’s usage of the term “vicarious” in describing this baptism and its identification with the death and resurrection of Christ. Bultmann borders on the controversial once more when he alleges that Paul misunderstood the gnosticizing party at Corinth. He arrives at this opinion by “attributing to them the view that with death everything is over”(14) (I Cor 15:19,32). According to Bultmann, Paul’s misunderstanding was proven by the custom of vicarious baptism (15:29) which “by itself suffices to show”.(15) He alleges further that the gnosticizing party at Corinth was

only contending against the realistic teaching of the resurrection as contained in the Jewish and primitive Christian tradition.(16) This view of Paul’s misunderstanding of the gnosticizing party at Corinth as proved by I Cor 15:29 would, as will be seen below, be contested by other scholars in the decade to follow.

The last reference to I Cor 15:29 in Bultmann’s first volume occurs when he observes: To be sure, it is scarcely permissible to say that he (i.e. Paul) completely freed himself of the mystery - conception of sacrament as having a magical effect for he leaves vicarious baptism, which rests upon such a conception, at least uncontested (I Cor 15:29).(17) He then attempts to qualify his view on this point somewhat by saying: “Nevertheless, he by no means unconditionally attributes magic influence to baptism, as if receiving it guaranteed salvation”.(18) In attempting to comment upon Bultmann’s views on this issue there is much indeed which is controversial, as already indicated, and about which later commentators would take issue with him. These reactions include both support and criticism of Bultmann’s views as can be seen from the following range of views.

Various Responses to Bultmann’s View Beasley-Murray(19) identifies three different views arising from these disputed issues. These are: i. Baptism for the dead springs from a magical estimate of the sacraments and Paul’s approval of it reflects his own sacramentalism; ii. Baptism for the dead is not to be deprecated and Paul had no grounds for disapproving of it; iii. Baptism for the dead was an alien custom adopted by the Corinthians and Paul’s citation of it during the course of an argument on another subject yields

no evidence as to his opinion of it.(20) Beasley-Murray identifies Bultmann with the first two of these views and sums up his criticisms by saying: In my judgement we have to admit with Bultmann that baptism for the dead represents an unethical, sub-Christian sacramentalism, but against him we must affirm that it is a falling away from the baptismal theology implied in Paul’s expositions on the subject.(21) And: It is more satisfactory to infer that, since I Cor 15:29 is solitary in Paul’s letters in its representation of this kind of sacramentalism, it reflects not the apostle’s beliefs but those of the Corinthians he is addressing.(22) Thus he effectively refutes the third of the positions outlined above.

Beasley-Murray gives some hints to his own position by indicating that the majority of interpreters of his time subscribe to the vicarious baptism view.(23) However he also states that: The manner in which such a baptism could serve the interests of the dead and what significance it had for Paul’s baptismal theology are widely disputed.(24)

Interestingly Beasley-Murray was to translate from the German in 1964, Rudolf Schnackenburg’s “Baptism in the Thought of St Paul”.(25) Schnackenburg’s approach accords with the best canons of German Scholarship, though with a more conservative view than that of Bultmann. At the beginning of his treatment of this subject(26) he dismisses the “long prevailing idea of a vicarious baptism” as being shaken by recent investigations.(27) He also believes that the “magical custom” view would Contradict not only the Apostle’s opposition to a magical interpretation of the sacrament (a tendency we have just affirmed of I Cor 10:1-13) but also everything else that we know about baptism in the primitive Church.(28) Conzelmann(29) by contrast to Schnackenburg, after asserting this verse as “one of the most hotly disputed passages in the epistle”(30) states his position: The wording is in favour of the “normal” exposition in terms of “vicarious baptism”: in Corinth living people have themselves vicariously baptised for dead people. Paul does not criticise the custom but makes use of it for his argument. This custom once again shows the sacramentalism prevailing in

Corinth.(31) He asserts further that not only does the wording demand a vicarious baptism interpretation but that it is also “idle to dispute that a magical view of the sacraments prevails at Corinth”.(32)

So far Conzelmann is in total agreement with Bultmann. However he does disagree with the latter on the alleged Pauline misunderstanding of the Corinthian position on the afterlife, and the belief held by some at least. Conzelmann observes: Paul’s reference to this custom provides one of the most important arguments against the assumption that he misunderstands the Corinthian position. He shows himself to be obviously well informed. And if he is aware of this custom, then he cannot well credit the Corinthians with the view that death is the end of everything.(33)

Relevant to his support for Bultmann’s vicarious view and its magical sacramental emphasis, Conzelmann cites the approach of Rissi(34) who whilst espousing a vicarious view “seeks to avoid a sacramentalistic interpretation”.(35) According to Conzelmann, Rissi argues the vicarious baptism is an “act of proclamation and confession” by which the hope of resurrection for specific dead persons is testified: “We believe in the resurrection of this dead person”.(36) However, for Conzelmann, Rissi’s significatory view here is “neither Corinthian, nor Pauline, but Barthian”.(37)

Arising from Bultmann’s “Pauline misunderstanding” view and in support of it there is the “double misunderstanding” view of Joyce.(38) He says: Paul inaccurately attributes to them a “no resurrection” theology because they do not believe in a resurrection of this body, but a spiritual resurrection of the Hellenistic-Gnostic variety. They think that Paul believes and contends for a resurrection of this body which in fact he does not. But the misunderstanding on both sides continues.(39)

Earlier Joyce calls this a “double misunderstanding”.(40) In further describing the Hellenistic-Gnostic variety of spiritual resurrection, Joyce explains this as: They saw no alternative to the flesh and blood resurrection (reuniting of soul and body) of rabbinic Judaism (or popular Judaism) than the naked

soul resurrection of the Hellenistic-Gnostic thought. Paul found another alternative in “spiritual body” and he meets their thought in its context in II Cor 5:lff.(41) It is clear that there was some misunderstanding on both sides as Joyce rightly points out here. However it would be wrong, in my view, to attribute this to anything more than a minority, because within Ch 15 of I Corinthians Paul addresses the issue of “no resurrection” to “some” (tinev) (v 12). Whilst the Corinthian church would have probably been Gentile and Hellenistic in outlook, there would have been a significant Jewish presence there as well (I Cor l: l, 14-16), particularly among its leaders. Therefore by implication there would have been also “some” who would not have misunderstood Paul and would have most likely therefore have had similar views on the resurrection as his own. This is after all pre-supposed in the tenor of the whole chapter, within which he tackles the implications of the non-Hebraic view of the resurrection. It is an issue which stands at the back of our verse under consideration.

J.C. Hurd in his book on the origins of I Corinthians(42) takes issue in particular with Bultmann’s view of the so-called “Pauline misunderstanding”. However Hurd understands this as follows: “The main point of difference between Bultmann and other scholars) is Bultmann’s conviction that I Cor 15 was written to combat disbelief in life after death, rather than disbelief in bodily resurrection”.(43) For Hurd there are two main considerations to the contrary. These are firstly: “It is ‘a priori’ improbable that Paul would have attributed to the Corinthians a denial of life after death, especially since, as Bultmann’s theory contends, Paul assumed that the Corinthians were still ‘baptising for the dead’.”(44) Hurd goes on to support his case further by stating that such a denial would have been “unexpected and unusual”. So much so that Paul would have wanted to verify this which he had ample opportunity to do so with access to visiting travellers there. Hurd concludes this line of thought with observing that with such information available to him, Paul would have had a correct understanding of Corinthian beliefs and therefore “knew what he was talking about”.(45)

Secondly Hurd states: Bultmann finds evidence for this thesis that Paul was attempting to convince the Corinthians of life after death in I Cor 15:19, 29-32. Hurd concedes that the text

of v l9 and the meaning of v29 are both problematic, however vv 30-2 argue clearly for life after death, not for resurrection in particular. Hurd adds: What Bultmann fails to allow for, however, is Paul’s tendency to exaggerate his arguments...Paul has taken an objection to belief in bodily resurrection and declared it to be tantamount to a rejection of all belief in life after death.(46) Hurd sums up his position: “It is doubtful that Paul believed that the Corinthians had really rejected all belief in life after death.”(47) One cannot help feel that Hurd’s criticisms of Bultmann’s “Pauline misunderstanding” viewpoint has much to commend it in the light of these two arguments.

Most of the commentators on Bultmann’s views as reported thus far represent the main reactions in the decades between the late fifties through to the mid seventies. However the issues were still being debated by the scholarly community in the early eighties, some thirty years after Bultmann first raised them. One such example is that of AJM Wedderburn.(48) At the commencement of his article entitled “The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection on I Corinthians XV”, the author acknowledges that it would be beyond the scope of his article to survey all the different answers to this problem but that instead a few questions will be posed and eventually ask “which is most likely to be the correct one”.(49)

Wedderburn identifies one of the problems as being the apparent practice of baptism for the dead. For Wedderburn the problem in question rotates around this issue: Although this raises a fundamental problem, that the deniers of the resurrections may be a small group with little or nothing in common with Corinthian views reflected elsewhere in the letter, for the time being it may be best simply to say that Paul’s argument has far more force if the views of those being baptised for the dead are not completely different from those of the deniers of the resurrection.(50) Wedderburn is reliant for his view here upon Brakemeier.(51) However he also indicates that Sporlein argues that those who denied the resurrection were different from those who were baptised for the dead.(52) Witherington strengthens this latter view further by affirming that those being baptised for the dead were not among those who doubted the resurrection because Paul uses their practices to illustrate his case (i.e. the ad hominem argument).(53) Certainly on balance it would appear more consistent to argue with both

Sporlein and Witherington against Brakemeier and Wedderburn on this issue.

Wedderburn observes: When we turn to other suggestions we find that implicitly or explicitly, consciously or unconsciously, their opponents are saying that Paul misrepresents or misunderstands the Corinthians.(54) And substantiates his position: This is true, for instance of the suggestion that although they denied the resurrection of the body or flesh they looked for a survival of the immortal soul beyond the grave. If that is the case then not only does Paul seemingly misrepresent them but his argument really misses the point: he fails to argue that disembodied survival is not an adequate hope.(55) Wedderburn acknowledges his indebtedness to Bultmann at least in terms of the “Pauline misunderstanding”, which he feels is easier to allege at this point than his earlier mentioning “misrepresenting” by Paul. However Wedderburn turns a lot of his thinking on its head when he questions: “...but would a Hellenistic Jew like Paul not be all too familiar with this idea?”(56) Taking this last point first, it would be correct to say, as implied in his question, that Paul would be familiar with the idea of the Greek notion of the immortality of the soul. Indeed this can be shown to be the case in his debate with his Greek audience at the Areopagus in Athens as reported in Acts 17:16-34. At the end of this particular passage, upon Paul’s mentioning the “raising of the dead” (17:31b), there was an immediate division of opinion among his hearers between those who sneered and those who believed (17:32). Interestingly this incident occurred just prior to Paul’s visit to Corinth as reported in the next chapter, i.e. Acts 18. (57)

Contrary to Wedderburn’s earlier statement about Paul not only misunderstanding (which we have just seen he effectively refutes) but also misrepresenting the Corinthian position, this is simply not correct. It is abundantly clear that Paul’s main theme in Chapter 15 of I Corinthians is the arguments for the Hebraic idea of the resurrection of the dead in contra-distinction from any prevailing Greek thinking about the immortality of the soul. It is clear from the whole tenor of his argument that Paul is unconcerned with any debate which may have existed between the Hebraic and Greek thinking on the fate of the dead. Therefore Paul cannot be said to have either misunderstood or worse

40 still misrepresented his opponents who did not believe in the resurrection, but may have alternatively believed in the Greek notion of immortality instead or perhaps even annihilation.

Tuckett, in an article within a book published toward the end of the period under review in 1996, writes further on the “theory of a Pauline misunderstanding”.(58) His views written forty years after Bultmann’s first raising this issue represent one of the most contemporary positions on this topic.

The “standard counter” to the theory of a Pauline understanding for Tuckett is: that Paul evidently knows of the Corinthian practice of vicarious baptism; hence he cannot have attributed to the Corinthians a belief that death is the end of everything...Thus Paul cannot have misunderstood the Corinthian view at this crucial point.(59)

He sums up his overall position in these memorable words: Without a future hope, such present existence is meaningless. Without a belief that present existence will be changed in a future resurrection life, the present has nothing to offer. Collapsing the future hope into the present leaves nothing for the future which in turn is what can give meaning and hope to present existence as Paul sees it.(60)

This is a concise summary of the rationale for Paul’s main argument in I Cor 15 and therewith verse 29 within that kind of context.

In conclusion, I need to comment on the main features of the debate between Bultmann and those who have reacted to him in different ways. If one was to attempt to summarise the two main thrusts of his thinking about this verse, these would be the “magical sacramentalism” at Corinth as evidenced in this verse and his assertion of a Pauline misunderstanding of the Corinthian view of the after life. This misunderstanding was due partly to nihilism (i.e. death ends everything e.g. ch 15:19,32) and Gnostic influences there also which disagreed with Hebraic teaching about the resurrection of the dead.

The various commentators cited have either agreed, in varying degrees, with Bultmann on these two main aspects of his argument or alternatively disagreed. In my opinion most if not all of the various implications of his argument on these two issues have been adequately dealt with by his supporters and critics over the past half century almost.

My Personal Response to Bultmann’s View

As far as my personal attitude to Bultmann’s views, in the light of his critics, I believe that there is strong evidence for sacramentalism at Corinth beyond what is in I Cor 11:23-29. However, what Bultmann describes as ‘sacramental’ I would differ with as will be seen below. One must first note other evidences for sacramentalism in such passages a I Cor 10:2-4, 14-22, 3. In this previous chapter Paul identifies both baptism and the communal eating of the same spiritual food and drinking of the same spiritual drink with the experience of Israel’s pilgrimage in their way to the promised land (10:2- 4). He further identifies the source of their drink with Christ as the rock (10:46).

In the latter of these passages, Paul contrasts sharply participation in the Eucharist with eating food (i.e. meat) that had been sacrificed to idols. At the outset (10:16) Paul identifies again the source of the Eucharist with Christ with both the bread an “cup of blessing” being a “koinwni/a” in the blood and body of Christ. The word “koinwni/a” can be variously rendered as “communion” (RSV) “sharing” (NRSV). Either word among others (i.e. fellowship; participation) evoke a strong sacramental view, which in turn informs what follows in the next chapter in 11:23-29.

Bultmann’s view, as has been demonstrated earlier on, can be described as “magical sacramentalism”. It is at this point that I differ with Bultmann and would prefer not to describe this as “having a magical effect”. (61)

This kind of description debases the spiritual (i.e. non-material) aspects of a sacrament, which according to one definition is: “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace”.(62) This definition strikes the balance between the material and non- material dichotomy which is present in sacramentalism. Therefore there can be no scope for Bultmann’s description in terms of “magical effect”.

Further, I agree with his description of baptism for the dead as being “vicarious”. This is the most appropriate way of describing the action in terms of the best interpretation of the Greek vocabulary used. As far as the second major issue in regard to the alleged Pauline misunderstanding of the Corinthian view, I align myself wholeheartedly with

42 those critics cited who disagree. Overall I cannot believe that Paul would have not understood the prevailing Hellenistic view on the fate of the dead. He himself was a Hellenistic Jew born in the Diaspora and therefore able to appreciate Greek thinking on this and other issues. Whether the issue in question rotates around nihilism, with annihilation after death or immortality of the soul, derived originally from platonic thinking, Paul would have been fully conversant with both. His dialectical style in this chapter, indicates some attempt at least in engaging with his critics (i.e. those who say there is no resurrection) but essentially he quests for a more adequate understanding of the resurrection of the dead.

To this end St Paul has supplied the church with its best exposition of the credal affirmations: “we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come” (Nicene Creed) and “I believe in...the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting” (Apostles Creed).

However in coming to these views on the issues raised by Bultmann and his commentators and critics, it is difficult not to be impressed by his thorough-going scholarly erudition, typical of the best of German theological scholarship, then and since. This debate has enriched our understanding of I Cor 15:29 to the benefit of all.

FOOTNOTES

1. Bultmann, R “Theology of the New Testament” (ET 1952), Vol l (Translated by K Grobel) SCM, London, 135. 2. ibid. 3. ibid. 4. ibid. 5. ibid., 135-136. 6. ibid., 136. 7. ibid. 8. ibid. 9. ibid. 10. op. cit., 135, cited infra. 11. ibid., 140. 12. ibid. 13. ibid., 141. 14. ibid., 169. 15. ibid. 16. ibid. 17. ibid., 311-312. 18. ibid., 312. 19. Beasley-Murray, GR “Baptism in the New Testament” (1962), Macmillan, London. 20. ibid., 187-88. 21. ibid., 190. 22. ibid. 23. ibid. 24. ibid., 187. 25. Schnackenburg, R “Baptism in the Thought of St Paul” (1964), Blackwell, Oxford. 26. ibid., 95ff. 27. ibid. 28. ibid. 29. Conzelmann, H “I Corinthians” (ET 1975), Fortress Press, Philadelphia. 30. ibid., 275. 31. ibid., 276.

32. ibid. 33. ibid., 275-6. 34. Rissi, M “Die Taufe fur die Toten” ATLANT 42, (1962), Zwingli Press, Zurich and Stuttgart. 35. Conzelmann, op. cit., 277, N 123. 36. Rissi, op. cit., 89. 37. Conzelmann, op. cit., and ibid., 277. 38. Joyce, JD “Baptism on Behalf of the Dead an Interpretation of I Corinthians 15:29- 34” (in) Encounter 26 (1965), 269-277. 39. ibid., 275. 40. ibid. 41. ibid., N(30). 42. Hurd, JC “The Origin of I Corinthians” (1965), SPCK, London. 43. ibid., 197. 44. ibid. 45. ibid. 46. ibid. 47. ibid. 48. Wedderburn AJM “The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in I Corinthians XV” (in) Novum Testamentum XXIII 3 (1981), 229-241. 49. ibid., 229. 50. ibid., 230. 51. Brakemeier, G “Die Auseinanersietzung des Paulus zu I Kor 15” (1968), (Dissertation, University of Gottingen). 52. Sporlein, B “Die Leugnung der Auferstehung: eine historisch-Kritische Untersuchung zu I Kor 15”(1971), Regensburg. 53. Witherington, B “Conflict and Community in Corinth: a socio-rhetorical commentary on I and II Corinthians” (1995), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich. 54. Wedderburn, op. cit., 230. 55. ibid., 230-1. 56. ibid., 231.

57. The Lukan portrayal of Paul as witnessed in this encounter with the audience at the Aeropagus (Acts 17: 16-34) provides some contrasts with that portrayed by himself in the Pauline epistles and Deutero-Pauline literature. However, in regard to the

resurrection, I Cor 15 illustrates Paul’s capacity at arguing his case in favour of this belief against those who denied it as he also did at Athens. (I Cor 15:12).

58. Tuckett, CM “No Resurrection of the Dead (I Cor 15:12)” (in) The Corinthian Correspondence (edited by) R Bieringer, (1996), University Press, Louvain, 269. 59. ibid., 269-70. 60. ibid., 273. 61. See footnote (17) in regard to this expression.

62. Catechism Question 2 (in) “Book of Common Prayer”, University Press, Cambridge, 294.

B (2) Jeremias/Raeder approach and its supporters against the Vicarious View and reactions to it.

In an article in New Testament Studies (NTS) published in 1956, entitled: “Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God” Joachim Jeremias refers to his pupil Maria Raeder’s(1) article on I Cor 15:29 published in the German journal, Zeitschrift fűr Neuentestamentliche Wissenshaft (ZNW). For the sake of convenience this particular interpretation of I Cor 15:29 will be entitled the Jeremias-Raeder view, because as Jeremias himself states: "one of my students, Miss Maria Raeder...has, in my opinion, solved the riddle of this crucial verse...I may resume her argument in short, adding some remarks of my own”.(2) This indicates the close association and identification of ideas between teacher and student.

The Jeremias/Raeder View Jeremias firstly alludes to the “usual explanation” of v29, this being the vicarious baptism for the dead - a rite which he (i.e. Paul) would be mentioning as an argument without thereby proving it - is wholly unfounded.(3) He dismisses further the vicarious view, by claiming that: the gnostic vicarious baptisms, which are mentioned in the patristic literature, are of no help for the understanding of our verse because they evidently have their origin in a misinterpretation of our verse itself.(4)

It is clear at this stage that Jeremias has no time for Bultmann’s views even if he doesn’t allude at all to the latter. He then puts forward what he calls the “right understanding” of verse 29, which is based on two observations. The first of these is the distinction between nekroi\ and oi9 nekroi\. The anarthrous nekroi\ denote the dead in general (e.g. vv 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 29b, 32) whereas oi9 nekroi\ denote deceased Christians (e.g. vv 29a, 35, 42, 52). Therefore the change of oi9 nekroi\ to nekroi\ in v29 is significant because in v29a the tw=n nekrw=n speaks of deceased Christians, whilst the nekrw=n of v29b speaks of the dead in general. This leads Jeremias to put forward his view that those baptised are “heathen who are baptised for deceased Christians”.(5)

Secondly, following upon his first observation Jeremias states further the following:

if oi9 nekroi\ are dead Christians, the u9pe\r in ti\ poih/sousin oi9 baptizo&menoi u9pe\r tw=n nekpw=n denotes substitution.(6)

Jeremias posits that because u9pe\r has a final meaning the purpose in view must often be 48 inferred from the context. This being the case, the purpose within this context is his suggestion that pagan relatives of deceased Christians are being baptised so that they might be united with them at the resurrection. Therefore their hope also would be deceived if there was no resurrection. Likewise the Apostle’s dangers would be pointless without the resurrection (vv30-2).(7)

In effect Jeremias and Raeder “turn on its head” the general understanding of vicarious baptism. In the usual understanding it is Christian relatives of those deceased who died without baptism who are baptised on their behalf. But in the Jeremias - Raeder view the opposite applies, with pagans identifying with their predeceased Christian relatives through baptism. Thus the element of the vicarious disappears with their view also since the baptism by the pagans is something which can only be construed to have benefit for themselves alone. Schnackenburg was one of the first German scholars to comment favourably on the Jeremias/Raeder approach.

Support for the Jeremias/Raeder View i) R Schnackenburg Having “cleared the decks” of much of the views of his era, Schnackenburg then attempts to establish his own position on “other exegetical solutions”.(8) Having examined in some depth the context(9) and the grammatical aspect,(10) he then goes on to look at the three options in translating u9pe\r, these being with the translation

v) in favour of; vi) instead of; vii)‘for’ in the final sense.(11) Schnackenburg favours the third of these alternatives for which he then gives his reasons.

He states: On this view u9pe\r would give the purpose which someone might wish to reach through the action in question. This grammatical possibility...does not remove the obscurity of the passage; the exegesis must try to make comprehensible the intention of those who get themselves baptised ‘for the dead’.(12)

Schnackenburg considers the exposition of the Jeremias/Raeder as “worthy of consideration”.(13) After outlining their views he approvingly observes: The idea suggested by M Raeder and J Jeremias is close to the context and so 49

cannot be charged with being an unjustifiable intrusion.(14) In conclusion, Schnackenburg believes that the further argument mentioned by Paul in vv30ff about the dangers of his calling, whereby he dies daily, being exposed constantly to persecution and possible death in order that he might attain to the resurrection (II Cor 4:l0f; Phil 3:l0f), may well be “an exegetical solution”. In his opinion, this …simple and yet convincing way, settles an old crux interpretum. It makes no new contribution to Paul’s view of baptism; but the eschatological expectation is confirmed which already shines forth from the key passage Rom 6:1-11.(15) Thus Schnackenburg aligns himself closely with the Jeremias/Raeder view and extends on it along the lines indicated in the above quote. ii) JK Howard In an article entitled, “Baptism for the Dead: a Study of I Cor 15:29”(1965), JK Howard tackles this issue. Howard delineates three “possible” approaches to the interpretation of I Cor 15:29, these being: 1) normal baptism 2) to abnormal vicarious baptism 3) to baptism of friends and relatives of a dying Christian as a result of his testimony.(16)

Before turning to elaborate on these options, Howard following an earlier commentator, Findlay(l7) suggests using his three criteria of interpretation in order to arrive at a meaning which has any validity.(18) These criteria are as follows: i) oi9 baptizo/menoi must refer to the recipients of Christian baptism; ii) u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n clearly points to a class of dead, presumable Christian, who have an interest in, or connection with, the living. iii) kai\ h(mei=v (v30) - Paul and his associates could have allied themselves, in view of the action (v29) whatever it may have been.(19)

Howard admits at this point that the final of these three criteria is certainly the weakest, Some have argued that in fact it is a complete non-sequitur, since verse 30 bears no specific relation to verse 29, apart from the loose connection that they are both

concerned with the absurd results of denying the resurrection.(20) Be this as it may, Howard goes on to examine the three possible approaches as outlined above. In regard to the first being a reference to normal baptism, Howard states that to translate u9pe\r by the phrases “in the interest of” or “with an interest in” is a “doubtful expedient, and a meaning for which we have been unable to find any parallel”.(21)

In regard to the second option of “abnormal vicarious baptism”, Howard concludes his discussion on this option by positing: “It seems extremely unlikely that such a practice would arise in one isolated instance, and there is no evidence that it was practiced elsewhere, except for some late heretical sects”.(22)

Having reflected the first of these two positions, Howard moves on to the third. He alludes to the work of Maria Raeder, as outlined already, and tends to support her view of u9pe\r in its final sense meaning “for the sake of”; “because of”. He agrees also that oi9 nekroi\ indicates dead Christians. He then suggests accordingly that the verse be translated as: “Else what shall they gain from it who are baptised for the dead?” with poih/sousin having the sense of “they gain”, rather then the more literal “they do”.

In summing up his position in favour of the third option Howard clearly identifies with the Jeremias/Raeder view, seeing therefore those baptised as: “especially those who have entered the Christian community and have been baptised for the sake of those who have died in Christ; hoping to be re-united with them. Thus seen, this bone of contention becomes the copingstone of Paul’s argument concerning the absurdity of denying the resurrection”.(23) iii) JD Reaume Some thirty years after Howard published his article, J D Reaume in 1995 published his entitled: “Another Look at I Cor 15:29, Baptized for the Dead” in which he surveys many views.

Reaume states his position at the very outset of his article when he says: The interpretation of vicarious baptism is problematic for two reasons: first, there is no historical evidence of the practice of baptising the dead during New

Testament times and second, it seems doubtful that Paul would have written of such a practice so contrary to his theology without condemning it.(24) Reaume later presents his exegesis(25) of I Cor 15:29 which for the sake of brevity, one cannot outline here. However in his last section he presents his conclusion(26) in the last two pages. He makes the following points: 1) baptism is probably literal water baptism of Christians 2) “The ones who are baptised” are most likely a small group of individuals, than the church as a whole 3) “the dead” in all probability were dead believers 4) “these dead believers” had presumably experienced Christian baptism before they died.(27) In the light of his definition of terms above arising out of his exegesis, he explores further three “strong possibilities”. These are to do with the way u9pe\r(28) is translated: a) “in the place of”- to replace dead Christians b) (final sense) “in order to be” reunited with their loved ones at the resurrection c) “because of” the influence of deceased Christians. This third translation, Reaume favours citing the example of Stephen’s martyrdom influencing Paul becoming a Christian.(29) Thus he rests his case at this point. iv) A Thistleton In his masterful commentary on I Corinthians (2000), A Thistleton classifies the various approaches under (A) & (B) with numbers.

He turns to what he calls B (13) as “the least problematic and most convincing of all”,(30) which is in fact is the Jeremias/Raeder view. Thistleton articulates it as: “Baptism for the sake of (u9pe\r) the dead refers to the decision of a person or persons to ask for, and to receive, baptism as a result of the desire to be united with their believing relatives who have died. This presupposes that they would share the radiant confidence that they would meet again in and through Christ at the resurrection of the dead”.(31)

As support for his view Thistleton claims that Jeremias and Raeder have dealt effectively with the linguistic issues associated with the usage of the preposition υπερ

52 in its “final sense” which means “for the sake of”.(32) He then goes on to call upon the further support of past commentators such as Robertson and Plummer’s (baptism out of consideration for the dead)(33) as well as other commentators such as Findlay, Howard, and Schnackenburg, which again have been also referred to in earlier chapters(34) and also above.

In conclusion to his masterful exposition on this topic and in connection with his own position, Thistleton cites “supposed objections”. These are two fold, firstly the mixed motives for such conversions which could be replicated in many pastoral situations and secondly that the subjective element of the pastoral situation just alluded to should not obscure the fact that: There is no room for preteens or self interest on a deathbed; the sincerity and transparency of faith and witness become overwhelming.(35) From a pastoral and subjective viewpoint this may well apply. However the following criticisms of the Jeremias/Raeder view can still apply to Thistleton’s espousal of it. All these various commentators on the Jeremias/Raeder view (Schnackenburg, Howard, Reaume and Thistleton) represent an impressive array of scholarly support.

However there have been critics of the view as well.

Critics of Jeremias/Raeder View i) GR Beasley-Murray In 1962, GR Beasley-Murray published his book “Baptism in the New Testament”.(36) Under a chapter on baptism in the Apostolic writings, Beasley-Murray deals with a number of New Testament verses, including I Cor 15:29.(37) The value of Beasley- Murray’s approach to this verse is that he carefully examines the contemporary scholarship of his day and then formulates his own position. In among the views of others he criticises the views of Jeremias and Raeder.

In regard to the Jeremias/Raeder view, he has this to say: Despite Jeremias’ careful presentation of his argument, most scholars will find it difficult to believe that Paul really meant by the phrase u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n ‘with a view to becoming united with the dead in the resurrection’, it demands the insertion of too much that has been left unexpressed.(38)

Beasley-Murray refers to Raeder’s article in seeking to construe of u9pe\r as denoting purpose, i.e. “the baptism undergone with the intention of reunion with the Christian deceased at the resurrection”.(39)

However he believes that All the evidence is against interpreting u9pe\r in v29 in another than the normal fashion...‘in the interests of the dead’, hence baptism for them must be primarily for the purpose of affecting their status and condition.(40) ii) Orr & Walther According to Orr and Walther, who comment on Howard’s view being identified with that of Raeder, they also state that “It is quite questionable however whether hyper (41) (u9pe\r) will bear this interpretation”. iii) JR White (42) White feels that Raeder’s revival of this view is “more intriguing”, because she turns the problem as it were upside down. This is because it is not the Christians being baptised for unbelievers, rather unbelievers being baptised to be united with their deceased baptised relatives at the resurrection. White, while observing that Raeder’s view has attracted scholars such as Jeremias, Bruce and Schnackenburg, he nonetheless feels it suffers from two of the problems of the vicarious view, these being: a) It is pure conjecture, there is no historical or biblical evidence for any such practice anywhere in the ancient world; and b) It is unrelated to the context.(43) For JR White this “alternate understanding of the preposition u9pe\r”(44) was associated originally with Luther, who uses u9pe\r in the local sense i.e. baptisms over the graves of the dead. However White claims this classical meaning for u9pe\r had “lost this classical meaning well before Paul took up his pen”. iv) H Conzelmann

One of the most incisive critiques of the “final sense” of the usage of u9pe\r, meaning “for the sake of”, espoused by Jeremias and Raeder, is offered by Hans Conzelmann. In developing his case against them, Conzelmann first of all articulates Raeder’s view as: pagan Corinthians who have lost Christian relatives have themselves baptized for

their sakes, because the Christian faith promises reunion with them.(45) Conzelmann cites Jeremias’ support for this view being derived from the latter’s usage of the Greek phrase “u9pe\r tw=n a9martiw=n h9mwn”, for our sins.(46)

At this point Conzelmann appeals to the venerable lexicographical authority of Blass- Debrunner,(47) who “to be sure, do not count u9pe\r tw=n a9martiw=n under the final meaning”.(48) To which Conzelmann adds further: And altogether, the final use of u9pe\r tells against this interpretation. Where it appears, it is always unequivocal, e.g. Phil 2:13.(49)

This kind of critique of the final usage of u9pe\r sounds a ‘death knell’ to the very keystone of the Jeremias/Raeder view. Coming also as it does with the authority of one of Germany’s most eminent New Testament scholars citing in turn probably the most prestigious lexicographical authorities, such a criticism must be taken seriously. White as seen also above disagrees with the Jeremias/Raeder “alternative understanding of the preposition u9pe\r”.(50)

The only viable alternative meaning for u9pe\r cited already by Beasley-Murray “in the interests of the dead, hence baptism for them must be primarily for the purpose of affecting their status and condition”.(51)

This leads us back to the vicarious view, where the living do something for their unbaptized dead. In conclusion, the very bizarre nature of the Jeremias/Raeder view with its turning upside down of the respective roles of the living and the dead strike one as difficult to sustain both for the early church and today. It is ultimately this unreality which contributes a fatal flaw to this view compounded as it is with the final usage of u9pe\r. For these reasons the Jeremias/Raeder approach to avoiding the vicarious view presents more problems than it solves and therefore fails to convince.

FOOTNOTES

1. In “New Testament Studies” Vol 2, No 3 (Feb 1956), 155-156 in association with M Raeder’s article “Vikarias taufe in I Kor 15:29?” (in) Zeitschrift fur Neuentestamentliche Wissenschaft (ZNW), 46 (1955). 2. ibid., 155. 3. ibid. 4. ibid. 5. ibid., 156. 6. ibid. 7. ibid. 8. ibid. 9. ibid., 95-7. 10. ibid., 97-8. 11. ibid., 98-102. 12. ibid., 101. 13. ibid. 14. ibid. 15. ibid. 16. Howard, TK “Baptism for the Dead: a Study of I Corinthians 15:29” (in) The Evangelical Quarterly Vol. XXXVII, No 3 (1965), 137-41. 17. Findlay, GG “I Corinthians” (Expositors Greek Testament Vol. II) (1900), ad loc. 18. Howard, op. cit., 137. 19. ibid. 20. ibid., 138. 21. ibid. 22. ibid., 140. 23. ibid., 141. 24. Reaume, JD “Another Look at I Cor 15:29, Baptized for the Dead” (1995), (in) Bibliotheca Sacra 152, 457. 25. ibid., 466-74. 26. ibid., 474, 5. 27. ibid., 474. 28. ibid., 475.

29. ibid. 30. Thistleton, AC “The First Epistle to the Corinthians: Commentary on the Greek Text” (2000), Eerdmans, 1249. 31. ibid., 1248. 32. ibid. 33. ibid., Cited from Thistleton’s Commentary, 345 (cf 359-60). 34. ibid. 35. ibid., 1248-9. 36. Beasley-Murray, GR “Baptism in the New Testament” (1962), Macmillan, London. 37. ibid., 185-192. 38. ibid., 186. 39. ibid. 40. ibid., 187. 41. Orr, WF and Walther, TA “I Corinthians” (1976), 335. 42. White, JR “Baptised on Account of the Dead: the Meaning of I Corinthians 15:29 in its Context” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature (1997), 487-99. 43. ibid., 491-2. 44. ibid., 491. 45. Conzelmann, H “I Corinthians” (1975), Fortress, Philadelphia, 276, N(121). 46. Conzelmann cites this reference from J Jeremias’ “Abba” 303f. 47. Blass-Debrunner “Lexicon of the New Testament”, 231, N (2). 48. Conzelmann, op. cit., and ibid. 49. ibid. 50. White, op. cit., 491. 51. Beasley-Murray, op. cit., 187.

B (3) Amended Wording and Punctuation approach of those opposed to the Vicarious View.

This particular approach among those who were opposed to the vicarious view was espoused by three scholars in particular- Thompson (1964), O’Neill (1980) and Campbell (1999).

All of these scholars attempt to amend either the wording or punctuation or both of I Cor 15:29 as their solution to what they see as problems with the vicarious view. They do this in the light of their interpretation of the early church fathers, these being Tertullian in the case of Thompson and Chrysostom in the case of O’Neill and Campbell. Their appeal to these two patristic writers implies a respect for and deference to their authority on the interpretation of our text.

KC Thompson In 1964, KC Thompson published an article entitled: “I Cor 15:29 and the Baptism for the Dead”.(1) This article attempts to amend both the wording and punctuation of our verse in the light of the early church Father Tertullian’s comments on it.

Tertullian (c 160-225AD) whose writings are mainly polemical in origin and form, wrote two works in which there is comment on baptism for the dead among the Marcionites, a heretical sect. These are De Resurrectione Carnis (Of the Resurrection of the Flesh) and Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion). These works of Tertullian, among others have been translated in the standard text “The Ante-Nicene Fathers”. Thompson also produced a translation of Tertullian as well and it is most important to compare two passages in both versions which form the basis of his translation of I Cor 15:29. The first of these passages is from “De Resurrectione Carnis” (48, 11). The Ante Nicene Fathers version is: But in as much as “some are also baptised for the dead” we will see whether there be a good reason for this. Now it is certain that they adopted this (practice) with such a presumption as made them suppose that the vicarious baptism (in question) would be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation of the resurrections; for unless it were a bodily resurrection, there would be no pledge secured by this process of a corporeal baptism. “Why are they then baptised for the dead” he asks, unless the bodies rise again which are thus baptised? For it is not the soul which is sanctified by the baptismal bath: its sanctification comes from the “answer”.(2)

Thompson translates the passage differently: Supposing however that some are actually baptised for the dead, we will see if this makes sense. Certainly, on that supposition, their having started such a practice does indicate how far they think that Baptism will benefit the Flesh, even when it is other than that of the person baptised and the Baptism vicarious. They have the hope of the resurrection in view, and that a bodily resurrection or it would not be tied up with a bodily Baptism as he says, what good is it for them to be baptised themselves even, if the bodies that are so baptised do not rise again - for the soul is sanctified not by bodily washing, but by spiritual response.(3)

The other relevant passage is from Adversus Marcionem. The Ante-Nicene Fathers version is: Let us now return to the resurrection, to the defence of which against heretics of all sorts we have given indeed sufficient attention in another work of ours (i.e. as above) but we will not be wanting (in some defence of the doctrine) even here, in consideration of such persons as are ignorant of that little treatise. “What”, asks he, “shall they do who are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not?” Now never mind that practice (whatever it may have been), the Februarian Lustrations will perhaps answer him (quite as well) by praying for the dead. Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates some new god as the author and advocate of this (baptism for the dead. His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body; in proportion as they who were vainly baptised for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection. We have the apostle in another passage defining “but one baptism” (Eph 4:5) to be “baptised for the dead” therefore means in fact to be baptised for the body; for we have shown it is the body which becomes dead. What, then, shall they do who are baptised for the body, if the body rises not again?(4)

Thompson translates:

Let us now return to the Resurrection, a subject I have in fact already done justice to elsewhere in its own special volume rebutting all heretics. But I am ready to do so here too, for the benefit of those who do not know that little work of mine. What, says he, will they achieve who are baptised for the Dead, if the Dead rise not? Your alleged practice (Baptism for the Dead) I dismiss as quite out of the

question. The Calends of February and Praying for the Dead (as in that month) will perhaps offer a parallel for it. But you must not on that account stigmatise the apostle as the immediate originator or as the endorser of it as if his argument for the Resurrection would be proportionately stronger, in so far as those, who got themselves baptised uselessly for the Dead, did so indeed in the faith of the Dead’s resurrection. We have him (St Paul) elsewhere laying it down that a man can only be baptised once. So then, here too, ‘to be dipped for the Dead’ means ‘to be dipped for corpses’ - for we use the word ‘mortuum’ or ‘dead man’ to denote a corpse. (So the passage says this): ‘What will they achieve, who are baptised (merely) for corpses if corpses do not rise again?’(5)

These two passages have been quoted at length from the two translations in order to show clearly the argument developed by Tertullian and also the way in which he has been interpreted by his modern translators. To take the last of these two issues first, it is of interest to note Thompson’s translation of Tertullian. According to him:(6) In the earlier excerpt, from De Resurrectione Carnis, you will see that Tertullian accepts the hypothesis that St Paul refers to a vicarious Baptism for the Dead but that he does so only as a hypothesis for argument’s sake (illa presumptione) and (I think) with marked reluctance. In the second excerpt, from his later work Adversus Marcionem, he refuses to do so. He scouts the whole supposition as ridiculous, and he proceeds to re-interpret and re-read the Pauline text, in a way that remarkably coincides with the sense given by our emended version. Thompson’s “emended version” of I Cor 15:29 is: Else what will they achieve who are baptised - merely for the benefit of their corpses if corpses never rise again? Why then he baptised just for them?(7) Thompson claims that his translation agrees very closely with the interpretation of the passage reached by Tertullian in his Adversus Marcionem v10.(8) The whole point of Thompson’s argument in regard to his translation of Tertullian seems to be along these lines, But did he (i.e. Tertullian) believe it (i.e. Vicarious Baptism) to have existed at Corinth in the time of St Paul? I think that a careful study and translation of these passages proves he did not.(9) By way of a critique of Thompson’s views as outlined above, it should be

61 remembered that Tertullian was writing against Marcion and his sect’s practice of vicarious baptism for the dead, as arising from this verse.

Thompson’s arguments have not apparently influenced many in the scholarly community, especially those who favour the straight forward meaning of the text. It is however interesting to compare his translation with that of the more highly accepted Ante-Nicene Fathers translation. The latter is the work of a number of patristic scholars and is preferred because it avoids the personal individual biases, which one translator such as Thompson brings to the text, as seen in his concluding comments above.

In the Ante-Nicene Fathers translation the practice of vicarious baptism is recognised in both passages. The first: Why are they then baptised for the dead, he asks, unless the bodies rise again which are thus baptised?(10) And in the second: His only aim in alluding to it was that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who vainly baptised for the dead resorted to the practice from belief of such a resurrection.(11)

These passages not only identify Tertullian’s recognition of this practice in the Church at Corinth but also the motivation of those who did so, namely belief in the resurrection of the dead.

This then is the crux of Tertullian’s argument in these two passages, even if he correctly draws attention to the need for only one baptism. He rightly also suggests that the apostle should not be supposed as an advocate of such vicarious baptism. His carefully nuanced definition at the end: to be “baptised for the dead” therefore means, in fact, “to be baptised for the body”.(12) This seems to require special pleading on his part, for it certainly cannot be exegeted from the original Greek, even if open perhaps to his view in the Latin translations and versions. However these of course are secondary and are therefore not the original reading. We must leave both Tertullian and Thompson at this point.

JC O’Neill

JC O’Neill published a brief article under “Short comments” in the Expository Times in 1980.(13) He commences with three difficulties associated with the Revised Standard Version (RSV) rendition of the text of I Cor 15:29. These difficulties are: 1. “...there are no examples, except possible among heretics, of living beings being baptised on behalf of the dead” 2. “the position of holos (o3lwv) which is usually taken in the above translation, with the verb, ‘are not raised at all’ or ‘are not actually raised’.” 3. (which) “arises when we consider the text of our verse. The manuscripts on which our printed versions rely end the verse with huper auton (u9pe\r au0tw=n). However Dc 020 326 1175 etc syp boms Eph, Chr give huper ton nekron (u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n) and 69 gives huper auton ton nekron (u9pe\r au0tw=n nekrw=n)”.14)

By way of an overall comment on these three O’Neill observes: None of these difficulties by itself completely destroys the possibility of taking the verse in the usual way, but taken together they increase our disquiet, and make us ask whether the settled solution is in fact right.(15)

He then proposes his own suggestion. The two phrases governed by u9pe\r refer to ta\ nekra\ rather than oi9 nekroi\, and the Greek fathers (e.g. Chrysostom) followed a similar line of thought interpreting u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n, toute/sti, tw=n swma/twn;(16) O’Neill sums up his line of investigation of the Greek by saying: “If this suggestion is right, the first sentence would then refer to those who are baptised in view of their approaching death”.(17) He claims this was the interpretation of Calvin, Bengel and Bachmann.(18) With all this in mind O’Neill then proposes his paraphrase of the whole of the verse as: Otherwise what do those hope to achieve who are baptised for their dying bodies? If the completely dead are not raised, why then are they baptised for themselves as corpses?(19) O’Neill justifies this paraphrase on the grounds that the history of the early church provides examples of deathbed convert/baptisms and requests of pagan parents that their children whose lives were threatened be baptised. O’Neill believes this verse indicates the beginnings of these kinds of practices, because “the bodily rite of baptism was used by people who expected the body soon to die and decay, because they expected that rite

63 to ensure eternal life at the resurrection of the body”.(20) Thus O’Neill concludes his article and a rationale for his particular approach.

RA Campbell Our last exponent of the amended wording/punctuation approach is from the Australian scholar RA Campbell.(21)

Having identified his own view with that proposed by Chrysostom in the fourth century, he states: The baptism referred to in I Cor 15:29 is, I believe, normal Christian baptism undertaken by Christian believers on profession of repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The people Paul has in mind in this verse are not a group in the Corinthian church who practice a distinctive baptism but the group (tinev) who say there is no resurrection of the dead (15:14) whose claim is at odds with their being baptized.(21) The attraction of the above for Campbell is that: it would bring the verse into line with the main stream of Christian experience and eliminate the need to hypothesise an otherwise unknown group with a bizarre baptismal practice.(22) He sustains his position further with the following: 1. “ it coheres well with the passage as a whole, especially with the argument that begins at v12...” (which is) the main premise. This also “tends to confirm that oi\ baptizo/menoi(v29) are the same people as tinev” (v12).(23) 2. “it seems very unlikely that Paul would use the words oi\ nekroi\ to refer to the Christian dead."(24) On the other hand Campbell believes that nekrov is “occasionally used by Paul and his disciples to refer to people as subject to death apart from Christ”.(25) 3. u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n used in its final sense conveys for the “inanimate corpses”, with a view towards resurrection.(26)

In concluding his case, Campbell seeks to re-iterate the understanding of Chrysostom as expressed in two of the latter’s homilies. Two quotes from these will illustrate Campbell’s dependency: Like as we, on our belief in Christ and his resurrection, are baptised as being in

our own persons destined to partake in the same mysteries: for “we are baptised” say he “for the dead”, that is for our own bodies;...(Chrysostom, Homily XXIIL3). Later in dealing with the Marcionite practice of vicarious baptism he states:

This therefore Paul recalling to their minds said, “If there be no resurrection, why art thou then baptised for the dead?” i.e. the dead bodies (sw=matw=n). For in fact with a view to this art thou baptised, the resurrection of thy dead body, believing that it no longer remains dead. (Chrysostom, Homily XL.2)

Campbell then makes the point from these extracts that oi9 nekroi\ is “dead bodies” and reading u9pe\r as final meaning “with a view to” the resurrection of the dead body(27). In conclusion, Campbell believes that his interpretation is commended by three things: a). Coherency with immediate context and chapter b) Agrees well with Paul’s usage of nekrov c) Having the support of Chrysostom, one of the earliest and most able expositors, who lived much closer to Paul’s time than we today.(28)

The above provide the main features of the approaches of Thompson, O’Neill and Campbell.

Some Finer Points i) Conzelmann In regard to some finer points of Thompson’s approach, Conzelmann portrays these as: Thompson joins in with the suggestion of Semler and others to punctuate as follows: 0Epei\ ti/ poih/sousin oi baptizo/menoi; u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n; ei0 o3lwv. For what shall they do who have themselves baptized? For the dead? (i.e. do they have themselves baptized for the dead?) If, etc... To this Thompson links other suggestions: (a) 0\Epei\ ti/ poih/sousin oi baptizo/menoi; u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n, ei0 olwv. For what will they do who have themselves baptized? They do it for the dead if...; (b) He finds it still better (following Tertullian to put a comma after baptizo/menoi and a question mark after e0gei/rontai, cf Tertullian, De Resurrectione Carnis 48:11; Contra Marcion 5:10. He points to the fact that in and ‘B’, despite the different length of the lines, a line ends in both ’א‘ Text“ 65

cases with baptizo/menoi.(29) Conzelmann understands his above portrayal of Thompson’s approach as: “the ingenuity of exegetes...run riot”.(30)

Interestingly at this point it is also instructive to turn to Conzelmann’s remarks on Chrysostom even if he is writing before O’Neill and Campbell’s exposition of this Church Father. He comments: Some of the church fathers are familiar with vicarious baptism as a heretical practice; thus Chrysostom knows of it as a custom of the Marcionites.(31) In his footnote substantiating the above remark after quoting the Greek of Chrysostom’s Homily in his Epistle I to the Corinthians 40:1; he translates this as: When any Catechumen departs [this life] among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead; they approach the corpse, and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then, when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath saith in his stead, that of course he should wish to be baptized; and thus they baptize him in the stead of the departed one.(32) This is the rather bizarre practice so described by Chrysostom of the Marcionite rites of vicarious baptism for the dead. Recoiling as it were from this eccentric application of the meaning of I Cor 15:29, Conzelmann goes on to state: On the other hand, the Greek Church Fathers are united in offering a different exegesis: the nekroi\, “dead” are the sw=mata u9pe\r w=n baptizo/meqa, “the bodies because of which we are baptized”.(33)

Conzelmann attributes this particular interpretation’s origin with Didymus of Alexandria but taken up also by Chrysostom.(34) He also discusses which Church Father first alluded to the interpretation in terms of vicarious baptism first arose owing to a misunderstanding on the part of Ambrosiaster.(35) However Conzelmann quotes other scholars as tracing this interpretation back to Chrysostom’s above statement on the Marcionite practices.(36) In any case from these early fathers commenced the trend towards I Cor 15:29 becoming “the crux of the exegetes”.(37)

It has been important to take careful note of Conzelmann’s discussion of the early

66 patristic scholars in order to understand further the background to O’Neill and Campbell’s espousal of Chrysostom in particular. Chrysostom was himself reliant on earlier commentators such as Ambrosiaster and Didymus of Alexandria. In regard to O’Neill’s particular approach, reliant as it is on Chrysostom, three scholars over the last couple of decades of the last century have criticised it, these being Murphy-O’Connor, Fee and White. ii) J Murphy-O’Connor Murphy-O’Connor introduces his comments on O’Neill’s article by saying that his own article had already been accepted for publication when he belatedly noticed O’Neill’s article. He agrees with O’Neill in the interpretation of o3lwv and u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n and u9pe\r au0tw=n as “referring to persons who are already dead in the physical sense”.(38)

Thereupon he goes on to make the following criticisms of O’Neill: He, however, takes these two phrases as alluding to that part of the baptizo/menoi which is “dying and about to become a corpse” (p310) namely the body. Texts cited in my article clearly document that Philo thought of the body as a ‘corpse’, passages that O’Neill could have used to strengthen his argument. He would thereby have made it more convincing.(39) Murphy-O’Connor sums up his main criticism of O’Neill as: As with so many other hypotheses, O’Neill produces a translation which is

perfectly possible if v29 is taken in itself, but he fails that his interpretation is the

most probable because he ignores the context. Whilst less bizarre than the current consensus, his opinion is vulnerable to the same fundamental objection that a reference to a Corinthian practice in v29 is alien to the context and interrupts the associative process inspired by v28. In addition of course, such a reference would not constitute a valid argument, neither for Paul nor for his adversaries.(40) iii) G Fee Criticising both O’Neill and Murphy-O’Connor Fee states: O’Neill, ‘I Cor 15:29’ and Murphy-O’Connor, “Baptized..”, independently object to this translation on the basis of word order. Since in (I Cor) 6:7 o3lwv immediately precedes the noun nekroi\ they argue that it should be translated “the

really dead”, in contrast to those in the first clause. But that is to place too much confidence in too little evidence when it comes to word order. More likely, in each case this word comes first in the Pauline sentence for emphasis, the verb appears last here because that is the fixed formula throughout.(41) Fee certainly strikes a hammer blow to both O’Neill and Murphy-O’Connor on this particular point and his criticism is convincing. iv) JR White White, commenting on what he calls “the non substantial sense for tw=n nekrw=n” claims that this has been revived by O’Neill. His criticisms in outline are four: a) This sort of ellipsis would be highly irregular; b) The expression “for their dying bodies” or “for themselves as corpses” are by no means immediately apparent; c) O’Neill’s argument based on a single, extremely late textual variant; and d) It is wholly unrelated to its context. White therefore judges O’Neill’s proposed solution must be deemed unsatisfactory.(42)

By way of a conclusion to summarising the main issues raised by those who seek to change the punctuation and or wording of I Cor 15:29 in order to avoid a vicarious meaning, there would appear to be two fundamental considerations in countering this approach. The first of these is the textual evidence and secondly the patristic. In regard to the former of these and the scope for valid variations of the text Foschini(43) states:

We have omitted questions regarding the authenticity of the text and of its exact context since those who hold that v29 is not authentic, or that is outside its original context have no sufficient serious arguments to prove their case. Variant readings in versions or codices, which can be found in critical editions, need not delay us.

Concerning the repetition of hyper ton nekron ( u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n ) in v 29, we agree with Comely in regarding it as a gloss and with modern critics we prefer the reading hyper auton (u9pe\r au0tw=n).(44) This astute comment is in fact borne out in the 4th revised edition (1983) of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament of this verse.(45) In the Textual commentary on the Greek New Testament 3rd edn (1971) there is no entry at all on I Cor 15:29,(46) which indicates no variation to comment upon either. All this evidence indicates that there would appear to be limited scope, if any at all, for basing any amendments to 68 wording and punctuation on supposed textual variations.

Secondly much has already been said above about the way in which the patristic writers (particularly Tertullian and Chrysostom) can be used as source of authority against the evidence for vicarious baptism in the early church. In regard to the question of influence in opinion Foschini identifies this as: For the Greek Fathers, with the exception of Epiphanius, followed in the footsteps of Chrysostom; the Latin Fathers on the other hand, followed Ambrosiaster;(47) This situation pertained up to the 16th Century as Foschini observes “no great variety of view on the text (i.e. I Cor 15:29) had been offered”.(48)

As the views of Tertullian and Chrysostom have already been canvassed, it will be instructive at this late stage of this chapter to briefly survey Ambrosiaster, because of his crucial role in the Western church. Again, Foschini has to report the following: The most common interpretation of 15:29 is that of vicarious baptism, performed by the Marcionites, and proposed as a valid exegesis for the first time by Ambrosiaster. According to this author, Paul in our text, “wishes to show how fixed and firm is the Resurrection of the dead, by giving the example of those who were so sure of the future Resurrection that they would be baptized for the dead who died before they could be baptized. Fearing that anyone who had not been baptized would either not rise at all, or rise only to be damned, a living person was baptized in the name of the deceased. This example is not an approbation of what they did but merely shows their firm faith in the Resurrection...”.(49) This comment “sheets home” the origins of the vicarious view in the Western church. Even if the “Baptism for Dead Bodies” (Corpses) view of Chrysostom, outlined in particular through O’Neill and Campbell, was to prevail in the Eastern Church the practice of vicarious baptism by the Marcionite church was both acknowledged and described by Chrysostom as reported earlier.

I consider the force of the various critics of Thompson, O’Neill and Campbell’s views together with textual and patristic evidence tend to argue against their case for changed punctuation and wording.

FOOTNOTES

1 Thompson, KC “I Cor 15:29 and The Baptism of the Dead” (in) Studia Evangelica II (1964), (edited by) F L Cross Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 647-59. 2 “The Ante-Nicene Fathers” Vol 3, (1980), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 581-2. 3 Thompson, op. cit., 656. 4 op. cit., “The Ante-Nicene Fathers” Vol 3 (1980) De Resurrectione Carnis, 449- 450. 5 Thompson 656, 7. 6 ibid., 654. 7 ibid., 659. 8 ibid. 9 ibid., 654. 10 op. cit., “The Ante Nicene Fathers” Vol 3 (1980), De Resurrectione Carnis. 11 ibid., Vol 3 Adversus Marcionem, 449. 12 infra, footnote (4) above 13 O’Neill, JC “I Corinthians 15:29” (in) The Expository Times Vol 91 No 10 (July 1980), 310-311. 14 ibid., 310. 15 ibid., also the textual issues will be dealt with at the end of this chapter. 16 ibid. 17 ibid. 18 ibid., 311. 19 ibid. 20 Campbell, RA “Baptism and Resurrection (I Cor 15:29)” (in) the Australian Biblical Review 47 (‘99), Parkville, Vic, 43-52. 21 ibid., 46. 22 ibid., 47. 23 ibid., 47-48. 24 ibid., 48. 25 ibid., 49. 26 ibid., 50. 27 ibid., 51. 28 ibid.

29 Conzelmann, H “I Corinthians” (1975), Fortress, Philadelphia; 276, N(120). 30 ibid., N (276). 31 ibid. 32 ibid., N (117). 33 ibid. 34 ibid., N (118). 35 ibid. 36 ibid., N (119). 37 ibid. 38 Murphy-O’Connor, J “Baptized for the Dead: (I Cor XV, 29) - a Corinthian Slogan?” (in) Catholic Biblical Quarterly XL (1978), 543, N (24). 39 ibid. 40 ibid. 41 Fee, G “I Corinthians” (1987), 763, N (13). 42 White, JR “Baptized on Account of the Dead: The Meaning of I Cor 15:29 in its Context” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997), 489-97. 43 Foschini, BM, “Those who are Baptized for the dead” (1950), Article 1, 2612. 44 Foschini BM, 262 ibid. and quoting Comely, Comm I Cor (1909), 481. 45 “The Greek New Testament” (1984), (4th rev edn), 603-4. 46 “A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament” (ed) BM Metzger (1971), 567-8. 47 Foschini, BM, op. cit., Article 1, 260. 48 ibid. 49 ibid., Article 3, 46-7, Foschini is quoting direct from Ambrosiaster’s Comm in 1 ad Cor (Comments on I Corinthians) PL, 17, 280.

B (4) The various contexts approach of those in favour of the Vicarious View

With regard to the context of I Cor 15:29 there are various interpretative approaches. These divide between those who were in favour of the vicarious view and those who are against. This chapter addresses the first of these divisions. The latter is dealt with in the next chapter, the respective scholars with their approaches, who affirm the vicarious view are: J Downey’s “spiritual powers”; B Witherington’s “Socio-rhetorical”; RE De Maris’ “archaeological/cultural” and TD Joyce and E Walter as “pastoral compassion”. While outlining each of the above, the reaction of those who have critiqued some of them will be also noted. Finally concluding reflections are offered.

J Downey

In 1985, James Downey published an article entitled: “I Cor 15:29 and the Theology of the Baptism”.(1) He describes: It is a sound principle, accepted in the pages that follow, that, unless the resultant sense becomes untenable, the words of the text should be taken at face value.(2) He had already observed that It is widely agreed that those, and they are many, who give other interpretations to the verse do so because they do not see how vicarious baptism can have been practiced at Corinth or referred to by Paul.(3) In making this particular observation Downey without doubt is going “to the heart” of the motivation behind those who represent the “case against”. He also has by this stage of his argument identified his own position with the vicarious view, which he sees as “approaching a consensus among commentators”.(4) Downey then gives some indication of his own solutions. He states: Specifically it is claimed that vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead is not incongruous when that baptism is seen, not as a means of forgiveness of sin, but as a protection against the principalities and powers in the after life.(5) Downey continues to develop this premise throughout the remainder of his article. However in so doing, he relates his argument to the theology of baptism, which of course is implied in the title. Under the subheading of the “Polyvalent Nature of Baptism”, Downey indicates that in the early church the purpose of baptism was thought of as polyvalent.(6) By this he means that baptism is not merely concerned with the remission of sin with the associated sacramentalism, but that there are other values. That is, a “protection 73 against and deliverance from the superior powers both in this world and the next”.(7) He cites as proof for this “cosmic aspect of baptism” in the New Testament such texts as Col 2:10-15; I Pet 3:19-22 and I Cor 8:6 and suggests I Cor 15:29 ought to be seen in this context. He justifies his stance further: When some of their members died, it was brought home to the bereaved Christian community that the deceased, not having been baptised, would be prey to the influence of the cosmic powers. Consequently the living were baptised on behalf of the dead.(8)

In a latter stage of his argument, Downey refers to language used by Paul elsewhere in the epistle to indicate further that there are “other superhuman” powers (who) exercise control in the universe”.(9) These are the a0rxo/ntwn tou= ai0wnov tou/tou (I Corinthians 2:6,8; 15:24) (the rulers of this age); to\ pneu=ma tou= ko/smou (2:12) (the spirit of the world/cosmos); qeoi\ polloi_ kai\ ku/rioi polloi\ (8:5) (many gods and many lords); a0ggeloi (11:10) (angels); pa=san e0cousian kai\ du/namin (15:24) (all authority and power) and qa/natov (15:26) (death). Downey defines these as the “cosmic spirit forces” which possess and control not only individual human lives but the very course of the universe.(10)

At this point Downey also acknowledges the need for gnw=siv (gnosis) or esoteric knowledge to enable the initiated to become aware of the secret of their own security. However he is at pains to declare at this point that Paul was no proto gnostic even if there may have been elements of this movement in Corinth.(11) Paul, in complete contrast, asserts the future subjugation of these cosmic powers in the future when every sovereignty, authority and power even death itself will be subject to Christ (15:24, 26). The Christian shares in this total victory of Christ through baptism. So then it is highly significant that Paul should allude to the Corinthian practice of baptism for the dead.(12) Downey sums up his main argument. If his interpretation does not do violence to the text, he goes on to assert that this kind of interpretation has been neglected.(13) However even though this may be the case in contemporary society, it would be relevant to several contemporary cultures where such a cosmic aspect of baptism is a preoccupation.(14) In such situations, he believes his particular interpretation would be of “considerable relevance to the theology of mission”.(15) There can be little doubt that Downey’s view is a novel one. However in spite of its

74 novelty there appear to have been few who have either accepted or rejected his line of thought as can be seen in the lack of references to Downey’s article by other scholars.

B Witherington On a more mundane level there is the approach of Witherington with his survey of conflict and community in Corinth from a socio-rhetorical viewpoint.(16) Witherington acknowledges the vicarious view and goes on to point out: While Paul does not endorse this magical view of baptism’s efficacy, he does not see this as a serious enough aberration to debate the point. He simply uses it as part of his ad hominem argument.(17) In an earlier comment on his book(18) further elaborating his view on this issue, Witherington states that those who were being baptised for the dead were not among those who doubted the resurrection because Paul uses their practices to illustrate his case (i.e. the ad hominem argument). He points out further that the “some” in each case stresses the factionalism at Corinth.(19) He introduces the rhetorical aspect and comments thus: Paul’s rhetorical strategy throughout this chapter is to unify the Corinthians in a proper belief in the resurrection by critiquing the view of the more prominent “some”, not the views of the less prominent, even if he thought that the latter involved some aberration.(20) Witherington takes the view - rightly or wrongly - that “more likely” it was the more wealthy members of the congregation, those with considerable social status and continuing strong ties to pagan society that denied the resurrection.(21) Whilst his “more likely” preface to this remark suggests some tentativeness in his belief, this kind of observation is still open to challenge. Various other factors such as cultural/ religious understanding may have brought about this division of opinion.

Two other aspects of his approach are worthy of note relevant to I Cor I5:29. The first of these is ritual. The baptismal rite on behalf of the dead suggested by v29 might be considered an expression of the strong Greco-Roman belief in the power of ritual. Ritual was considered likely to be effective if it was performed correctly in every detail...and perhaps some believed that if they performed proxy baptism on behalf of the dead

correctly, the dead would then receive salvation as the benefit conveyed by this Christian water ritual.(22) This idea certainly has an authentic “ring” about it given the ritualistic efficacy understanding that was prevalent in Greco-Roman culture.

The second of Witherington’s observations concerns cremation. He suggests: Another factor that may have fuelled the practice of proxy baptism among Corinthian Christians is cremation, which in some places was the predominant means of disposing of human remains during the first century AD. Those who could not afford land or expensive tombstones may have been practicing cremation at Corinth. Perhaps Paul’s preaching about resurrection led to concern that the departed who had been cremated would not get such a benefit hence the practice of proxy baptism.(23) He qualifies his view somewhat in a footnote where he states that later when the “implications of the concept of resurrection were clearly understood, Christians objected to cremation”.(24)

RE De Maris Another writer who comments briefly on this matter is De Maris, who states: Roman [burial] practices underwent a sudden and dramatic change in the second century, bringing them into conformity with the Hellenistic customs of the eastern Mediterranean. In other words, the Romans switched from cremation to inhumation [i.e. burial], so that the entire empire had a common burial practice in the second and later centuries.(25)

Be this as it may, De Maris has taken an enthusiastic stance in support of the vicarious view from the standpoint of archaeology and anthropology. His article of 1995 of some 22 pages represents a significant contribution to this topic, albeit with a novel approach. After exploring “The World of the Dead in Corinthian Religion”,(26) dealing with the cultural and archaeological history, De Maris describes further “Baptism for the Dead in the Corinthian Religious Environment”,(27) which is more relevant to this chapter. In order to crystallise the main elements in De Maris’ view we merely need to record the following statements: This study suggests that first century Corinthians were pre-occupied with the

world of the dead, so they attached themselves to deities [e.g. Palaimon at Nearby Isthmia and Demeter and Persephone at Corinth] that would allow them to address that concern...Corinthian Christianity in order to survive and flourish had to address this same orientation. As Christianity grew on Corinthian soil it became more and more a Gentile community, and many coming into the church brought with them a concern for the world of the dead...Put simply, the Corinthian Christians would not have instituted baptism on behalf of the dead if Corinthian religion of the Roman era had not been pre-occupied with the realm of the dead.(28)

Subsequent to stating his position in this way, De Maris explores other implications.(29) These include such factors as: i) those baptised were kin of the dead; ii) the baptisms were more likely to be undertaken for the recently deceased than long departed; iii) dying is a relatively long process that only begins with physical death; iv) this being the case then the living carry out lengthy rituals to separate the dead from the world of the living and to integrate them into the world of the dead; v) at the popular level, this journey was thought to require divine assistance; vi) therefore, vicarious baptism was one among several funerary rituals used by Corinthian Christians through the difficult transition from life to death; vii) Sociologically, the primary significance of vicarious baptism is as a “rite of passage” which incorporated the elements of separation, transition and incorporation.(30)

JD Joyce What might be termed a “pastoral” approach to the context of I Cor 15, is that of (31) JD Joyce. Joyce admits to an infinite number of interpretations if the text is emended or re-arranged in word order but ultimately one’s first responsibility is to “interpret the text as we have it, for there is not apparent reason in the text itself for a change”.(32) Ultimately Joyce states his own view as follows: From this Pauline concept of baptism, suffering, and death “in Christ”, perhaps the practice of being baptised on behalf of the dead had come from the concept of belonging by baptism to a body which included both the living and the dead. If

the Corinthians shared this view, they perhaps saw themselves as vicariously bearing the burden of the unbaptised dead. Paul does not condemn them nor approve what they are doing.(33) Even if Joyce is somewhat tentative about putting forward his view, there are insightful aspects. For example, belonging by baptism to a body with its living and dead, which is reminiscent of traditional church teaching about the church militant and church triumphant. The identification of the baptism with the suffering and death of those “in Christ” also is illustrated in the rite of baptism for the dead. The compassionate aspect of those who “saw themselves as vicariously bearing the burden of the unbaptised dead” also has much to recommend it. Altogether Joyce’s view is perhaps best expressed in this paragraph quoted above. It certainly presents spiritual insight and careful discernment of much scholarship on the issue.

E Walter (34) Walter extends further the pastoral compassion approach of Joyce along the lines of traditional Catholic piety with this comment: Though such a custom is unknown to us it ought not to strike us as totally incomprehensible. Do we not do something similar with Masses and indulgences when we apply them to the dead, and with everything that one does for the dead, partly in ways recognised by the Church, partly out of pious feeling? It corresponds to a general human need to be able to still do something for the dead. In relation to baptism early councils strictly forbade this practice while some sects continued it. Paul here neither approved nor condemned. It is sufficient for him to make use of this practice to argue that it has sense only if Christ’s resurrection can still have an effect on the dead.(35)

This comment demonstrates pastoral insight into a qualified support for the practice in terms of the ‘ad hominem’ argument.

Having surveyed the various context approaches in favour of accepting the vicarious view, I now note the various reactions to the main parts of the views above.

Various Reactions

78 i) Orr and Walther (35) Orr and Walther in their commentary on I Corinthians critique Joyce’s: (he)...accepts the poorly attested ‘hemeteran’ and relates the phrase to a vicarious implication in the baptisms. None of these alternatives (including earlier critiques of Raeder and Howard’s view) is likely.(36)

However as a reviewer of Joyce’s article counters:

This much disputed passage offers its own explanation when seen in the perspective of the entire epistle. Contrary to most manuscripts instead of “your glorying” the variant “my glorying” should be read (15:31) because the latter is the usual Pauline phrase and expresses an idea of great importance to him...Some vicarious action is intended.(37) ii) JR White Perhaps because of the length of his article and its depth of insight, De Maris has been critiqued more than the others. Two scholars have offered their critique of De Maris; these-being JR White(38) and RA Campbel1(39). White acknowledges that De Maris has presented an impressive amount of archaeological evidence in substantiating his contention that “The first century Corinthians were pre-occupied with the world of dead”.(40) He then makes two criticisms, firstly: Unfortunately, he (i.e. De Maris) goes on to assume what we would hope might now, as a result of such thorough research, be readily demonstrable: that the Christians in Corinth actually practiced vicarious baptism for the dead...but there is no evidence anywhere in the ancient world for anything like baptism for the dead.(41)

Secondly, White feels that De Maris’ argument as a whole is problematic. Aside from the latter’s a priori acceptance for the traditional (i.e. vicarious view) interpretation,(42) White identifies De Maris’ rationale for assuming the practice of vicarious baptism for the dead as “It was an indispensable adaption to prevailing Corinthian culture without which Christianity could not have flourished there”.(43) To this White offers his final criticism: “It is, however, fair to ask how a custom so necessary to the survival of the church in Corinth could vanish, excepting one reference in Paul whose obscurity even De Maris is forced to concede(44), without the merest trace”.(45)

iii) RA Campbell Campbell, another critic of De Maris, like White recognises De Maris’ contribution as being successful in “illuminating the social and religious context of the Corinthian church”.(46) However he also offers two criticisms of De Maris. Firstly...“we are left wondering how Paul could possibly have approved of it (i.e. vicarious baptism). Paul’s attitude to pagan religion is very plain. He expected his converts to sever all connection with idolatry (I Cor 10: 14-22)”.(47) Secondly, Campbell, in the light of this understanding of Pauline personal and general eschatology, “would simply have rejected the long troublesome journey ideas of surrounding culture. (I Thess 4:13-18; 2 Cor 5:1- 10; Phil 1:21-3)”.(48)

He justifies his position against De Maris as follows: But even if the Corinthian Christians shared their neighbours’ views of the afterlife, to the point of adapting baptism to conform to them, this would have never persuaded them of the truth of resurrection. Such a baptism might have confirmed them in the belief in post-mortem survival, but would have nothing whatever to say to the question of resurrection, except to make it even less likely.(49)

By way of some concluding reflections on these comments we may start with White and Campbell’s criticisms. In regard to White’s two main points one might agree with him to a certain extent about the emphasis De Maris places on the “indispensable adaption to prevailing Corinthian culture without which Christianity could not have flourished there”, which the practice of vicarious baptism provided. He is perhaps overstating his case here, since in my view this practice was only one element, albeit an important one, in the adaption of Christianity to prevailing Corinthian culture indicative of De Maris’ overstatement. To be sure, the emergence of Second Temple Judaism brought in its wake the advent of Hellenisation. Thus the boundary markers so clearly defined at the time of the Maccabean revolt (167-164 BCE) were to be blurred with the ever increasing accommodation of Hellenisation in the Maccabean dynasty (i.e. the Hasmoneans) which followed. .

However, as far as the Hellenised Jews of the Diaspora were concerned, including Corinth, there was a distinction between their monotheistic beliefs and the prevailing polytheism of first century Corinthian gentile thought and practice. One needs to also remember the predominant Jewish leadership of this church such as Prisca and Acquila (Acts 18:1-2) and Sosthenes (cf Acts 18:17, I Cor 1:1).

Also, to state that Christianity would not have flourished without its adaption to prevailing Corinthian culture is indicative of this overstatement. Prominent among the various factors here is the fact that there was a significant Jewish Christian element in the early church at Corinth which perforce of their situation and Hebraic outlook would not have been influenced to any great extent by prevailing Corinthian culture.

The Gentile element no doubt brought with them their Greek culture and with that perhaps an openness to vicarious baptism for the dead. However this alone does not, in my view, account for their response to Paul’s preaching. Rather it was their acceptance of the gospel of Christ that would have been similar to Greek communities elsewhere around the eastern Mediterranean.

As to the other point of White being his implied scepticism in such statements as: “...readily demonstrable that the Christians in Corinth actually practiced vicarious baptism for the dead...there is no evidence anywhere in the ancient world for anything like baptism for the dead”.(50) It should be borne in mind that White commences his article with the admission that...“standing alone (it)...would seem to imply some sort of vicarious baptism for the dead”.(51) He then sets about to argue against this admission in terms of his own distinctive contextual view, which is dealt with in the next chapter. As for his comment about the practice being found anywhere in the ancient world, this may be unlikely given the spiritual significance of Christian baptism being limited to Christian communities only. So his argument here is not strictly relevant to the point at issue.

As for Campbell’s criticisms, these also are a little off the point at issue. In the first (52) place, “wondering how Paul could possible have approved of it” raised the whole issue again of presuppositions. It is implied by Campbell that Paul could not have approved of the practice. Yet, a good majority of scholars are of the view that Paul’s approval or otherwise is not stated. So it seems pointless of Campbell to speculate

81 along these lines. As for his view of Paul’s attitude illustrated by his condemnation of idolatry, this of course is true, but not relevant to this practice of vicarious baptism. His concluding statement that “such a baptism...would have nothing whatever to say to the question of resurrection, except to make it even less likely”.(53) It seems to me, that Campbell has lost sight of the fact or missed the whole point of Paul’s citing this practice as evidence for belief in the resurrection. Whatever the origins of this practice, it is clear that there is an unmistakable connection between baptism and resurrection stated in I Cor 15:29 but also elsewhere in Paul’s teaching in Rom 6:1-11. So, this being the case, Campbell is ‘well wide of the mark’ in the above statement in his own view and his efforts to refute De Maris.

Finally, I note a few remarks on the various contexts identified in this chapter are in order. These endeavours to throw light on the original setting of vicarious baptism in the Corinthian church, as such, enrich our understanding. They are like facets in viewing the rationale of the practice be it spiritual powers (Downey) socio-cultural (Witherington and De Maris) or pastoral compassion (Joyce and Walter). Each comes at the context from their particular angle and thereby complements the other with another facet or aspect. In this way they all advocate an acceptance of the vicarious view.

FOOTNOTES

1. Downey, J “I Cor 15:29 and the Theology of Baptism” (in) Euntes Docete 38 No 1 (1985), Rome, 15-23. 2. ibid., 23. 3. ibid. 4. ibid. 5. ibid. 6. ibid., 24. 7. ibid., 25. 8. ibid. 9. ibid., 30. 10. ibid., 31. 11. ibid., 30. 12. ibid., 31-2. 13. ibid., 33. 14. ibid. 15. ibid. 16. Witherington, B “Conflict and Community in Corinth: a Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on I & II Corinthians” (1994), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 17. ibid., 305. 18. ibid. 19. ibid., 294-5. 20. ibid., 295 N (20). 21. ibid. 22. ibid., 294. 23. ibid. 24. ibid., N (18). 25. De Maris, RE “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (I Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature 114 (1995), 662 – 82. This reference is on page 673. Earlier in the same year De Maris published another article entitled “Demeter in Roman Corinth: Local Developments in a Mediterranean Religion” (in) Numen, (Leiden) 42, 2, (1995), 105 - 117.

26. ibid., 663-71. 27. ibid., 671-7. 28. ibid., 671–2. 29. ibid., 675. 30. This material from 675-7 was summarised for the sake of brevity and in order to draw out De Maris’ main argument. 31. Joyce, JD “Baptism on Behalf of the Dead: an Interpretation of I Corinthians 15:29-34” (in) Encounter 26, 2, (‘65). 32. ibid. 33. ibid., 275. 34. Walter, E “The First Epistle to the Corinthians”, (1971), Herder & Herder, New York, 172-3. 35. Orr & Walther, “I Corinthians”, (1976), Doubleday, New York, 336-7. 36. ibid. 37. “New Testament Abstracts”, (Fall ‘65), Vo1 10, No 1, Art 230. 38. White JR “Baptized on Account of the Dead: The Meaning of I Cor 15:29 in its Context” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997), 489-97. 39. Campbell, RA “Baptism & Resurrection (I Cor 15:29)” (in) The Australian Biblical Review, Parkville Vic 47 (‘99), 43-52. 40. De Maris, op. cit., 671. 41. White, JR, op. cit., 490 N (15). 42. ibid. 43. De Maris, op. cit., 671-2. 44. ibid., 661. 45. White, JR, op. cit., 490, N (15). 46. Campbell, RA, op. cit. 47. ibid., 45. 48. ibid. 49. ibid. 50. White, JR, op. cit., 490, N (15). 51. ibid., 487. 52. Campbell, RA, op. cit., 45.

53. ibid.

B (5) The various contexts approach of those against the Vicarious View.

There would be three scholars who stand out as advocating a contextual approach against the vicarious view. The context is that of the immediate verses around I Cor 15:29. The scholars to be examined in this chapter include Foschini, Murphy-O’Connor and White.

In each of these cases the verses following namely up to v32, are linked with v29 as the context they favour. These verses are: And why are we putting ourselves in danger every hour? I die every day! That is as certain, brothers and sisters, as my boasting of you – a boast that I make in Christ Jesus our Lord. If with merely human hopes I fought with wild animals at Ephesus, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”. vv 30-32 (NRSV) Their individual reasons for this are made clear in the following survey of their views. After presenting these, various scholarly reactions will be noted along with some concluding reflections.

BM Foschini There can be little doubt that Bernard M. Foschini’s series of five articles entitled “Those who are Baptised for the Dead” I Corinthians 15:29” appearing in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly over 1950-1(1) represent an important starting point for our contemporary survey. Foschini wrote in the decade before the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65 and therefore represents a pre-Vatican II approach to the interpretation of this verse. Over the series of five articles he sought to survey all the thinking about and reflections upon this verse down through the previous almost two millennia of Christian history. He seeks to categorize the various “families of interpretive schools of thought” and make an evaluation upon them. At the end of his fifth essay Foschini puts forward his own interpretation of the verse, which will be presently noted and examined. Whilst it will not be advisable here to detail all the various interpretations Foschini cites in his articles, it will be possible to cite his various categories, which are elaborated upon within the five articles.

After labelling I Cor 15:29 as a “crux interpretum”(2) whose interpretation has always been obscure,(3) Foschini proceeds to outline the main categories for investigation as follows:

(4)Chapter l, Baptism in the metaphorical sense Chapter 2, Baptism in the proper sense, but not as a sacrament. Chapter 3, Baptism as a sacrament of the New Law. In regard to the third of these main categories above, he subdivides the last into the following: Art I: Baptism Received for the Benefit of Others. Art II: Baptism for the Benefit of Those who are Baptised.

Art III: Baptism for the Living, Not for the Dead.

These main categories and their subdivisions are subdivided further again into a bewildering array of more specific aspects of the topic too numerous to cite here. Foschini systematically and thoroughly exposits upon these and criticises them in turn.(5) This is all brought to a fitting climax by his fifth article entitled: “Solution to the Question. Art III Baptism for the Living, Not for the Dead”.(6) As this represents Foschini’s own particular contribution to the interpretation of I Cor 15:29, it is therefore necessary to examine this last article and offer some evaluation of his view.

In summarising his case, Foschini states: In other words, St Paul argues: light and darkness, life and death are contraries. Now those who are baptised do so in view of future glory for both soul and body. If then there is no Resurrection and no future life, then their contraries stand - death and annihilation. But then what point is there in being baptised, in joining the Faith? Is it for death and annihilation?(7)

Foschini’s view at this point leads on naturally to his ‘General Conclusion’ where he outlines his overall approach as: If we consider only the words in question, many interpretations are possible; but if we take into consideration the text, the context, the writer, those for whom the letter was intended, etc, the number of possible interpretations decreased considerably... .(8)

His last paragraph following soon after this in effect gives his solution to the interpretation of I Cor 15:29: Of all the opinions in the third chapter,(9) we believe Durselen is right in separating the two phrases “to be baptised” and “for the dead”. We maintain, 87

however in opposition to Durselen the v29b is a perfectly parallel repetition of v29a that the words u9pe\r au0tw=n belong to v29 rather than to v30. There is also a perfect parallel between v29 and v30: just as the jeopardy spoken of in v30, so the Baptism in v29 is objectively good, and not reproved but conceded by Paul; in the mind of the Apostle, neither this Baptism nor this jeopardy is for the dead; and the wording in each verse is similar. The sense, then, which results is most in keeping both with the text and with the style of St Paul.(10)

Foschini’s attention to the immediate context of I Cor 15:29 was to be the starting point of others who followed after him. Foremost among these was Jerome Murphy- O’Connor. However the latter was to evolve in his interpretation from the ad hominem approach to that of a context approach opposed to the vicarious view.

J Murphy-O’Connor Jerome Murphy-O’Connor has gained an international reputation for his New Testament scholarship particularly in field of Pauline studies. In regard to our topic he has published two commentaries on I Corinthians and written at least two articles on this epistle one on the verse in question and the other on another chapter and verse.(11) Eliminating the last of these as not directly relevant to our topic, our survey will briefly cover his Commentaries first and his 1981 article in some depth, with an evaluation.

Of the two commentaries and article, these were to be published in three consecutive years from 1979 - 81 inclusive and our survey will proceed in this chronological order so that any progression in this thinking may be detected. In his 1979 Commentary Murphy-O’Connor states: Thus v 29 appears as a general statement which is then clarified by a particular example; it must therefore concern the sufferings associated with his labours...thus v29b must be translated (correct RSV) ‘If those who are really dead are not raised, why do some work themselves to death on their behalf?’ The question is not answered directly, but the response is implicit in what Paul goes on to say regarding his sufferings.(12) This interpretation is somewhat reminiscent of Foschini who earlier held that the apostles “were being destroyed by their labours on behalf of the dead (i.e. those who were lost)”.(13) In his Commentary of the following year 1980, Murphy-O’Connor gives

88 some idea of his approach to the verse within the section 15:29-34 which is entitled “Ad Hominem arguments for the Resurrection”. He explains a basic reason for his approach: In opposition to the clarity of strictly logical arguments ad hominem arguments are inevitably more obscure because they rely on personal factors that are too well known to the parties involved to be explained in detail.(14) Be this as it may he states that this is the case with the baptism for the dead issue. He notes that we have “absolutely no information” about this practice and there is no need to suppose that it was “generalised at Corinth”.(15) However for Murphy-O’Connor: The important thing, from Paul’s point of view, is that it was tolerated, if not approved, by the community, because this permits him to ask what the point is it the dead are not raised. Paul makes no comment on the merits of baptism for the dead. He is content to make a tactical point which he hopes will force those who undertook such baptism to bring pressure on those who denied the resurrection.(16) When comparing these two commentaries whilst there may be difference in emphasis they both have in common the sub-heading “Ad Hominem arguments for the Resurrection” and include the verses vv 29 - 34.

When turning to his article of 1981, Murphy-O’Connor takes up the “slogan” theme used earlier in his 1978 article, as alluded to earlier. He commences in his introduction to allude to the “plain meaning of the text” having a “widespread consensus”, but then indicates his own position when he says: “one may take leave to doubt that the meaning is as obvious as the consensus asserts”.(17) He quickly justifies his doubt: If we accept that I Cor XV:29 refers to vicarious baptism, we are obliged to postulate a complete break between verses 28 and 29, and another between verses 29 and 30-34. 1n other words, while v29 reflects the general theme of the chapter, it has no relation to its immediate context.(18) After further asserting that one look for a meaning that “integrates the verse into its context”(19) he then goes on to outline the context. He identifies the verse under study with what follows in vv30-32 having asserted that there is a “intrinsic relationship” between the two, where v29 is the general statement being illustrated by a particular example.(20) This means in turn that since the particular example (vv30-32) concern Paul’s sufferings associated with his labours “one should assume that the meaning of the generic statement (v29) runs along the same lines.”(21) The alternative he warns is to

89 assume a digression instead that can only be explained as a momentary aberration.(22) He then moves on to his understanding of the meaning in the next section.

With this contextual location being vv29-32 Murphy-O’Connor states that the literal meaning of βαπτιζειν (to baptise) is excluded since v 29 concerns the apostolic labours, rather than any activity of the Corinthians. With a metaphorical use of this verb, as common in the Hellenistic period, the meaning becomes “to destroy, to perish”, as for example in Mark 10:38 and Luke 12:50.(23)

With this usage of the infinite verb, the participial form βαπτιζομενοι becomes “those being destroyed” in and through their apostolic endeavours. On the other hand oi9 nekroi\ refers to those who were ‘dead’ in an existential sense (e.g. Col 2:13). There is a problem Murphy-O’Connor admits at this point because in 29b, the nekrov are those “literally and physically dead”. Hence for consistency the literal meaning of oi9 nekroi\ is preferred.(24)

He then explores the various meanings of u9pe\r which can be listed as follows: A) In defence of, on behalf of, for the prosperity of; B) For, in stead of, in the name of; C) For, because of, by reason of, on account of.(25) He eliminates the first two and favours the third because: “...this would be compatible with the metaphorical sense of bapti/zw and the literal sense of oi9 nekroi\ only if we assume an ellipse.”(26)

He then wishes to translate part of our verse as: “what will they do who are being destroyed on account of (the resurrection of) the dead?”(27) further pointing out the importance of the resurrection of Christ and that of the dead being a central element of Paul’s teaching and reason for his sufferings (II Cor 4:7-15; 11:23-28).(28) After further developing his line of reasoning with reference to the writings of Philo of Alexandria, Murphy-O’Connor concludes with “The Force of the Argument”. Here he dismisses the vicarious/ad hominem view completely stating that it is “unwarranted to assume that he would condone a superstitious practice simply because it appeared to provide an easy argument”.(29) This is a “quantum leap” from this position taken on the “ad hominem” issue in the previous two years.

He then proposes that v29a be paraphrased as: Supposing that there is no resurrection from the dead, will they continue to work, those who are being destroyed on account of an inferior class of believers who are dead to true wisdom? V29b is paraphrased as: If those who are really dead are not raised, why indeed are they being destroyed on their account?(30)

In conclusion, Murphy-O’Connor brings his masterful treatment to a concluding summation with the following words that encapsulate his whole argument: To sum up: The hypothesis that oi9 baptizo/menoi u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n originated as a Corinthian gibe at Paul’s apostolic suffering permits an interpretation which integrates v29 into its context, and reveals a realistic argument which reflects so much of Paul’s style, notably his delight in turning opponent’s assertions against them and his concern to find common ground.(31)

Thus stated Murphy-O’Connor rests his case which one must say is thoroughly researched and well argued. His facility with Hellenistic Greek is superb and his familiarity with the writings of Philo of Alexandria to illustrate his argument further is acknowledged.

JR White As indicated in the title of his article, JR White sets out to discover the meaning of I Cor 15:29 from its context. He is aware of Murphy-O’Connor’s attempts to do the same thing and identifies himself with this quest though he comes to a different solution to the latter.(32)

White disposes of the four main alternative interpretive options to pave the way to the presentation of his “New Attempt at Interpretation”.(33) As White does this over the next seven pages including extensive footnoting this survey will only itemise his main points, for the sake of brevity and clarity.

In answering his own question as to how v29 fits into its context, White takes the

91 following terms:(34) oi9 baptizo/menoi as literally = those being baptised; u9pe\r as causal (i.e. denoting the moving cause) = on account of; a metaphorical interpretation is posited for tw=n nekrw=n = the apostles; while nekroi\ = the literal dead; o3lwv functions attributively, modifying nekroi\ = truly dead persons.

With these key terms, so defined, White translates v 29 as: “Otherwise, what will those do who are being baptised for the dead (that is the dead, figuratively speaking: that is the apostles)? For if truly dead persons are not.”(35) As support for his contextual view, as applying to the apostles and in particular Paul, White states, after developing his line of thought: ...for v29 fits seamlessly into the rich tapestry of apostolic suffering portrayed metaphorically in terms of Paul’s “death” throughout the Corinthian correspondence. Against this background the enigma surrounding v29 evaporates, and it becomes clear that Paul is referring to his sufferings in a manner quite recognisable to those familiar with his teachings.(36) White feels further that “...in our text Paul’s willingness to suffer becomes a powerful confirmation of the validity of the resurrection and is in turn, confirmed by the Corinthians’ baptism on the basis of Paul’s life and message”.(37)

It is interesting to note about all of these three scholars who stress the context locate it in the verses immediately following our verse i.e. vv29-32. Common to them all is the emphasis on Paul’s sufferings -which is the key theme of the verses which follow verse 29. Their similar approach requires a metaphorical or figurative approach to interpreting the vocabulary of verse 29 in order to escape the literal meaning.

Criticisms of the Above i) A Basic Criticism of Foschini In commenting upon Foschini’s overall approach one cannot but admire his contextual emphasis in attempting to elucidate the exegetical interpretation of this (38) difficult text. Having dealt with and evaluated over forty opinions, he is right in citing such elements as the text, context, the writer and his addressees, as a means in reducing the number of possible interpretations. In his endeavour to stress his theme for the last article that “baptism is for the living, not for the dead” as his solution to the question, he accords with the main theological reason why the Church over the

92 past two thousand years has tended to view vicarious baptism for the dead as heterodox. However in spite of his erudite attempts to avoid “adhering strictly to their literal meaning”(39) the plain reading of the verse in question still refers to baptism for the dead. ii) R Schnackenburg Schnackenburg in his book “Baptism in the Thought of St Paul” discusses the views of Foschini. Schnackenburg observes that Foschini postulates a final meaning which holds u9pe\r to be synonymous with ei0v tou\v nekrou\v.(40) Foschini, in order to gain “an approximate meaning”, interprets it with the aid of various question marks as follows: Otherwise what shall they do who are baptised? For the dead? (That is, are they baptised to belong to be numbered among the dead, who are never to rise again?) Indeed if the dead do not rise again at all, why are people baptised for them? (That is are they baptised to be numbered among the dead who are never to rise again?)(41)

For Schnackenburg, Foschini’s attempts to use questions in this way to insinuate a negative answer i.e. the baptised do not become baptised to belong to the dead - is “artificial and unconvincing”.(42) iii) G Fee Murphy-O’Connor’s ingenious way of using the context to argue away from a literal meaning to a metaphorical one whilst consistent within his argument leads on a rather extravagant paraphrase of v29 which one wonders would have been Paul’s original intention, given what follows in verse 30-32. We include one of the best criticisms of Murphy-O’Connor’s position. Fee observes the following problems: Besides the inherent difficulties of having nekroi\ change meaning in the two juxtaposed lines, especially without some kind of adversative and the improbability of their using such a metaphor to describe apostolic hardships (pace Murphy-O’Connor; the influence of Philonic Judaism is questionable at best) there seems to be no contextual preparation for this (again pace Murphy-O’Connor; how this flows logically from v28 remains a mystery). Nor is there any hint in the text either that (a) Paul is quoting (which of course they would have known if it were so) or more importantly (b) that the rest is response, when there is no adversative

of any kind.(43)

iv) JR White White cites the non-literal sense of baptizo/menoi, i.e. Murphy-O’Connor’s view.(44) In White’s view, Murphy-O’Connor’s argument “simply cannot bear up under the weight of at least three unfounded assumptions”.(45) These being: a) that Paul has elided thv a0na/stasewv after u9pe\r; b) that baptizo/menoi is being used here in its classical sense; c) that the whole phrase is a derogatory slogan coined by the Corinthians to refer to Pau1(46). v) J Reaume Another writer of a journal article in the nineties is Reaume, who, like White, seeks first to examine those who have gone before.

Having discussed the vicarious view, Reaume examines the idea of what he calls “Metaphorical Baptism”.(47) This mainly refers to the views of Murphy-O’Connor and whilst commending briefly the latter’s view along the lines of circumventing the theological problems of the vicarious view and fitting the context well, he goes on to criticise it as: 1. The problem of differing nuances of nekro/v in the immediate context; 2. it is unclear how an appeal to this alleged slogan would strengthen Paul’s case for the certainty of the resurrection; 3. little evidence exists that the phrase “baptised for the dead” in verse 29 is a slogan.(48) vi) RJ Collins Murphy-O’Connor’s view was to receive further criticism in the late 1990’s in the commentary on I Corinthians by RJ Collins. Collins first re-iterates Murphy- O’Connor’s identification of this verse as a gibe directed against Paul where “the dead” (v29a) are those who lack wisdom, whilst “the really dead” (v29b) are those who have actually died and “to be baptized” is a metaphor “to be destroyed” (cf Mark 10:29; Luke 12:50).(50) Having thus identified Murphy-O’Connor’s distinctive terminology, Collins

94 indicated further the latter’s basic view that: Paul’s rhetorical questions are part of his diatribal defence against those how have undermined his ministry (vv29-32).(51) Collins then poses Murphy-O’Connor’s understanding of Paul’s rhetorical questions as:

Why, Paul asks, are preachers being harassed, why are they being destroyed for the sake of those who lack wisdom? Why are they being ruined if there is to be no resurrection of those who have died?(52)

At this point Collins states:

Murphy-O’Connor’s suggestion requires that Paul’s words be understood in a way that is not at all usual.(53) Collins’s observation here, coming as it does almost twenty years after Murphy- O’Connor’s presentation of his ideas, perhaps goes to the heart of the problem. This being, by way of a few concluding reflections, is that a rejection of the plain meaning of the text can lead to some very extravagant re-interpretations of it. In many ways Murphy-O’Connor represents a significant development of Foschini’s seminal view, articulated thirty years before. White writing over a decade later than Murphy- O’Connor avoids the latter’s excesses but agrees essentially with the context being Paul’s sufferings for the gospel. Thus the three are related in a common theme pursued over a half century almost.

The question at issue behind all of their endeavours to link and thereby integrate verse 29 with vv 30-32, is whether v29 can indeed be linked at all with either the verses which follow it or even before it for that matter. In a general sense it can be seen to be part of the framework of Paul’s ad hominem arguments for the resurrection, as many commentators affirm, but can the immediate context extend beyond this? Taking the verse at face value it is not altogether apparent (contra our three writers above) that verse 29 introduces the verses following and thereby fits this context. The context of verse 29 seems to stand alone without any link to what proceeds or follows. This of course is what is being argued against in all three writers who clearly are not satisfied with a “stand alone” approach to this verse.

In fairness it has to be acknowledged that it is part of the canons of an adequate exegesis of any verse of scripture that it should be located within a context. In this particular 95 case as mentioned above I believe this is within the context of an ad hominem argument by Paul to convince his critics of the veracity of the resurrection. Therefore in my view to link the context otherwise, as per the sufferings of Paul, is not strictly relevant to his basic intention in citing this practice at Corinth. Further will be said about the locating of a context later, which should include a wider context alluded to in the case of contexts in favour of the vicarious view. The immediate scriptural context - whatever that might be - should never be isolated from the wider picture of the original setting of the society of which the Corinthian church was a part.

FOOTNOTES

1. Foschini, BM “Those baptised for the Dead, I Cor 15:29: an Exegetical Historical Dissertation” (5 articles) published in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly (CBQ) in 1950-51. 2. ibid., Article 1 (1950), 260. 3. ibid. 4. His chapters here are spread out over the five articles. 5. These are contained principally within the first four articles and these are a valuable guide to the trends of interpretation prior to 1950. 6. CBQ (1951), 276-83 7. ibid., 282. 8. ibid., 283. 9. i.e. in his third article. 10. op. cit., 283. 11. These are respectively: “I Corinthians” (1979), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn; “I Corinthians” (New Testament Message Series) (1980), Veritas Publications, Dublin; “Baptised for the Dead (I Cor XV, 29), A Corinthian Slogan?”(in) Revue Biblique 88 (1981), 532-543 and “Corinthian Slogans in I Cor 6:12-20” (in) CBQ 44 (1978), 391-6. 12. Murphy-O’Connor, J (1979), 144. 13. Foschini, BM op. cit., (in) Catholic Biblical Quarterly 12 (1950), 266-7. 14. Murphy-O’Connor (1980), 143. 15. ibid. 16. ibid., 144. 17. Murphy-O’Connor (1981), 532. 18. ibid., 532-3. 19. ibid., 533. 20. ibid. 21. ibid. 22. ibid., 534. 23. ibid. 24. ibid., 535. 25. ibid.

26. ibid. 27. ibid. 28. ibid. 29. ibid., 541. 30. ibid., 542. 31. ibid., 543. 32. White, JR “Baptised on Account of the Dead: the Meaning of I Cor 15:29” in Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997), 489. 33. ibid., outlined on 493–499. 34. ibid., 493. 35. ibid., 494. 36. ibid., 496. 37. ibid., 498. 38. Foschini, op. cit., Article III, 283. 39. ibid., 282. 40. Schnackenburg R, “Baptism in the Thought of St Paul” (ET 1964), Blackwell, Oxford, 101. 41. Foschini, op. cit., Article 5, 75 and his further explanation 92-98. 42. Schnackenburg, op. cit., 102. 43. Fee, G “I Corinthians” (1987), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 763. 44. White, JR op. cit., (1997), 492. 45. ibid. 46. ibid. 47. Reaume, JD “Another Look at I Cor 15:29, Baptised for the Dead” (in) Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (1995), 457-75. 48. ibid., 461. 49. Collins, RJ “First Corinthians” (1999), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 50. ibid., 557. 51. ibid. 52. ibid. 53. ibid.

THESIS SECTION C:

THE MORMON POSITION

The Mormon “literal application” of the vicarious view and critiques of it.

C The Mormon “Literal Application” of the Vicarious View and Critiques of it

100

In this chapter I will present the Mormon “literal application” of the vicarious view. This is an important dimension of our discussion because the Mormons are the only ecclesiastical body in the world today who actually believe in and practice vicarious baptism for the dead as arising from their interpretation of I Cor 15:29. Thus a discussion of their literal application approach takes earlier theological speculation from the abstract to the concrete. However in order to fully appreciate the Mormon view, I shall briefly survey their origins in order to set their particular view in context.

According to the “Encyclopaedia of Mormonism”, their Church was established in Fayette, New York on April 6, 1830 under the direction of Joseph Smith,(1) who is styled by them as a prophet. Some eight years later the group officially took the name of “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”.(2) This name is significant in that the Mormons acknowledge Jesus Christ as head of their church and the term “Latter-day Saints” indicates “that the Church was restored in the last era of human history prior to the second coming of Christ”.(3) The latter-day aspect of the church’s name distinguishes it from “former-day” organisation established by Christ during his earthly ministry in Palestine.(4) This presumably includes the various other Christian denominations. The term “Mormon” is derived from the book of that name originating from Joseph Smith and together with “Doctrines and Covenants” and the “Pearl of Great Price” are accepted by this church as Scripture and standard works.(5) The Bible is accepted by them as the word of God.(6)

The role of Smith was pivotal in regard to the church’s origins, however he was lynched by a mob in Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1844 for destroying an opposition printing (7) press. Smith was succeeded by Brigham Young (1801-77) who led the early groups of Mormons in migrating to the southwest. By 1847 they had established Salt Lake City, in what is now the state of Utah, as their main base. A splinter group is located in Independence, Missouri. However the main denomination now has a US and worldwide membership of over three million.(8)

The Three Mormon Missions Including Baptism for the Dead One of the church’s former Presidents S W Kimball identified three principal missions, these being: to proclaim the gospel, to perfect the Saints and to redeem the dead.(9) The third of these introduces one to the Mormon view on vicarious baptism for the dead,

101 which originated from Joseph Smith and is laid down as binding on Mormons in “Doctrines and Covenants”.(10) Apparently the first public affirmation and announcement of the ordinance of baptism for the dead in the church was made by Joseph Smith in August 1840. In a funeral address he announced “glad tidings of great joy” in contrast to the prevalent belief that all unbaptised were damned. His words were: If we can baptise a man in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins it is just as much our privilege to act as an agent and be baptised for the remission of sins for and on behalf of our dead kindred, who have not heard the gospel or the fullness of it.(11)

Soon after these pronouncements by Smith the first baptisms for the dead in modern times were performed in the Mississippi River near Nauvoo, Illinois.(12) Later, upon completion of the baptismal font in the Nauvoo temple in late November 1841, vicarious baptisms were performed there.(13) At those times and from time to time since there have been ‘revelations’ clarifying this doctrine and its practice.(14) These have included the following: 1. This was a New Testament practice (I Cor 15:29 cf Doctrines and Covenants 12.8). 2. The Ministry of Christ in the Spirit World was for the benefit of those who had died without hearing the gospel or the fullness of it (I Peter 4:6). 3. Such baptisms are to be performed in temple fonts dedicated to the purpose (Doctrines & Covenants 124:29-35). 4. The language of the baptismal prayer is the same as for the living, with the addition of “for and in behalf of” the deceased. 5. Witnesses are to be present for proxy baptisms and a record is to be kept in Church archives (Doctrines & Covenants 128:3, 8f 127:6-9). 6. Women are to be baptized for women and men for men. 7. Not only baptism but also confirmation and the higher temple ordinances may also be performed by proxy. 8. The law of agency is inviolate in this world and the world to come. Thus, those served by proxy have the right to accept or reject the ordinances.(15)

102

Further to the above provisions there is that of Section 128 in “Doctrines & Covenants” (hereafter D & C) where Joseph Smith expounded on Malachi 4:5-6 and explained that baptism for the dead is “a welding link” between parents and children (D & C 128:18). He explained further that unless children are sealed by temple ordinances to their deceased forebears, who are in turn sealed to each other in God’s family, neither can be fully saved and exalted (D & C 128:14,15,18). “They without us cannot be made perfect - neither can we without our dead be made perfect (v15; cf Hebrews 11:40)”.(16)

Apologia for the Mormon Position In some concluding remarks to the various provisions noted above it is indicated further that whilst the earliest vicarious baptisms were for only direct blood relations and ancestors usually no more than four generations back, this nowadays has been extended to non-relatives identified through the name extraction program.(17) This latter program is a reference to the extensive Mormon family history records, preserved for this purpose among others. The article concludes with some additional motivation for the literal application of vicarious baptism: In Latter-day Saints perspective, whatever else one may do to mourn, give honourable burial to, cherish, or memorialise the dead, this divinely authorized ordinance of baptism is a demonstration of love and has eternal implications.(18) Following directly after this article is one entitled “Ancient Sources” in which the fairly well known theologian, Krister Stendahl, gives his exposition of I Cor 15:29.(19) During the course of this article, Stendahl refers to Paul’s defence of the future resurrection against those who denied it and in regard to I Cor 15:29 he observes: interpreters have puzzled over the fact that Paul seems to accept this practice. At least he does not see fit to condemn it as heretical, but Paul clearly refers to a distinct group within the Church, a group he accuses of inconsistency between ritual and doctrine.(20) Stendahl goes on to refer to Foschini’s articles on the topic and its identification of forty in all interpretations. He then states: The text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of vicarious baptism for the dead. This is the view of most contemporary critical exegetes.(21)

103

It is clear that Stendahl’s article is included in the “Encyclopaedia of Mormonism” because it not only supports their position but provides an independent, non-Mormon scholarly opinion on this subject.

Apart from the sources cited above, there is the approach of a modern Mormon apologist in the person of Stephen E Robinson in his book entitled “Are Mormons Christians?” published in Salt Lake City in 1991 and reprinted since in 1994. After (22) initially referring to I Cor 15:29 as an ‘anomaly’ in the view of many Christian (23) churches at least, he goes on later to present the Mormon case in favour of vicarious baptism. As this is a fairly contemporary publication it is of interest to note Robinson’s apologetic approach.

Robinson first identifies the dilemma of the various interpretations of I Cor 15:29 in these terms: Scholars and theologians have proposed many different theories to try and explain this verse. Yet honest scholars, both Catholic and Protestant (even those hostile to LDS doctrine) are forced to admit that the passage describes vicarious baptism for the dead, and that proposed alternatives are really just attempts to avoid the clear meaning of the text because of its theological implications.(24) In support of this opinion, Robinson cites two quotes, one representing Protestant views in Gordon Fee’s Commentary on I Corinthians and the Jerome Biblical Commentary representing the Catholic view. These are as follows (as in the order above): The normal reading of the text is that some Corinthians are being baptized, apparently vicariously in behalf of some people who have already died. It would be fair to add that this reading is such a plain understanding of the Greek text that no one would ever have imagined the various alternatives were it not for the difficulties involved.(25)

Again, the apostle alludes to a practice of the Corinthian Community as evidence for a Christian faith in the resurrection of the dead. It seems that in Corinth some Christians would undergo baptism in the name of their deceased non-Christian relatives and friends, hoping that this vicarious baptism might assure them a share in the redemption of Christ.(26)

104

After citing this agreement of both these traditions on this issue, Robinson moves on to discuss Paul’s attitude towards the practice whether he “merely tolerated an aberrant practice” or that “he looked the other way because these vicarious baptisms reflected a kind of faith in Christ”.(27) Admitting serious problems with this, even from a LDS perspective, he feels nonetheless that Mormons would be entitled to ask their critics, if this argument is valid, the following questions: If the Apostle Paul found vicarious rites for the dead tolerable among the Corinthian Saints, why must the same practice be judged intolerable among the Latter-day Saints? If the Bible shows that the Apostle Paul was in fellowship with those who, rightly or wrongly, practiced baptism for the dead, how can modern Christians reject the precedent?(28)

These are searching questions indeed, viewed through Mormon eyes. Robinson in the next section of this chapter of his book deals with “The Esoteric Teaching of Early Christianity”. He develops his case in favour of esoteric doctrine being taught by early church fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Basil the Great and Clement of Alexandria and claims that these men and their esoteric teachings cannot be dismissed as unorthodox.(29) He then makes his point: If objective scholars can conclude that the New Testament supports an esoteric teaching in Paul; if the New Testament explicitly states that Corinthian Christians practiced vicarious baptism for the dead: if St Clement of Alexandria believed that an esoteric teaching of the Lord was part of Christianity, and Clement himself had been initiated into it: if St Basil can emphatically state that most Christian teachings were never written down but were found in secret rites and teachings handed down from the apostles: if St Cyril of Jerusalem could perform secret rituals and in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre instruct his initiates on the esoteric meanings of those rituals: then there is no case for excluding the Latter- day Saints from Christendom simply because they believe in an esoteric teaching.(30) This quote has been cited at some length so as to not miss the argument of his case in favour of I Cor 15:29 being esoteric teaching.

105

Scope and Impact of Mormon Baptisms for the Dead Apart from this apologetic for the Mormon literal application of the vicarious view there is the scope and impact of their baptisms for the dead. In terms of scope a recent article claimed “a number of high profile people...have had temple ordinances performed on their behalf...”.(31) These have included the Founding Fathers of the USA, various US Presidents, John Wesley, Christopher Columbus, Ghengis Khan, Joan of Arc, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Buddha.(32) This same article reveals further that such prominent Jews as Rashi, Maimonides, Albert Einstein, Menachen Begin, Irving Berlin, Marc Chagall and Gilder Radner have also been vicariously baptised.(33)

Mormon doctrine, as already outlined,(34) allows for the dead to accept or reject the vicarious baptism performed for them yet, there have been nonetheless objections made by various individuals and institutions to this practice. For example the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles has opposed the vicarious baptism of Jewish Holocaust victims, because this ritual was seen by them and others as “insulting and insensitive”(35) Rabbi Marvin Hier of Wiesenthal Center maintains: If these people (i.e. the victims) did not contact the Mormons themselves, the adage should be: Don’t call me, I’ll call you. With the greatest of respect to them, we do not think they are the exclusive arbitrators of who is saved.(36)

Mormon Response to Their Critics In response to these objections, Mormon Church authorities have taken steps since 1995 to stop any further vicarious baptisms of holocaust victims and other deceased Jews. They have undertaken further to remove the names of all Holocaust victims from their genealogical files.(37) Such names can now only be accepted if they are resubmitted by a direct descendant or if consent is obtained from the dead person’s immediate family.(38) According to this same source church genealogists have deleted hundreds of thousands of Jewish names from their baptismal records since this 1995 agreement.(39) This endeavour has been an...“ongoing, labour intensive process requiring name-by- name research. When the Church is made aware of documented concerns, action is taken...plans are underway to refine this process.”(40)

106

However, this same article also reports that a researcher, Helen Radkey published a report showing that the 1995 promise to remove Jewish holocaust victims names from the Mormon International Genealogical Index “seems to have been broken”.(41) The reason for this view is that Radkey’s research from the Mormon church’s database uncovered the names of over 20,000 Jewish holocaust victims who have been vicariously baptised. Other genealogists estimate the total number may exceed 100,000.(42) If this gives some indication of the resistance of Jewish groups and individuals to Mormon vicarious baptisms of holocaust victims then their impact on this section of the world wide community has been negative. There are more fundamental objections to not only their practices but also their beliefs and these will be dealt with in the next section.

Critiques of the Mormon Position When it comes to critics of the Mormon literal application of the vicarious view BM Foschini was to be the most thoroughgoing and objectively fair-minded critic earlier on in our survey period. Reference has already been made to the five articles he published in 1950-51 on the subject of baptism for the dead in which he itemised some forty different views with criticisms of each, before presenting his own view. In relationship to the Mormons, their views are examined in his third article, under the group of views entitled: “Baptism Reviewed for the Benefit of Others” with vicarious Baptism of the Mormons(43) being the second of these. Later in this article Foschini offers criticism of their view.(44)

This coverage of Foschini’s critique will be a conflation of both of those abovementioned sections for the sake of brevity. Foschini identifies four main elements from which the Mormon view of vicarious baptism for the dead is derived. These are as follows: a The symbolic immersion and emersion of Baptism. b I Cor 15:29; c Malachi 4:5;6; d The necessary dependence of our perfection or happiness on that of men who died without Baptism or received it invalidly because they were not baptized by Mormons who alone have the authority to baptize from Christ, and consequently to make a valid record in the book of life(45) .

107

In summarizing Joseph Smith’s teaching Foschini points out three arguments Mormon apologists use to defend their founder’s teaching on the subject. These are: i) It is an unthinkable and immoral doctrine to admit that all those men who died or who will die without Baptism are damned forever.(46) ii) Is there anything wrong with receiving it (i.e. baptism) by a proxy? Is it not a far more extravagant arrangement to have an infant at baptism accept the Gospel by proxy, as most Churches do? Those offering the Child for Baptism we are told ‘answer for it’ and the little one believes ‘through another’ (in altero) because he is a sinner through another.(47) iii) That Baptism for the dead belonged to the belief of the early Church, as we are taught by I Cor 15:29 but with the death of the apostles and with the general “bankruptcy of the Church”, also lost the doctrine of Baptism for the dead until the prophet Joseph Smith received it again by revelation from God.(48) Foschini prefaces his critique in this way: To answer the Mormons is difficult, not because of the strength of their arguments, but because they are not on common ground with us. We must depend on research and reason; they depend on the light of their “revelations”. Hence it would be wasted effort to refute their “revelations”. Nevertheless, we must answer their arguments for the sake of such who have no ‘a priori’ bias which is rooted in the reputed “revelations”.(49)

The critique can be itemized as follows: 1. Joseph Smith’s interpretation of “to bind” as meaning “to write a record” is entirely arbitrary; and to say that the earthly and material book of these records corresponds to the allegorical heavenly book of life, is the fruit of “revelations” or of dreams, not of exegesis. 2. It is impossible to admit that actions performed by the living can be attributed to the dead as “their own works” when we have no single argument, not even for saying that the dead accept or participate, at least intentionally, in the works done for them. 3. If after the passing of the Apostles, the bankruptcy of the Church and of her true doctrine became glaringly apparent in her struggle with the gnostic so-

108

called, why does Nibley (i.e. the Mormon apologist) now stress so much the words of men who had lost the Lord’s doctrine? (i.e. Nibley’s quoting from “the Shepherd of Hermas”). Why does he choose a few words of the Fathers who lived in the general disaster of the Church and hold them as true? 4. The baptising of infants offered for Baptism by sponsors cannot be used as an argument to confirm the Mormon view. a) Such Baptisms are performed not because of the child’s act of believing is done by a proxy, but because Christ has commanded that all men be baptized (Matt 28:18-20); b) In Baptism for the dead the sacrament is administered to another person, whereas in infant Baptism it is the person himself who is baptised; c) There is another difference between baptism of the dead and infant baptism. In the first case, the subject of the sacrament is already beyond the time of probation and judged by God and his state unalterably fixed in the second, the infant is on earth and must still merit his eternal reward and punishment.(50)

Foschini concludes his impressive critique by declaring Mormon baptism for the dead to be “entirely erroneous and arbitrary”.(51) He provides a masterful rebuttal of the more significant aspects of the Mormon position.

More Recent Critiques More recently others have also provided important critiques of the Mormon “literal application” position. Interestingly, there has been a lively debate on the Internet with a series of relevant articles both in favour and against the Mormon position. One article in favour of the Mormon view of vicarious baptism for the dead, under a subheading “What’s the Point”, remarks: Mormons believe that this doctrine ends the injustice millions of people being damned just because they died without learning of the gospel of Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...believes that there is a second chance for everyone.(52)

This argument in favour from the point of view of justice can be contested from the Mormon documents, in particular the “Book of Mormon” as seen below. In

109

“Doctrine and Covenants” it asserted that the “Book of Mormon” contains “...the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also” (Section 20:9) and also that “this most glorious of all subjects belonging to the everlasting gospel, namely the baptism of the dead” (Section 128:17).(53) Yet in spite of these assertions, there are two passages from the Book of Mormon, which appear to give no scope for a second chance through baptism of the dead. These passages are as follows: i. Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I return to my God. Nay ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked. (Alma 34:34, 35).(54) ii. And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, in so much as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgement seat of the Holy One of Israel, and then cometh the judgement and then must they be judged according to the holy judgement of God. For the Lord hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away; that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore they who are filthy...shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their forment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever has no end. (2 Nephi 9:15).(55)

These two passages have been quoted at some length because of the authoritative position of the Book of Mormon and the contradiction of this teaching in the light of the Mormon practice and advocacy of vicarious baptism for the dead. Such inherent inconsistencies do not make for internal coherence and integrity.

Concluding Remarks I think it is clear that the Mormon view of agreement with I Cor 15:29 being interpreted as vicarious baptism for the dead concurs with the majority of New Testament

110 scholarship on the interpretation of this verse. However this is where any further similarity with the remainder of the Christian community appears to end abruptly. It is their “literal application” of this practice which provides the great departure from the norms of orthodoxy as outlined in the creeds of Christendom (i.e. the Apostles, the Nicene and Athanasian). These Creeds, together with the dogmas of Chalcedon in 451AD have never recognised vicarious baptism for the dead as being a part of the hierarchy of truths accepted by both the Eastern and Western wings of the Church. By these standards and thereby the canons of orthodoxy, the Mormon view of “literal application” must be declared to be heterodox. This whole line of thought of constructing a theological doctrine on the basis of one isolated verse has never been the Church’s way of defining dogma, and therefore binding on the faithful. One theologian in presenting this particular point for a popular audience puts it this way: Christian leaders have long been leery of imposing on the consciences of believers as being crucial what is mentioned in only one verse. It’s not that something becomes “truer” or more binding if it is repeated many times. Rather when something is mentioned only once, it cannot be given the same weight of importance as the central themes of scripture (one of the marks of heterodoxy is that, while central truths are skirted, relatively peripheral matters become life and death issues). More important, when something is mentioned only once, there is more likelihood of misrepresenting it, whereas matters repeatedly discussed are clarified by their repetition in various contexts.(56)

This wise piece of advice highlights the old adage about one verse (of scripture) out of context can provide the pretext for doctrinal error and heterodox practice. The Mormon literal application of vicarious baptism of the dead illustrates this principle. But there is also not only the witness of scripture but that also of the early Fathers. As shown in another chapter of this thesis, the early Church Fathers (including Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster and Epiphanius) all condemned the Marcionites and Corinthians both Gnostic sects, who revived their practice of vicarious baptism on the same basis as later done by the Mormons. Their precedent being that I Cor 15:29 indicated vicarious baptism for the dead existed in the church at Corinth. In all of these cases the Church universal, both in early and latter times rightly saw the dangers of any sectarian group attempting to establish an alleged doctrine and practice on the basis of one isolated text of scripture.

111

FOOTNOTES

1. The “Encyclopaedia of Mormonism” (1992), (4 Vols), Macmillan, New York, Vol 1, 276-7. 2. ibid., 277, apparently due to revelation “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” (Doctrine and Covenants 115:4). 3. ibid. 4. ibid. 5. ibid., 278. 6. ibid. 7. According to B D Bratt in an article entitled “The Reorientation of American Protestantism, 1835-45” (in) Church History, (Mar 1998), Chicago, 8. 8. As recorded in the “Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church” (Eds) FL Cross & E Livingstone (1997), University Press, Oxford, 941. 9. op. cit., “Encyclopaedia of Mormonism”, Vol 1, 277. 10. In particular sections 124 and 127-8 of “Doctrine and Covenants” which is quoted in detail in The Encyclopaedia of Mormonism, Vol I, 95-6 and Vol I, 421-2, both of which will be used in this section. 11. op. cit., Encyclopaedia Vol l, 92. 12. ibid. 13. ibid., 421. 14. ibid., 92. 15. ibid., 95-6. 16. ibid., 422. 17. ibid., 96. 18. ibid. 19. ibid., 97. 20. ibid. 21. ibid. 22. Robinson, SE “Are Mormons Christians?” (1991), Bookcraft, Salt Lake City. 23. ibid., 98 and 103. 24. ibid., 98. 25. Fee, G “I Corinthians” (1987), 763-4.

112

26. Brown, RE, Fitzmyer, JA and Murphy, RE (Eds) “Jerome Biblical Commentary” (1968), I Vol, 273. 27. op. cit., Robinson, SE, 98. 28. ibid. 29. ibid., 99-103 where he illustrates his case from the writings of these early fathers. 30. ibid., 103. 31. “Baptism for the Dead” (in) Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopaedia (Internet Reference March 2003). 32. ibid. 33. ibid., 2. 34. See point 8 of the revelations clarifying this practice, acknowledged in “Encyclopaedia of Mormonism”, Vol 1, 95-6. 35. op. cit., “Baptism for the Dead” (in) Wikipedia, (Internet Reference March 2003), 2. 36. ibid. 37. According to “The Mormons, Baptism for the Dead” (in) BBC Religion and Ethics (Internet Reference April 2003), 2. 38. ibid. 39. ibid. 40. op. cit., Wikipedia article quoting D Todd Christofferson of the LDS (Mormon) Church’s Presidency of the Seventy, (Internet Reference March 2003), 1. 41. ibid., 2.

42. ibid. 43. Foschini, BM “Those Who are Baptized for the Dead” (1950-51), 5 Articles, (in) Catholic Biblical Quarterly Article 3, 51-3. 44. ibid., 70-3. 45. ibid., 52-3. 46. Nibley, H “Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times, the Improvement Era” (1949), 212, cited by Foschini, 52-3. 47. ibid., 213, Foschini, 53. 48. ibid., 109-10; 146-8, Foschini, 53. 49. ibid., Foschini, 70. 50. ibid., 71-3, only the most relevant sentences are included here. 51. ibid., 73.

113

52. “The Mormons - Baptism for the Dead” (in) BBC Religion and Ethics (Internet Reference April 2003), 1. 53. “The Encyclopaedia of Mormonism” (4 vols) (Ed by D H Ludlow) (1992), Macmillan NY. Vol I, 95-7, 421-422. 54. “Book of Mormon” (1981), (First English edn 1830) Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Salt Lake City in reference to Alma 34:34-5, 295. 55. ibid., “Book of Mormon” 2 Nephi 19:15-16, 74. 56. Carson, D A “Did Paul Baptize for the Dead?” (in) Christianity Today, (Aug 10 1998), Carol Stream, Illinois, l.

114

THESIS SECTION D:

TEXT AND CONTEXT

Including

1) An exegesis of I Cor 15:29 2) The immediate scriptural and socio-cultural context of I Cor 15:29

115

D (1) An Exegesis of I Cor 15:29

116

So far in this thesis I have examined scholarly comment about I Cor 15:29, particularly over the past fifty years of the contemporary period. The various issues arising from this historical survey and the debates about its meaning and context have also been noted. Attention was also paid to the Mormon position along with a critique.

There is a sense then that we have reached a point where the “decks have now been cleared” for what is now required. This is an exegesis of I Cor 15:29. This exegesis will of necessity be from the original Greek text of the New Testament along with a couple of well respected English translations. The purpose of this exegesis will be to explicate the meaning of the various key words and phrases within the verse under study. Ultimately I must encounter the verse personally and so see it through my own eyes. The Text Itself and in English Translations PROS KORINQIOUS A 15:29 0Epei\ ti/ poih/sousin oi9 baptizo/menoi u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n; ei0 o3lwv nekroi\ ou0k e0gei/rontai, ti/ kai\ bapti/zontai u9pe\r au0tw=n; [The Greek New Testament (1994) (4th rev edn) Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart,

603-4]

• RSV (1973, 2nd edn ) Translation: Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

• NRSV (1989) Translation: Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

• The original Greek text and the above English Translations: In the apparatus of the original Greek text as cited above, there is the following P:REB, NRSV. Relevant to this particular footnote, Thistleton(1) indicates that the D2 (D 05),(2) Manuscript and Peshitta (Syriac Version)(3) replace the final au0tw=n with tw=n nekrw=n. However this is “clearly late and secondary”.(4)

The scholarly opinion on this slight variation of wording at the end of the verse being

117 late and therefore secondary in any case makes no difference to the overall sense of the verse. As such it is not even commented upon in the Metzger’s “A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament”.(5) The import of these leading authorities of the Greek Text indicate that the wording of the original Greek cannot be subject to any debate based on variation. Therefore the Greek text is established as we now have it. As far as English translations are concerned, I have selected the above cited as being a good representative sample of the more recent available. In each case these translations have been completed by teams of scholars which is to be always preferred over just one translator since this can introduce undue subjectivity. However during the course of this exegesis for the sake of brevity three of the above will be used - being the Interlinear (RSV) Greek NT used in conjunction with the Greek NT (4th rev edn) and the NRSV. The other texts (NIV, NEB, JB) will only be cited in cases where there is a substantial variation in the vocabulary used in translation.

In regard to the exegesis it will be convenient to divide the verse into phrases to achieve thoroughness. In the case of scholarly debates arising from the interpretation of significant words, these will be dealt with in footnotes and in the excursus to follow.

0epei\ ti/ poih/sousin (RSV Interlinear) - otherwise what will they do (NRSV) - otherwise, what will those people do

The 0epei\ is best translated as “otherwise” as preferable to “now” (NIV) “again”(NEB) or “else” in the Authorised (King James) Version. Here 0epei\ is used by Paul as a conjunction to precede questions, about to be introduced in this particular verse. It also connects this verse with the argument in the previous verses (cf. I Cor 14:15 and Rom 3:6, for a similar usage) ti/ poih/sousin There is nothing to discuss about the meaning of the ti/ which means “what”, however the poih/sousin has sparked off much discussion by exegetes. Thistleton states: “The semantic range of poih/sousin is vast, as the sheer column in BAGD, and Grimm- Thayer bears witness, although proportionately much less space is devoted to the word in Liddell-Scott-Jones or Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon”.(6) The actual parsing of

118 this verb is future indicative 3rd plural of poie/w. Thistleton having indicated that the interpretation of this verb as one problem(7) in this verse goes on to list four possible meanings in this verse: a). Achieving, bringing about; b). Intransitive ‘doing’ as an activity; c). Fashioning, perhaps in an indulgent, self-generating way; d). ‘doing’ with a future to indicate the subjective dimension also implicit in c) i.e. ‘doing’ in terms of what one thinks one is doing.(8)

He elaborates further on this last option as follows: i. (NJB - New Jerusalem Bible) What are people up to who… ii. What do they achieve? (Bachmann, Schlatter, Barrett) iii. What will they do in the future? (Weiss) What will they do next? (Barrett, again) iv. (NRSV, NIV) What will they do? (also Wolff, Collins) v. (REB - Revised English Bible) What do you suppose they are doing? vi. What is the meaning of people getting baptized? (Moffatt)(9) After giving brief comments on each of these as they are cited in turn, Thistleton decides in favour of “What do those people think they are doing who...”.(10) He feels this does justice to: a) The use of the future as a logical present; b) The subjective or self involving aspect; c) An open-ended appeal to them to reflect on their self-consistency of thought and action; and d) The wide semantic range of the word.(11) He rests his case on this word at this point. Whilst Thistleton has made an impressive case for his preferred choice among the various options outlined above, I prefer to stand with the NRSV and NIV translations as given above as clearly being closer to the original Greek. Fee’s direct rendering “What shall they do” is seen by him as an (12) example of a logical outcome of the future indicative tense and there is much to commend this view. oi9 baptizo/menoi (RSV Interlinear) the [ones] being baptized.

119

NRSV – who receive baptism.

This is an example of a present participle which can be either passive or middle voice so that it may be translated as “those who are baptized” (passive) or “those who have (or get) themselves baptized” (middle). Fee gives both of these alternatives.(13) I tend to favour the passive rendering as being the better alternative of these two and this is borne out in all of the three translations above.

According to Barrett: The primary reference is to Christian baptism: certain people (oi9 baptizo/menoi) suggests a particular group, not all Christians) undergo the rite of Christian baptism in what appear to be very strange circumstances.(14) To Barrett these strange circumstances are on behalf of the dead.(15) Fee also agrees with Barrett’s description of this particular group in terms of his “some Corinthians”, and draws attention to the fact that Paul addresses this community issue in the third person plural, which Fee claims is a rare instance.(16) He goes on to say that in other instances when the third person plural is used (e.g. I Cor 4: 18-21; 15:12-19) even when the “some” are specified, the rest of the argument is directed at the community as a whole in the second person plural. But as that does not occur in this verse then one may (17) surmise that it is the activity of only a few. Even if it was only a few, the identity of these third person plural individuals has given rise to a debate as to whether they are the "some" tinev mentioned earlier in v12 who didn’t believe in the resurrection. This issue will be commented upon further in the conclusion of this chapter. The other issue arising from this verse is the kind of baptism being referred to here, that is whether it is an actual literal one or purely metaphorical. Writing a book on the interpretation of this verse just over a decade later than Foschini, Rissi in 1962 was to categorise this baptism under four main divisions with variations within each. These four categories were: 1. One category adds sw=matw=n to u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n and identifies the dead with those who are being baptized. 2. A second view understands baptism as the suffering and death of martyrdom. 3. A third interprets baptism broadly as washing (where the Hebrew but not the Greek may use a common word). 4. The fourth understands this as vicarious baptism on behalf of people who are

120

dead.(18) Rissi rejects the sacramentalism of the fourth of these categories.

The main problem of the first three of Rissi’s categories of interpretation of the baptism in this verse and thereby those being baptised is that all seek to avoid the straightforward meaning of the text. One commentator cited by Leon Morris identifies the issue at stake here as all other interpretations as evasions wholly due to the unwillingness to admit such a practice, and still more to a reference to it by S Paul without condemnation.(20) Thus the literal meaning of baptism and those being baptised is to be preferred here as being realistic and originally intended by Paul. u9pe\r (used twice, i.e. u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n ; − u9pe\r au0tw=n;) (RSV interlinear) - on behalf of (NRSV) - on behalf of

Fee is correct when he states that “much of the debate hinges on the meaning of this preposition”.(21) He observes that it ordinarily means “in behalf of”, “for the sake of”, especially in Pauline usage with persons as the object (e.g. I Cor 11:24; Gal 2:20; Rom (22) (23) 5:6, 8; 18:2; Eph 5:25). Collins translates u9pe\r as “for the sake of”. Thistleton at the commencement of a lengthy excursus entitled: “Multiple Interpretations of “Baptism for the Dead” and our Conclusion” enumerates the main interpretations of u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n as: i. On behalf of the dead (NRSV, REB,NJB and Barrett) ii. For the dead (NIV, AV/KJV) iii. For the sake of the dead (Findley, Raeder, Howard, Collins, Schnackenburg, and Thistleton).(24) Thistleton favours this third option if “for is understood in its “final” sense, this is also acceptable”.(25) However as was seen in our earlier chapter on the Jeremias/Raeder view, upon which Thistleton relies in regard to the final sense of u9pe\r “it is quite questionable whether u9pe\r will bear this interpretation”.(26) Beasley-Murray feels that the Jeremias/Raeder view of ‘with a view to becoming united with the dead in the resurrection’, demands the insertion of too much that has been left unexpressed.(27) He takes the view that u9pe\r is “in the interests of the dead, hence baptism for them must be

121 primarily for the purpose of affecting their status and condition”.(28)

Conzelmann cites the important lexigraphical authority of Blass-Debrunner(29) who he states: “to be sure, do not count u9pe\r tw=n a9ma/rti/w=n under the final meaning (of u9pe\r), and in any case the final use of u9pe\r tells against this interpretation”.(30) Thus the final sense of u9pe\r used with both tw=n nekrw=n and au0tw=n in our verse cannot be sustained. Therefore the first two of Thistleton’s cited interpretations, namely “on behalf of the dead” and “for the dead”, “for them” is to be preferred as used in the NRSV and NIV respectively, among other translations. This again bears out the principle of the superior authority of multiple translators as in the case of the various Bible translations in contrast to that of individual commentators. Further detail on u9pe\r will be given in Appendix II. ei0 o3lwv nekroi\ ou0k egei/rontai (RSV Interlinear) (literally) - if actually dead persons are not raised. If the dead are not raised at all. (NRSV) - If the dead are not raised at all.

It is of interest to note at the outset that all these three translations agree on their wording of this clause, where the literal translation from the interlinear has it: “if actually dead persons are not raised”. The NEB only varies the above translations by adding “to life” after “raised”. O’Neill(31) and Murphy-O’Connor(32) both independently object to this translation on the grounds of word order. As o3lwv immediately precedes the plural noun nekroi\, they maintain that this should be translated “the really dead”. However Fee counters their suggested alternative translation by stating that this is to place too much confidence in too little evidence for the word order they posit. It is far more likely that o3lwv comes first in this clause for emphasis, whilst the verb e0gei/rontai appears last as conforming to the Pauline pattern throughout.(33) This is borne out in identical word order of the three translations cited above. It is of interest the stress given in translation of ou0k with o3lwv preceding being rendered in these three versions as “not...at all”.

Relevant to the verb e0gei/rontai being a passive middle voice, along with the bapti/zontai in the next clause, a grammatical analysis authority has this to say:

122

The force of the middle voice is not always easy or even possible to ascertain with certainty, but it may be said to differ from the passive in that the subject of the verb is the agent and it can take a direct object, it differs from the passive in that the subject of the verb is the agent and it can take a direct object, if differs from the active in that the term of the action rests with the agent himself e.g. either directly or reflexive (e.g. cf. Acts 22:16 ba/ptisai = have/get yourself baptized).(34) This erudite opinion explicates further the depth of meaning of these two verbs, which is not always easy to render in the English translation. ti/ kai\ bapti/zontai u9pe\r au0tw=n (RSV interlinear) (literally) - why indeed are they baptized on behalf of them? (RSV) - why are people baptized on their behalf? (NRSV) - why are people baptized on their behalf?

As the latter part of this clause (apart from the initial ti/ kai\ ) has already been dealt with above, this will not be covered again here. One venerable lexical authority renders the τι και as “why at all”.(35) This clearly brings out the emphatic nature of these two words together in this context. Our three translations tend to sublimate the emphasis added by the kai\ following ti/ and so render it only as ‘why’. The Interlinear translates this expression as ‘why indeed’. Certainly something of the emphasis is lost in translation with only ‘why’ used. The only other slight variation in these translations is the rendering of the u9pe\r au0tw=n being either “on their behalf” (RSV, NRSV) or “for them” (NIV). Both expressions however still portray clearly the element of vicariousness inherent in this word, which of course is consistent with the earlier usage of u9pe\r.

With the more technical aspects of this expository exegesis now complete there remains the task of making some concluding summations and reflections. There can be little doubt that any adequate exegesis seeking to establish the exact meaning of this otherwise difficult text cannot avoid the two vicarious references. One venerable authority states rather categorically: All interpretations which seek to evade vicarious baptism for the dead are misleading... . It is more likely however that the argument is purely tactical, Paul

123

is referring ironically to the inconsistency of the Corinthians.(36) Ruef draws some attention to the fact that it was upon this verse that Bultmann(37) based his claim that Paul has misunderstood the Corinthian’s statement: “There is no resurrection of the dead” (I Cor 15:12b). Ruef counters this somewhat by observing: “It is clear from this verse that the Corinthians were concerned for the dead as were the Thessalonians whom Paul admonishes not ‘to sorrow for the dead as those who have no hope’ (I Thes 4:13)”.(38)

Even more directly against this alleged misunderstanding issue, which has been dealt with in depth in an earlier chapter, Conzelmann states: Paul’s reference to this custom (i.e. baptism for the dead) provides one of the most important arguments against the assumption that he has misunderstood the Corinthian position. He shows himself here to be obviously well informed.(39) A recent commentator on this aspect of the verse’s interpretation states: this is another of those matters about which Paul and the Corinthians surely understood one another but which we cannot hope to fathom.(40) This commentator (JP Sampley)’s views, being as they are contemporary with this new millennium, offer some interesting reflections by way of a conclusion. The element of uncertainty as witnessed in the end of the above quote tends to pervade Sampley’s analysis. At the outset of his comments he posits: Admittedly Paul’s purposes in the rhetorical questions are more certainly accessible than some of the practices to which the questions refer.(41) In terms of his basic understanding Sampley believes that the “most obvious” reading of the text “would suggest that some at Corinth...are being baptized on behalf of the dead persons”.(42) Their motivation for doing so being: “perhaps as representatives of dear ones who either never had a chance to respond to the gospel or who had died while being drawn to the faith”.(43) In either case, Sampley is forced to admit “the truth is that we simply do not know”.(44) As far as Paul’s attitude is concerned Sampley notes that Paul did not oppose the practice which in turn seems to indicate either “grace is transferable or that one can be a surrogate believer for another”.(45) In the end of his perceptive comments Sampley sees this verse’s questions as exposing the folly of their practices if there is no resurrection of the dead.(46) As to the question arising from this as to whether those being baptized vicariously were believers or unbelievers in the resurrection, one is forced again like Sampley above to admit that we might never know

124 the identity of the third person plural designation “they” by Paul in this verse with the tinev and the le/gousin of verse 12 is enigmatic. On the one hand the question maybe asked as to whether this group could have “bracketed out” their unbelief in the resurrection for the sake of doing something for deceased relatives or friends. However it would appear to be more consistent if their belief in the resurrection motivated their concern for the deceased. Ultimately this question may not be able to be completely resolved either way or even with the option of a combination of believers and non- believers in the resurrection. One has to be careful not to make hasty identifications between verses 12 and 29.

The exegesis is for the most part completed. However it is still necessary to embark on an excursus arising from it. The main purpose in doing this is the need to investigate further the usage of the crucial preposition u9pe\r. Whilst the exegesis did relate its importance to its usage within I Cor 15:29, there are wider implications of the meaning u9pe\r that could not be explored within this exegesis. Nor could these be adequately treated within a footnote. Hence the requirement now to address these wider implications in what follows.

125

FOOTNOTES

1. Thistleton, AC “The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a Commentary on the Greek Text” (2000), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1280. 2. There are two manuscripts (Uncials) identified with the initial D. These are D 07 and D 06. The latter of these two indicated as D2 by Thistleton is located in Paris. The date of this manuscript is 6th Century AD (Introduction to Greek text, 4th rev. edn. Kurt Aland et al) and known as Claromontanus and contains Paul’s epistles. 3. The Peshitta or Syriac version dates from the first half of fifth century (so Introduction to Greek NT, 26). 4. According to Thistleton, op. cit., and as borne out in the datings given above. 5. As per pages 567-8 of Metzger, BM “A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament”, (1971), (3rd edn) where v 29 is not cited at all. 6. Thistleton, AC op. cit., 1241 (N 159) BAGD, 680-3; Grimm-Thayer, 524-7; cf. LSJ I, 234-7 and Lampe, PGL I, 107-8. 7. ibid., 1240. 8. ibid., 1241. 9. ibid. 10. ibid. 11. ibid. 12. Fee, G “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (1987), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 763. 13. ibid. 14. Barrett, CK “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (1971), (2nd edn) A & C Black, London, 326. 15. ibid., 363. 16. Fee, op. cit., 763-4, N (15). 17. ibid. 18. Rissi, M “Die Taufe Fur Die Toten” (1962), Zwingli Verlag, Zurich. I am reliant on Thistleton’s itemisation of these four categories as cited above (op. cit., Thistleton, 1240). 19. Murphy-O’Connor, J “Baptized for the Dead (I Cor XV:29): a Corinthian Slogan?” (in) Revue Biblique 58 (4, 81). 20. Morris, L “I Corinthians” (1985), 214 citing the commentator Parry.

126

21. Fee, G op. cit., 763, (N 11). 22. ibid. 23. Collins, RJ “First Corinthians” (1999), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 556. 24. Thistleton, AC op. cit., 1242. 25. ibid. 26. Orr, WF & Walther, TA “I Corinthians” (Anchor Bible) (1976), 335. 27. Beasley-Murray, GR “Baptism in the New Testament” (1962), 186. 28. ibid., 187. 29. Blass-Debrunner-Funk’s “Lexicon of the New Testament”, 231(2). 30. Conzelmann, H “I Corinthians” (1975), Fortress, Philadelphia, 276 (N 121). 31. O’Neill, JC “I Corinthians 15:29” (1980), (in) Expository Times 91, 310. 32. Murphy-O’Connor, J “Baptized for the Dead (I Cor XV:29): A Corinthian Slogan?” (in) Revue Biblique 88 (4, 81), 532-43. 33. Fee, G op. cit., 763, N (13). 34. “A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament” (1996), (5th edn) Pontifico Biblico Institute, Rome. 35. Blass-Debrunner-Funk, 442 N(14). 36. “A Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (Edited by) G Kittel, (ET 1964), Vol l, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 542. (this article by Oepke). 37. Bultmann, R “Theology of the New Testament” Vol 1, 676. 38. Ruef, J “Paul’s First Letter to Corinth” (1977), SCM, London, 168. 39. Conzelmann, H. “I Corinthians” (1975), Fortress, Philadelphia, 275-6. 40. “The New Interpreter’s Bible” (2002), Vol X; 982 (this article on I Corinthians by JP Sampley). Hereafter NIB Vol X. 41. Sampley, JP (NIB Vol X) ibid., 982. 42. ibid. 43. ibid. 44. ibid. 45. ibid. 46. ibid.

127

D (2) The Immediate Scriptural and Socio-Cultural Context of I Cor 15:29

128

Having completed an exegesis and accompanying excursus in the previous two chapters of this section, it remains now to locate I Cor 15:29 in a particular context. It has been already demonstrated in the chapters which looked at the context in Section B (4) and (5) that the overall context emerging from that debate was in favour of the vicarious view. This has since been re-enforced through the last expositional section. Indeed the wider context of the concept of vicariousness both in scripture and inter-testamental literature was also seen to provide a matrix within which I Cor 15:29 can be seen to be illustrative.

However to turn to the particular context; this essentially means two things. Firstly the internal, that is the immediate scriptural context and then secondly, the external, which is the socio-cultural setting of the Corinthian church and its practice of vicarious baptism for the dead. In the case of the internal or immediate scriptural context this will be seen to be demonstrated as an ad hominem argument within a deliberative rhetorical framework. Having established this, the external or socio-cultural context of I Cor 15:29 will be addressed in order to integrate the verse within its location in the church at Corinth.

The Ad-hominem Argument We commence with the British scholar GR Beasley-Murray. Beasley-Murray identifies three different views arising from the disputed issues about I Cor 15:29. These are: i. Baptism for the dead springs from a magical estimate of the sacraments and Paul’s approval of it reflects his own sacramentalism ii. Baptism for the dead is not to be deprecated and Paul had no grounds for disapproving of it iii. Baptism for the dead was an alien custom adopted by the Corinthians and Paul’s citation of it during the course of an argument on another subject yields no evidence as to his opinion of it.(1)

Beasley-Murray later goes on to say: It is more satisfactory to infer that, since I Cor 15:29 is solitary in Paul’s letters in its representation of this kind of sacramentalism, it reflects not the apostle’s beliefs but those of the Corinthians he is addressing.(2)

129

Thus he effectively refutes the third of the positions outlined above. Having commented at length on the views of others, Beasley-Murray then exposits on his own. At the outset he declares: I must concur with those who see in the practice of vicarious baptism for the dead a modification of Christian baptism, or an importation alongside of it, that had taken root in the Corinthian Church, not of Paul’s planting nor of his willing. It was intended to procure for the deceased the benefits believed to be attached to ordinary Christian baptism.(3)

Beasley-Murray later articulates this view as being “ad-hominem” since it “can be used to demonstrate inconsistencies in people’s views, without involving the speaker in agreement with them”.(4) Incidentally, his definition of the term “ad-hominem” at this point is a useful way of describing this device used by Paul in this particular context.(5)

As an example of American scholarship of this era with the “ad hominem” approach there is Orr and Walther who in 1976 published their commentary on I Corinthians.(6) Their comments reflect the above approach as seen for example in the following: “Paul remarks about the practice without specifying who or how many are involved and without identifying himself with them. He attaches neither praise nor blame to the custom. He does take it as an illustration of faith in a future destiny of the dead”.(7) Two other advocates of the “ad hominem” position with their various nuances of it are also worth quoting at this point. They are J H Wilson,(8) and E Walter.(9) Wilson’s view is: In v29, Paul is theoretically on common ground with his Corinthian opponents. It is they who undergo baptism u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n and he employs their own practice - without approving it - to make his point. If being baptized on behalf of the dead means the semi-magical act whereby the dead obtain the same benefits as would living participants...Paul would also interpret this as implying a future resurrection of those dead friends. Regardless of the meaning which participants gave to the act and regardless of possible misunderstandings by Paul, at present v29 functions to show the future nature of the resurrection.(10)

Walter examines the practice of vicarious baptism in the light of Catholic liturgical practice in coming to an “ad-hominem” view. Thus he observes:

130

Though such a custom is unknown to us, it ought not to strike us as totally incomprehensible. Do we not do something similar with masses and indulgences when we apply them to the dead, partly in ways recognised by the Church, partly out of pious feeling? It corresponds to a general human need to be able to still do something for the dead. In relation to baptism early councils strictly forbade this practice while some sects continued it. Paul here neither approved nor condemned it. It is sufficient for him to make use of this practice to argue that it has sense only if Christ’s resurrection can still have an effect on the dead.(l1)

(12) Gordon Fee represents the end of the eighties decade and up to that point the most (13) thorough going exegetical commentary. Within the scope of five pages including extensive footnoting he presents a detailed exegesis. Since we have already touched on some of Fee’s views we will confine this review to the main points of his exposition of this verse.

After a brief introduction on the rhetorical wording of this verse and its repetitive element for emphasis and clarity,(14) Fee goes on to foreshadow his own interpretation, to be outlined further later, when he says: The normal reading of the text is that some Corinthians are being baptised, apparently vicariously, in behalf of some people who have already died. It would be fair to add that this reading is such a plain understanding of the Greek text that no one would ever have imagined the various alternatives were it not for the difficulties involved.(15) This realistic approach has a fair mindedness about it that is very commendable.

It is because of this diversity of opinion that Fee has been able to group into these four categories, Fee feels that none are as compelling as a straight out reading of the text and so the popularity of the vicarious view.(16) After further canvassing the various nuances of this view, Fee’s “most likely options” are: a. some believers being baptised for others who either were or were on their way to becoming believers when they died (e.g. as in 11:30) but had never been baptised (so Rissi, Barrett and Bruce) or b. that it reflects the concern of members of households for some of their own number who had died before becoming believers.(17)

131

It is interesting to note Fee’s classification of this section of his commentary as “Ad hominem Arguments for Resurrection” (15:29-34).(18) Certainly the first of these last two options advocated by Rissi, Barrett and Bruce appears to be worthy of commendation.

(19) Writing at the end of the nineties RJ Collins is in a position to give perspective to those who have gone before him on this topic. He notes O’Neill’s identification of “the dead” to be the moribund and that the latter’s rhetorical questions refer to the baptism of deathbed converts or dying infants.(20) Collins then paraphrases O’Neill’s translation as: “What is the use of baptising the bodies of those who are about to die, says Paul, if there is no resurrection of the body?”(21)

Collins in delineating his own view states at the outset that: There is little evidence that the practice existed in the early church (cf Chrysostom, “On the First Epistle to the Corinthians”, Homily 40: 62, 347). It is likely that the practice took place only in first century Corinth, where religious syncretism was a fact of life even for the Corinthian Christians.(22) It is interesting that Collins refers to Chrysostom’s homilies on this subject, which give support to evidence that this practice was in existence in the post New Testament church. Even further still he fails to refer to Tertullian’s polemical works against the Marcionites in which it is abundantly clear that the practice did definitely exist after first century Corinth. So therefore his view as expressed above is subject to this challenge.

However Collins is more correct when he posits the view that: Paul’s unusual use of the third person plural in a rhetorical question suggests that the practice may not have been widespread among the Corinthian Christians. Only a few of them may have practiced vicarious baptism for the dead... . The obvious meaning of Paul’s words in the Greek text is that some Christians at Corinth practiced a kind of vicarious baptism.(23) Collins does not venture any further than this and thereby does not advance his acceptance of the “vicarious view” to that of “argumentum ad hominem”. He does provide an important “rhetorical critical” viewpoint on this verse as seen readily in his

132 overall approach. This is a welcome new approach typical of the last decade of the twentieth century.

The Deliberative Rhetorical Framework The rhetorical critical movement seeks to analyse Paul’s letters in the light of the rhetorical conventions of his day. An example of this approach is B Witherington’s “Conflict and Community in Corinth: a Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on I and II Corinthians” which was published in 1995 and which will be noted further in due course. However one needs first to assess the relevancy of this line of criticism as a possible framework for Paul’s ad hominem argument. At the outset it needs to be observed that political and formal arguments were expected to conform to the rules of argumentation, which were the conventions of Greco-Roman rhetoric - the art of persuasive speaking and writing. Classical writers on rhetoric include Quintilian, Cicero and Aristotle. According to one authority on rhetorical criticism, I Corinthians 15 is “a perfect example of rhetorical argumentation”.(24) Also, an increasing number of scholarly studies over the past decade or so demonstrate that Paul was indeed well instructed in rhetoric as a basic form of his education.(25) Even the Corinthian recipients of his correspondence, though not in every case trained in rhetoric, would have nonetheless been familiar with rhetoric and accustomed to its conventions. As one commentator argues persuasively: All written and spoken words were rhetorical, so in order to understand what was written or said, one always has to consider the rhetoric of what is there. To call something rhetorical is not be confused with dismissing it as empty, as form prevailing over context, everything in I Corinthians, therefore is rhetorical, and we as interpreters of it must regularly inquire of its rhetorical force.(26) This kind of comment along with the importance of rhetoric to Paul and his congregations must surely attest to its relevance to I Corinthians and the rest of the New Testament.

Three different forms of rhetoric have been identified from Paul’s time. These include the judicial, deliberative and epideictic.(27) By way of some definitions of these three, judicial was concerned with the courtroom and past evidence for establishing a judgement whilst epideictic was concerned with the present as it applied to praise or

133 blame of an individual or a virtue or vice.(28) Whilst I Corinthians has elements of both of these, chapter 15 in particular along with most of the remainder of the epistle is an example of deliberative rhetoric.(29) Thus it was concerned with the future and about what one should do or not do, or as one writer puts it: “to advise and dissuade audience members concerning a particular course of action”.(30) Watson, as has been shown from various references above, is something of an authority on this topic. As such he has identified the following stages in Paul’s argument in vv 1-34, using rhetorical terms as follows:(31) Exordium (vv l-2). An introduction in which the writer sets forth his concerns and intentions. The exordium introduced planned, recurring themes like Paul’s phrase “in vain” repeated throughout the argument (vv 10, 14, 17, 58) and thematically explored in verses 12-19 and 29-34. Narratio (vv 3-5). Background information is provided. A narratio included judgements such as common saying, popular beliefs, or supporting historical narrative. Verses 3-5 represented the “creed” or “popular belief” of the church: Christ died, was buried and was resurrected. Refutatio (vv 12-19). The “proof” of the argument typically begun with the claim of the opposition (here, there is no resurrection, v12). The refutatio then denied the asserted fact. Paul denied the “no resurrection” teaching by arguing that resurrection exemplified Christian hope. Probatio or Confirmatio (vv 20-28). This section consisted of a propositio, a statement of the proposition to be proven (v20); a ratio, or reason establishing the truth of the proposition (vv 21-2; the historical examples of Adam and Christ), a central confirmatio which further proved the ration, expressing it in a different way (vv 23-4) and an exornatio, which confirmed the arguments presented (vv 258). Peroratio (vv 29-34). This section recapitulated the main points of the probatio and turned the case against the opposition by attacking their primary points. Paul used three strategies for composing a peroratio: interrogation (vv 29-30a), irony (v32b) and proposal of policy (vv 33-4).

In this last particular section, Watson states: The questions are meant to be answered negatively, pointing out that the behaviour of both the audience and Paul is at variance with denial of the

134

resurrection. It is “vain” behaviour (cf vv 2, 10, 14, 17)...Paul demonstrates that opponents’ proposition is contradictory or foolish (Quintilian 5.13.16-17) and inconsistent (Quintilian 5.13.30) not in its logic, but in relation to their own and Paul’s behaviour. If there is no resurrection of the dead, there is no reason to be vicariously baptized for the dead (v29).(32)

By way of a comparison to Watson’s rhetorical analysis of I Cor 15, there is that of Witherington who tends to follow Mack with small modifications.(33) These are as follows: The exordium in vv 1-2, The narration in vv 3-11, The proposition in vv 12-19, The thesis, stated in short form in v20, A series of arguments in the probatio in vv 21-50, using paradigms, examples, analogies, and closing with a scriptural analogy, that is an appeal to a recognized authority, and The conclusion in vv 51-8, with a recapitulation, a citation of scripture for a final appeal (vv54f) and a peroratio in the form of an exhortation to act on the basis of all that has just been said (v58).(34)

For Witherington, I Corinthians 15 provides “an example of Paul at his argumentative best, ably using the tools of deliberative rhetorical questions, and the like”.(35)

By way of a further comparison to Watson’s view of behavioural contrasts between Paul and his audience particularly in regard to doubts about the resurrection and the practice of vicarious baptism, cited above, Witherington states: “His (Paul’s) appeal to those who were baptizing for the dead (v29) is an appeal to another group of “some” in the community, those who do affirm the resurrection, probably including future resurrection, against the influential people who simply deny any resurrection”.(36) The sociological implications of this view will be examined in the next part of this chapter. For the moment, Witherington’s distinction that the “some” who practiced vicarious baptism should be separated from unbelief in the resurrection, as is not clear in Watson’s view.

135

Witherington concludes his discussion on verse 29 by indicating that it probably refers to vicarious baptism for other Christian loved ones who died without baptism and that Paul “simply uses it as part of his ad hominem argument”.(37) This then effectively locates the immediate context of verse 29 as being an ad hominem argument within a deliberative rhetorical framework, as indicated earlier in this chapter.

By way of a reflection at this point it has to be said that this particular immediate context offers, in my view, the best option in the light of the most recent research.(38) In terms of the appropriateness of rhetorical criticism for a key to understanding Paul’s letters, Witherington makes this observation: Study of the rhetorical form of Paul’s letters is a discipline still being reborn, and any results that we come up with will necessarily be tentative and subject to further correction. Nevertheless the evidence is considerable that Paul chose to cast his letters in rhetorical forms, that is, that he shaped them in accordance with formal oral speech, using rhetorical elements recognizable as such by his addressees.(39)

With such safeguards as made clear in this quote along with the relevancy of a rhetorical approach, one may rest assured that this can and indeed does provide the most likely immediate scriptural context for our verse. This text in question also comes to us out of the immediate social setting of the church in Corinth as well as its local cultural context. In locating both of these one has a better chance of understanding the verse.

The Social Setting of the Corinthian Church As a starting point to understanding the social setting of the Corinthian church, Paul’s description of them in I Cor 1:26 is worth quoting: “Consider your own call, bothers and sisters, not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth” (NRSV). The key words which Paul uses in this sociological description are the qualifying words “not many”. Whilst it does indicate that the majority was not wise, powerful and of noble birth, this does not rule out the possibility of such classes being in evidence at Corinth. Witherington believes there were at least two prominent members of the congregation in Corinth, these being Erastus and Phoebe.(40) It is of importance to briefly examine what is known of these two persons to illustrate the existence of a higher status, at least a significant minority in

136

Corinth. In the case of Erastus, Paul mentions him in Romans 16:23 in his concluding greetings from Corinthian church members including: “Erastus, the city treasurer and our brother Quartus, greet you” (NRSV). Of special interest is the pavement stone found near the theatre in Corinth, upon which the Latin inscription (in translation) reads: “Erastus in return for aedileship laid (this) pavement at his own expense”.(41) The Aedile was responsible for the maintenance of public buildings, streets and market places and collected revenues from businesses. As an important post in a port city such as Corinth only a person of considerable wealth and property could hold it, so indicating Erastus’ status and social standing.

The other person mentioned by Paul with a similar social standing was the woman deacon, Phoebe (Rm 16:1f). This was a position of leadership which Paul applies to himself and Apollos (I Cor 3:5). As an added description Paul calls Phoebe a prostatis (Rm 16:2) which can mean “patroness” or “benefactor”. One commentator on this particular role states: “As a general rule, then women as benefactors should be imagined playing their part personally and visible, out in the open”.(42) Such high profile persons with prestigious social status are important reminders of the influential individuals who rose to prominence in the early church at Corinth.

The other aspect of church life in Paul’s churches, with Corinth being no exception, was the description “the church (ekklesia) in the house of…” (so Rm 16:5: I Cor 16:19 cf v15). Such assemblies in households could accommodate around fifty persons with the host being regarded as the head of such households. Such persons in Corinth included Gaius, Pricilla and Aquila along with Stephanas, Chloe and Phoebe. From I Cor 14:23 it is clear that the household assemblies were open to believers and non- believers alike and thereby not viewed as esoteric societies by outsiders.(43)

The church at Corinth was religiously and ethnically diverse containing both Jews and Greeks as can be seen from the content of the Corinthian correspondence which refers to the Old Testament scriptures and pagan practices e.g. eating of meat from pagan sacrifices (I Cor 8). In terms of economic diversity there were the poor and even domestic slaves (I Cor 1:28). However there was sufficient wealth and assets as Paul himself notes (II Cor 8:1, 2, 14). Certainly Corinth was wealthier than other churches as for example Macedonia. (44) In the words of a leading social commentator of the early

137

Pauline churches: “A Pauline congregation generally reflected a fair cross-section of urban society”.(45)

This cross section of social diversity could express itself in various ways as seen for example in the issue of belief in the resurrection and practice of vicarious baptism for the dead. Witherington takes the view that the latter group were not among those who say “there is no resurrection of the dead” (I Cor 15:12). This is because Paul is demonstrating that the vicarious baptism group affirmed the resurrection. By contrast Witherington believes that “more likely it was the more wealthy members of the congregation, those who had considerable social status and continuing strong ties to pagan society, that denied the resurrection”.(46) He goes on to indicate that Paul’s rhetorical strategy throughout Ch 15 of the first epistle is to unify the Corinthians in a more correct view of the resurrection by critiquing the position of the more prominent “some”, not that of the less prominent.(47) Thus Witherington categorises those who practiced vicarious baptism for the dead as socially “less prominent”.

The Cultural Context of the Corinthian Church However, such persons were not immune from the cultural context of their day as indicated from their notable practices. De Maris questions this issue and its origins and he answers these as follows: Why did baptism on behalf of the dead arise? What did it mean to the Corinthian Christians? The Corinthians evidently married their high regard for baptism - to judge from Paul’s warning about over confidence in it (I Cor 10:1-13) - with an intensive concern for the dead to create a distinctively Corinthian practice.(48) Using this as his starting point De Maris develops his case along the lines of the Greco- Roman treatment of the dead. As can be seen already, De Maris understands vicarious baptism as pre-eminently an example of cultural fusion. De Maris basis his approach on both archaeology and anthropology as indicated in the sub-title of his article. In summing up his argument in favour of the archaeological evidence, De Maris states: As we have seen, however, the material record also points to innovation; archaeological data verify the existence of a new and widespread religious perspective. The use of the Palaimon cult of Isthmia and the orientation of Demeter devotion in the Roman period point unequivocally to a development transcending cult boundaries; the emergence during the middle of the first

138

century AD of a religious outlook focused intensely on the dead and the world of the dead.(49) If De Maris is correct here in his description of the cultural orientation of popular pagan religion in the mid-first century AD, then one only needs to link this with the rituals of Christianity to see how the two thought systems might have connected. De Maris notes: While it seems logical that baptism, a ritual of entry or boundary crossing might have been used widely to aid the deceased as they made the transition from life to death, only the Corinthian Christians acted on this logic. What fostered this practice at Corinth was a local preoccupation with the underworld, such that Christians of first century Corinth were pushed to innovate.(50) And so it was that in De Maris’ view: To begin with, the Corinthian preoccupation with the dead and the underworld, when added to the already considerable attention ancient Greeks and Romans gave to their dead in general, acts as confirmation of what most NT scholars understand of the Greek of I Cor 15:29 to describe: baptism for the dead meant baptism undergone by the living to benefit the dead.(51)

These then are the main aspects of De Maris’ case in its broad outlines. In terms of a critical appraisal of his kind of approach, De Maris himself cites AJM Wedderburn as “the most recent thorough presentation of this position...that the mystery cults did not influence early Christian baptismal theology”.(52) Yet against this De Maris also cites the authority of the assistant director of the Corinth Excavations, Nancy Bookidis, who has observed: “an increasing awareness of regional variations in ancient religion...(had) made the generalisations of the past somewhat suspect”.(53) De Maris then goes on to identify with this approach by stating: “The growing body of knowledge about religion in ancient Corinth provided by archaeology may necessitate qualifying general claims made about Greco-Roman religions, including ancient Christianity. Specific to this study, archaeological data from Corinth and its environs, the Corinthia, may help explain why the Christians of early Roman Corinth extended the rite of baptism to their dead”.(54) Given the kinds of safeguards made in this kind of approach, De Maris’ case for cultural context accommodation by at least some of the Christians at Corinth in respect to their baptismal rites, seems to be a commendable one.

The social setting and cultural context of I Corinthians 15:29 make it clear that the very

139 diversity of the Corinthian church could give rise to the practice of vicarious baptism for the dead. With such factors as the ethnic makeup being both Greek and Roman, the religious being predominantly Gentile with a significant Jewish minority, the economic status varying from impressively wealthy to the poor and slave underclasses - and all of this reflected in the profile of the membership of the church must make for a diversity in religious understanding and practices. When one sets this against the many and various practices operating within the Christian church at Corinth which Paul addressed perforce of the situation, it becomes easier to understand. In some of these practices, for example the issue of the eating of meat previously used in pagan sacrifices (I Cor 8), Paul works through the implications of this issue in some depth. However by sharp contrast to this particular issue, he passes over the implications of vicarious baptism for the dead in the space of one verse. Paul’s toleration to the extent of his accommodation of the practice as illustrative of his argument for the veracity of the resurrection, surely shows his sensitivity to the socio-cultural diversity that was first century Corinth.

140

FOOTNOTES

1. Beasley-Murray, GR “Baptism in the New Testament” (1962), 187-8. 2. ibid., 190. 3. ibid. 4. ibid. 5. ibid., 191. 6. Orr, WF & Walther, 3A “I Corinthians” (Anchor Bible) (1976), Doubleday, NY. 7. ibid., 337. 8. Wilson, JH “The Corinthians Who Say There is No Resurrection of the Dead” (in) Zeitschrift fur Neuentestamentliche Wissenschaft (ZNW) No 59 (1968), 90-107. 9. Walter, E “The First Epistle to the Corinthians”, (1971), Herder & Herder, NY. 10. Wilson, JH, op. cit., 105. 11. Walter E, op. cit., 172-3. 12. Fee, G “I Corinthians” (1987), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 13. ibid., 763-7. 14. ibid., 763. 15. ibid., 763-4. 16. ibid., 766. 17. ibid., 767. 18. ibid., from 763-4. 19. Collins, RJ “First Corinthians” (1999), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota. 20. ibid., 557. 21. ibid. 22. ibid. 23. ibid. 24. Mack, BL “Rhetoric and the New Testament” (1990), Augsburg Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 56. 25. As demonstrated in these two articles, Watson, DF “The New Testament and Greco-Roman Rhetoric: A Bibliography” (in) JETS 31 (1988), 465-72 and his “The New Testament and Greco-Roman Rhetoric: A Bibliographical Update” (in) JETS 33 (1990), 513-24. 26. “The New Interpreters Bible” Vol X (2002), Abingdon, Nashville, 783. 27. ibid., 783-4. 28. ibid. 141

29. ibid., 784. 30. Watson, DF “Paul’s Rhetorical Strategy in I Corinthians 15” (in) Rhetoric and the

New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg-Conference (edited by) SE Porter (and) TH Olbricht (1993) Academic Press, Sheffield. 31. I am indebted to JP Holding’s (Internet article March 2003) entitled: “And Don’t Forget the Soap: An Examination of ‘Baptism for the Dead’”, 3-4 for his summarising of Watson’s article (N 56) above, 231-49. 32. Watson, DF, op. cit., (1993), 242-3. 33. Witherington, B “Conflict and Community in Corinth: a Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on I and II Corinthians” (1995), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 292, who follows Mack, op. cit., 56f. 34. Witherington, B ibid., 292. 35. ibid. 36. ibid., 302. 37. ibid., 305-6. 38. As for example B Mack’s “Rhetoric and the New Testament” (1990), Fortress, Minneapolis; M Mitchell’s “Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation” (1991), Mohr Tubingen; and DF Watson’s “Paul’s Rhetorical Strategy in I Corinthians 15” (1993), Academic Press, Sheffield, among others. 39. Witherington, B op. cit., 39. 40. ibid., 32-5 for an extended discussion on these two folk. 41. In Latin it is: “Erastus pro aedilit (at) e s(ua) p(ecunia) stravit”. For further details, DWJ Gill “Erastus the Aedile” (in) Tyndale Bulletin (1989), 293-301. 42. R MacMullen, “Women in Public in the Roman Empire” (in) Historia 29 (1980), 211f. 43. So Witherington, B op. cit., 32 44. ibid., 23. 45. Meeks, W “The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul” (1983), New Haven, Yale University Press, 70ff. 46. Witherington, B op. cit., 295. 47. ibid., 295 N (20). 48. De Maris, RE “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (I Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature (1995), 662.

142

49. ibid., 670. 50. ibid., 671. 51. ibid., 674. 52. Wedderburn, AJM “Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against its Greco-Roman Background” (1987), WUNT 44, Mohr, Tubingen, 5-6. 53. Bookidis, N “The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: an Archaeological Approach to Ancient Religion” (a paper presented at the Archaeological Institute of America). Cited by De Maris, 674. 54. ibid., (De Maris)

143

THESIS SECTION E:

SOME RELEVANT COMPARISONS BETWEEN I COR 15:29 AND VARIOUS SCRIPTURES AND CREDAL FORMULAE

Introductory Rationale 1) Relevant Comparisons between I Corinthians 15:29 and Extracts from Romans 2) Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and Other Pauline Literature 3) Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and Petrine Literature 4) Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 Credal Formulae

144

Introductory Rationale

145

In this fifth major section of the thesis the overall relevance of our verse to other parts of the New Testament and subsequent Credal tradition will be demonstrated. The relationship between the respective New Testament literatures and Credal formulae and I Corinthians 15:29 will be explored in each case.

This whole quest is important because it is my contention that relevant comparisons can be found between I Cor 15:29 and the various literatures identified in this section. How they relate in their logical sequence of ideas will be presently seen. The other aspect of this is the progression of these related ideas through the New Testament era into the post New Testament period leading up to the formulation of the creeds.

The first of these New Testament literatures is Romans which originates in the Pauline writings just a few years after Paul’s writing the Corinthian correspondence. At the latter stages of the New Testament era stands the Petrine correspondence, where the writer in this case actually acknowledges the Pauline corpus preceding his in the words: “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters…”(II Peter 3:15b)(NRSV).

The particular Petrine references in I Peter 3: 18-19 and 4: 5-6 to be examined within their respective contexts are vital to understanding why the Credal extracts relevant to these follow at the end of this section. As Creeds particularly the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian among others define orthodox belief and are therefore binding on the faithful, it is important to end our survey at this point.

146

FOOTNOTES

1. “Oxford Illustrated Dictionary” (1962) Clarendon Press, Oxford, 180. 2. ibid., 273.

147

E (1) Relevant Comparisons between I Corinthians 15:29 and Extracts from Romans

148

De Maris’ Wider Implications In the concluding section of his seminal work(1) De Maris seeks to address himself to the following issue as indicated in the title of this section: “Wider Implications: I Corinthians 15 and Pauline Theology”.(2) In this particular section of his article, De Maris applies his socio-cultural approach to a broader theological canvas.

Perhaps the most interesting elements of his argument here is the connection he makes with Romans 6:1-11, Galatians 3:27-8 and Colossians 2:11-13.(3) We shall deal with the Romans reference along with others of relevance in this letter not cited by De Maris. As for the other Pauline letters cited above these will be dealt with in the next chapter.

In regard to Romans 6:1-11, De Maris accepts the majority scholarly opinion which locates the writing of the Epistle of Romans by Paul in Corinth. More shall be said upon this later. Whilst admitting that his study cannot settle the scholarly debate over Romans 6:1-11, he believes on the other hand that it widens the debate by suggesting that Paul was responding to other baptismal tradition in these verses.(4) With these considerations in mind De Maris concludes his thoroughgoing study with these words: What likelier source is there for the burial imagery in Romans 6 than vicarious baptism, a funerary ritual of the Corinthian Christians? Inspired by them to connect baptism and burial Paul appears to explore in Romans 6:1-11 what he implied in I Cor 15:29. If baptism for the dead necessarily raises the issue of resurrection, as 15:29 suggests, in Rom 6:1-11 we learn from Paul why it does: baptism joins the believer to the death and resurrection of Christ.(5) This line of thought will be investigated further in an exegetical section below along with the other relevant verses in Romans, particularly 8:38-9 and 14:8-9. In the concluding reflections an overall assessment of these verses in Romans and their relationship with I Corinthians 15:29 will be undertaken.

Historical Links between Corinth and Rome First and foremost a brief exploration of the historical “linkages” between the two epistles of I Corinthians and Romans is in order to set a context for what follows. A dating for Paul’s arrival in Corinth depends on Acts 18:11 and establishing from this the

149 dates for the proconsul ship of Gallio. According to a foremost leading authority on this(6) Gallio was probably appointed in the summer(mid-year) of 51AD and that Paul appeared before him shortly after this, as mentioned in Acts 18:12. However as also indicated in the previous verse (i.e. Acts 18:11) Paul had already resided in Corinth for eighteen months prior to his appearance before Gallio. Thus it would appear that Paul commenced his first ministry in Corinth after his arrival there in early 50AD. After this eighteen months initial ministry in Corinth it is reported in Acts18:18-19 that Paul left Corinth from where he went to Ephesus, in the late summer of 51AD. It is clear from I Cor 16:8 that Paul is in Ephesus from where he wrote I Corinthians.

As far as a dating for the writing of I Corinthians is concerned this is somewhat complicated by the lost document referred to in I Cor 5:9-12, the so called “previous letter”. Therefore apart from brief allusions to the contents of this letter in these abovementioned verses, I Corinthians is in fact the second letter after this previous one. This lost letter probably therefore was written just after Paul’s departure from Corinth late in 51AD. Allowing for the “wide door” of opportunities for mission and ministry in Ephesus (I Cor 16:9) along with outcomes and responses to his counsel given in the previous letter, a period of 2-3 years may have elapsed before the writing of I Corinthians in Ephesus in the northern winter of(7) 53-54AD. This could be even extended further into the following winter of 55AD according to this same authority,(8) but this would be the very latest date.

When turning to the dating and venue for Paul’s letter to the Romans it is clear above all other factors that this work comes from a few years later than I Corinthians. Dates for Romans vary from the mid to the late fifties, according to Fitzmyer who prefers the winter of 57-58AD(9). Following Fitzmyer, Byrne, a more recent commentator, feels that the early months of 58AD provides the most likely period.(10)

Thus Romans follows I Corinthians in time by an interval of approximately 3-4 years. The venue from which Paul wrote Romans is clearer from the internal evidence of the epistle itself. Paul commends Phoebe, a lady from Cenchraea, one of the ports of Corinth. He is a house guest of Gaius (16:23a) undoubtedly to be identified with the person mentioned in I Cor 1:14, among those baptized. From Rom 16:21, 23 one learns that Erastus(11) Sosipater and Timothy were with Paul when Romans was written and

150 also when he was in Greece (Acts 19:22; 20:2-4). From Corinth Paul planned to go to Rome, but first had to deliver a collection for the poor members of the church in Jerusalem (Acts 19:21; Rom15:24; 26-28). All these factors taken together, both the internal evidence from Romans itself and externally from Acts as a secondary source, tend to suggest Corinth as the most likely venue for the writing of Romans. Relevant to this issue is the integrity of Chapter 16 of Romans with the remainder of the epistle. Fitzmyer states: Because I consider chap 16 an integral part of Romans, part of the letter sent to the Christians at Rome, Corinth is then understood as the place of composition of Romans.(12) This astute judgement from an erudite scholar and commentator on Romans, is most reasonable. The implications of this foregoing discussion on the historical links between Corinth and Rome along with the sequence of the dating of these respective epistles will be discussed further in the concluding reflections. Having set the historical context, one is now in a position to undertake an exegesis of three key passages in Romans, namely 6:3-5; 8:38-39 and 14:8-9.

Exegesis of the various passages a) Romans 6:3-5 v3) h1 a0gnoei=te o3ti, o3soi e0bapti/sqhmen ei0v Xristo\n 0Ihsou=n Lit: - Or are you ignorant that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus NRSV: - you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus

ei0v to\n qa/naton au0tou= e0bapti/sqhmen Lit: - into the death of him we were baptized? NRSV: - were baptized into his death

v4) suneta/fhmen ou]n au0tw=| dia\ tou= bapti/smatov ei0v to0n qa/naton Lit: - We were buried with therefore him through baptism into death NRSV: - Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death

i3na w3sper h0ge/rqh Xristo\v e0k vekre=n dia\ th=v do/chv tou= patro/v Lit: - in order that as was raised Christ from (the) dead through the glory of the Father.

151

NRSV: - so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father,

ou3tev kai\ hmei=v e0n kaino/thti zwh=v peripath/swmen. Lit: - so also we in newness of life might walk. NRSV: - so we too might walk in newness of life.

v5) ei0 ga\r su/mfutoi gego/namen tw= o9moiw/mati tou= qana/tou au0tou= Lit: - For if united with we have become in the likeness of the death of him NRSV: - For if we have been united with him in a death like him,

a0gga\ kai\ th=v a0nasta/sewv e0so/meqa Lit: - but (so) also of the (his) resurrection we shall be. NRSV: - we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

At the outset there can be little doubt that this particular passage (along with those that follow in this chapter) presents some interesting comparisons which will be explored when the exegesis is complete. In a rather dismissive remark Johnson could observe: the evidence that baptism was associated specifically with the death and resurrection or Jesus, however, is – apart from the present passage (i.e. Rom 6:1- 14) of course – scant, especially if we must disregard the entirely obscure reference to being “baptized for the dead” in I Cor 15:29.(13) He may be somewhat correct in labelling I Cor 15:29 as obscure, but that does not mean it should be disregarded. I contend with Richard E De Maris who has observed that Paul may have returned to the matter (i.e. baptism for the dead) indirectly when he wrote about baptism in his letter to the Romans.(14) We shall have more to say about these and other related matters in the concluding section of this chapter.

The a0gnoei=te “do you not know” by which Paul introduces all that follows implies by contrast a fore-knowledge of at least some of the elements of baptismal catechetical instruction.(15) Having not established the Roman church nor having yet visited Rome prior to writing his epistle to this church, Paul maybe forgiven for being somewhat ignorant himself of what his recipients knew or believed.

However Dunn correctly remarks: “whether the opening words assume a ready

152 knowledge of the teaching or are simply the teacher’s polite way of imparting new instruction is uncertain”.(16) We do know at least that Paul uses this expression in Rom 7:1 (h a0gnoei=te) and the related expression ou0k oi2date in Rom 11:2 elsewhere in this epistle, and contrary to Dunn’s view, Morris believes that in all three of these instances Paul indicates that “any Christian should know these things”.(17)

The expression e0bapti/sqhmen ei0v Xristo\n 0Ihsou=n “were baptized into Christ Jesus” could have evoked former associations with the mystery religions at least to some Christians of Gentile origins in Rome.(18) However Dunn raises the obvious but frequently overlooked point that “unfortunately, the mystery cults were very good at keeping their rites secret, so much so that we today know very little about them. More to the point, non participants in the first century must have been more or less equally ignorant”.(19) This astute observation alone tends to cast doubt about any influence from this source, or as Johnson puts it “…there is no reason to presume that its (i.e. baptism) presence in Christianity is the result of some “foreign” (i.e. mysteries) implantation”.(20)

The concept of being “baptized into Christ” found in Rom 6:3 and also its parallel in Galatians 3:27a, had its origins in the Judaeo-Christian tradition rather than the Hellenistic mystery religions. In the Old Testament, particularly with festivals such as the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) according to Leviticus 16:20-22 there was a presumption that the people of Israel would be identified and thereby participate in the banishment of the sin-bearing scapegoat into the wilderness. In a similar identification with the original Passover in Egypt (Exodus 12:14-20) each person celebrating this festival ever since is also symbolically present in the original celebration. With this latter festival Paul makes a contemporary connection with his day when he states that the Passover generation “were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea” (I Cor 10:2). The preposition ei0v “into” according to Fitzmyer expresses an aspect of the relationship of the Christian to Christ, occurring most often with words denoting “faith” and “Baptism” and connoting the initial movement of introduction or incorporation by which one is born to life “in Christ”.(21) Cranfield bears this out more personally when he states: “that baptism has to do with a decisive personal relationship between the individual believer and Christ”.(22)

153

This is personalized further and made more specific in the phrase: ei9v to\n qa/naton au0tou= e0bapti/sqhmen; “were baptized into his death”. So this union of the Christian with Christ through baptism, as a rite of Christian initiation brings with it a union also with Christ’s suffering and death.(23) This is not merely symbolically “with Christ but an actual experience of union with Him. This assertion by Paul is based on the early Kerugma stated in I Cor 15:3-5”.(24)

In Verse 4, Paul elaborates further in this theme of the Christian’s complete identification with Christ’s death and its implications (v4b – 5). In using such a verb as suneta/fhmen, literally “co-buried”, Paul uses one of his favourite compound verbs.(25) So as a result of the force of this verb as catechumens descended into the baptismal font, customarily in the Easter season and therefore of relevance here, and were covered by the water, they died to sin.

But just as Christ was raised from the dead through (dia\) the glory of the Father, so we too “might walk in newness of life” (v4b). Thus the catechumen as newly baptized, is also completely identified with Christ in His resurrection (v5). Paul again uses one of his favourite verbs in peripath/swmen, literally “might walk about”. This expressive verb Paul would have also encountered in the Greek Old Testament (LXX) in Exodus 18:20; II Kings 20:3; Psalm 86:11 and Proverbs 20; 28:18, where it indicates consistent ethical conduct according to the precepts of the law. Thus the ethical implications alluded to earlier is introduced by this particular verb. For the Christian this “walking about” is in “newness of life” (v4b). According to Dunn this ethical dimension speaks against this expression being derived from the Greek mysteries.(26) This e0n kaino/thti zwh=v “in newness of life” brings to mind the “new creation” of II Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15 cf Rom 12:2. For Byrne, “there is an eschatological aspect to the “walking” – it flows from the risen life of Jesus and belongs essentially to the new age – but is something which begins here and now”.(27)

In verse 5 there is an exhortation arising from the last verses ethical implication within this conditional sentence, denoted by ei0 ga\r. Byrne uses the word “conformity” in describing the baptized being “conformed" to the “pattern” of Christ’s death and resurrection.(28) These two words bring out the deeper meaning of the two respective Greek words of su/mfutoi (literally “united with”) and o9moiw/mati (literally “in the

154 likeness”). Byrne goes on to make the point that believers obviously do not share in Christ’s physical suffering on the cross, rather what they “conform to” is the ethical “pattern” expressed in Christ’s death to sin (cf v6), his self-giving love (Rom 15:3) and obedience (Rom 5:19) cf Phil 2:8.(29) This example of Christ also not only patterns the new ethical walk of the Christian, it also empowers it. In the concluding clause where it describes “being united with him through a resurrection like his”, there is a futuristic reference here for the believer’s resurrection. The a0lla\ “but” at this clause’s beginning is in the best Greek manuscripts.(30) b) Romans 8:38-9 v38) pe/peismai ga\r o3ti ou1te qa/natov ou1te zwh\ ou1te a1ggeloi Lit: - For I have been persuaded that no death nor life nor angels ou1te a0rxai\ ou1te e0nestw=ta ou1te me/llonta Lit: - nor rulers nor things present nor things to come nor powers NRSV: - For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor rulers, nothing present nor things to come, nor powers

v39) ou1te n3ywma ou3te ba/qov ou1te tiv kti/sov e9te/ra dunh/setai h9ma=v Lit: - nor height nor depth nor any creature other will be able us NRSV: - nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able

xwri/sai a0po\ th=v a0ga/phv tou= qeou= th=v e0n Xristw=| 0Ihsou= tw=| kuri/w| h9mw=n. Lit: - to separate from the love of God in Christ Jesus the Lord of us NRSV: - to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

The main focus in this piece of exegesis is the following words abstracted from these two verses, namely pe/peismai ga\r o3ti qa/natov ou1te zwh\...xwri/sai a0po\ th=v a0ga/phv tou= qeou= th=v e0n Xristw=| Ihsou= tw=| kuri/w| h9mw=n. In terms of textual variations three of the various items listed by Paul (omitted from above) namely ou1te e0nestw=ta ou1te me/llonta ou1te duna/meiv is according to Metzger the “reading adopted for the text is decisively supported by early and good witnesses (p27, 46 2V, A, B, C, D, G, itd, vg, syrb inter alia ).(31) pe/peismai ga\r “for I am persuaded” denotes “a

155 firm and settled conviction, a confident certainty”.(32) Being in the first person singular it is also personal to Paul himself. There follows a list of ten items which Paul arranges in four pairs along with two single items.(33) Our only concern for the sake of brevity and direct relevance is the first pair qa/natov…zwh\ Cranfield makes the contrasting distinction with Paul and his Old Testament background in regard to death, when he observes: “ for most of the Old Testament period (death) had been thought even by the people of God to separate men from God’s fellowship …”.(34)

But in sharp contrast to this Paul makes clear that this is no longer the case since death cannot separate us from God’s love in Christ Jesus. For Dunn qa/natov appropriately heads the list not only because of a preceding verse (i.e. v36) (“being put to death”) but “primarily because death has loomed throughout Chs 5-8 as the great hostile power”.(35) Personally for Paul death was not a bogey to be feared. Attention has been drawn by Cranfield(36) Morris(37) to the fact for Paul to die was to be with Christ which was far better than life in this present world (Phil 1:21-23). He could also die daily (I Cor 15:31) in a metaphorical sense. Like death, life also can have its fears and frustrations along with its persecutions and trials. Even with these there are also distractions and care,(38) yet at the same time there are pleasures and tranquillity. Life will always be a mixture of good and bad. But none of all these things can χωρισαι “separate” us from God’s love in Christ Jesus. c) Romans 14:8-9 v8) e0a/n te ga\r zw=men, tw=| kuri/w| zw=men, e0a/n te a0poqnh/|slwmen, Lit: - For whether we live to the Lord we live, or if we die NRSV: - If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die

tw=| kuri/w| a0poqnh/|skomen. e0a/n te ou]n zw=men e0a/n te Lit: - to the Lord we die whether therefore we live or if NRSV: - we die to the Lord; so then whether we live or whether

a0poqnh/|skwmen, tou= kuri/ou e0sme/n. (v9) eiv tou=to ga\r Xristo\v Lit: - we die of the Lord we are. For this for Christ NRSV: - we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died

156

a0pe/qanen kai\ e1zhsen, i3na kai\ nekw=n kai\ zw/ntwn lurieu/sh. Lit: - died and lived again, in order that both the dead of living he might be Lord NRSV: - and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living

As far as textual variation of these two verses is concerned, the only one is that in verse 9, where the better attested and older reading is a0pe/qanen kai\ e1zhsen (So N,A,B, C, M 39, 2127, cop sa, bo, arm, eth, al). The other alternative to e1zhsen is a0ne/sth (so F, G, 629, it (g), vg, al). This variation was brought about by scribes seeking to give a more precise definition of the meaning of e1zhsen “came to life” by replacing it by a0ne/sth “rose again”.(39) This scribal emendation to the earlier text was perhaps influenced by I Thess 4:14 which has 0Ihsou=v a0pe/qanen kai\ a0ne/sth “Jesus died and rose again” (RSV Interlinear (1972), 310) according to Metzger(40) and Fitzmyer.(41) Be this as it may, the earlier manuscript evidence is to be preferred over later scribal emendation. So our two principle translations render e1zhsen as “lived again” (NRSV) and “returned to life” (NIV). This alternative to the usual “rose again” provides some more internal consistency in terms of the zw=men “we live” used earlier in verse 8. Having just earlier in verse 7 reminded the Roman Christians that we neither live or die to ourselves, Paul goes on to explicate further the implications of both living and dying to the Lord. Byrne understands these verses as this “sense of common accountability with a more generalized description of Christian existence, centred upon the “lordship” of Christ”.(42) He goes on to identify these three verses i.e. 7–9 as having a symmetrical structure composed of six lines made up of three pairs of corresponding couplets. For this reason it has a “hymnic ring about it, suggesting the quotation of an early Christian hymn or statement of faith”.(43) Moo poses the question as to what “dying to the Lord” means in this instance. In answering his question, he refers to our earlier passage in Romans 6:3, where there is a clear spiritual sense. But no such spiritual sense can be applied here, for nothing in this (14:8) context would suggest such a nuance, as Paul is referring to physical death.(44) In further elucidating the concept of belonging to the Lord in death and life, Moo states: The union with the Lord Christ with all its benefits, that the believer enjoys in this life will continue after death with, indeed, an even fuller measure of blessing (cf 8:18, 31-39).(45)

157

This is an interesting insight in terms of the continuity of blessings and benefits received by the believer in this life and in death. Moo incidentally takes the kuri/u reference here to refer to Christ “almost certainly” because of the close connection with what follows in verse 9 (and he cites the support of commentators such as Sanday and Headlam, Murray, Cranfield and Dunn.(46) Fitzmyer on the other hand sees this reference (in v8) to the Lord as to: “praise, honour and serve God, the creator and maker of all”.(47) In spite of this alternative, it would appear that the overall context of these two verses taken together relate the “Lord” to Christ.

The ultimate purpose of the Christian’s living and dying and indeed also thereby belonging to the Lord is made abundantly clear in verse 9. The Greek expressions used “ei0v tou=to ga\r…i3na kai\”. For this…in order that” (literally) rendered variously as “For to this end…so that he might be” (NRSV) and “For this very reason…so that he might be” (NIV); certainly indicates ultimate purpose in Christ’s death and living again. Christ’s sovereignty over both life and death is a “universal dominion proper to the ku/riov of all” (cf I Thess 5:10; Phil 2:11)(48) as Fitzmyer states. He posits further that the first part of this verse echoes traditional (possibly pre-Pauline) terminology about the death and resurrection of Christ. (49) Cranfield ties together closely Christ’s Lordship over life and death with his own when he observes: “His being Lord of the dead and His being Lord of the living depend equally on both His death and His resurrection”(50).

The Relationship of These Passages to I Cor 15:29 These exegetical remarks in regard to all three of these passages in Romans need now to be related back to our verse in I Cor 15:29. By way of some concluding reflections about the various issues raised in this chapter, it is clear that Romans follows I Corinthians in time as indicated in the introductory section. It is also evident that Romans was written by Paul from Corinth prior to his impending journey to Rome. Romans as an epistle has traditionally been regarded as the epitome of Paul’s theology and therefore represents without any doubt the distillation of his mature thought and reflections. I Corinthians on the other hand is more in the nature of what was once called an “occasional letter”. This means essentially that the content of this epistle represents a number of responses to particular problems and issues arising within the church of Corinth. Hence the whole correspondence was “occasioned” by the range of

158 issues being addressed therein.

This comparison between these two letters is important since it can help to explain the relationship between I Cor 15:29 with the three passages exegeted in this chapter. The “occasional” or (perhaps to use a more up-to-date word “situational”) nature of vicarious baptism for the dead is significant in so far as that it supports Paul’s argument for the resurrection of the dead. It may be incidental, since after all it is nowhere else mentioned in scripture; however it is still important enough for Paul to use it as illustrative of his case.

In the three exegetical passages we have a number of themes which illustrate Paul’s mature theological reflection on the dead and the living. Taking the last two first, the theme of continuity between life and death is stressed in both in slightly different ways. In Romans 8:38-39 the particular emphasis is “neither death, nor life...will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord”. Hence God’s love in Christ transcends both life and death, along with other various conditions and thereby provides continuity between life and death, inter-alia. In Romans 14:8-9 the notion of continuity between life and death is stressed again albeit in terms of “living and dying to the Lord” and belonging to Him in either state. Christ’s own dying and living again – and it is significant here that the textual reading for “living again” is to be preferred over “rose again” – confirms Christ’s Lordship over the dead and the living. Thus continuity is stressed in the Christian’s faithfulness and Christ’s Lordship.

When turning to our first passage from Romans 6:3-5, the above theme of continuity can be seen to occur again. That Paul views baptism as supremely illustrative of Christ’s death and resurrection and in particular the Christian’s identification with Him in baptism, is made abundantly clear. This close identification and union between Christ and His disciples has ethical implications as “we walk in newness of life”. So continuity again is stressed in the identification, union and discipleship of the believers with their Lord. Now when one returns again to “our verse”, I Cor15:29, one is struck again, somewhat forcefully, with the notion of the continuity factor. Baptism is clearly viewed as efficacious for this life and for the unbaptized dead. In this latter case this efficaciousness is seen to be achieved through the vicarious baptism of relatives and

159 friends. But overall there is continuity in both. The fact that such a practice was informed by a belief in the resurrection of the dead can be gauged by the way in which Paul uses this instance to advance his case. So the overall theme of the continuity of life and death for the Christian in relationship to the Lord who lived, died and rose again is the common theme underlying all four of these passages.

In conclusion, one needs to assess whether there might be any direct connections between I Cor 15:29 and Romans 6:3-5 in particular. We are indebted to De Maris for drawing our attention to the possible connections between these two, as indicated earlier in this chapter. Having acknowledged this possibility, I do not consider that one can go as far as positing a direct connection between the two. There is simply no evidence to suggest this and therefore it is purely speculative.

However in the evolution of Paul’s thinking it maybe of interest to track the continuity factor as identified above. It is at this point that a theological progression can be seen between I Cor 15; 29 and Romans 6:3-5; 8:38-39 and 14:8-9. Starting with an illustration of the continuity of life and death through vicarious baptism as demonstrating resurrection belief, one has still a continuity of ideas with baptism, minus the vicarious practice, still demonstrating resurrection belief in Romans 6. The significant difference between the two passages of scripture is the identification of the living Christian with Christ’s death and resurrection through baptism, as compared with those same beliefs being exercised by the living on behalf of the dead. The fact that in life as well as in death, God’s love sustains this continuity as well as informs the Christian’s faithfulness and Christ’s Lordship over both states, can be seen to arise from an advance of Paul’s thinking on these inter-related ideas. This continuity in theological ideas offers perhaps the best connection of all between I Cor15:29 and the above Romans passages. Within that continuity there is also advances of theological ideas due to the mature reflection of Paul’s thought.

160

FOOTNOTES

1. De Maris, RE “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (I Cor 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature 114 (1995), 661-82. 2. ibid., 677-82. 3. ibid., 681. 4. ibid. 5. ibid., 682. 6. Murphy-O’Connor J “St Paul’s Corinth” (1995), 154-8. 7. This date is advocated in some of the most recent scholarship on this topic, “The New Interpreter’s Bible” – (I Corinthians – Introduction) (2002), 776-7. 8. ibid., 777. 9. Fitzmyer, JA “Romans” (1993), 186-8. 10. Byrne, B “Romans” (1996), 9 11. He sends greeting to Rome from Erastus, who was treasurer of Corinth (Rom 16:236 cf 2 Tim 4: 20). 12. Fitzmyer, J op. cit., 86. Earlier on this page in his commentary, Fitzmyer also states: “…The majority of interpreters maintain Paul wrote the essay – latter from Corinth, as was already stated in the subscript of MSS B1 and D2”. This adds relevant textual evidence. 13. Johnson, L “Reading Romans: a Literary and Theological Commentary” (1997), Crossroads NY, 95. 14. De Maris, RE “Corinthian Religion & Baptism for the Dead (I Cor 15:29): Insights from Archaeology & Anthropology” (in) JBL (1995), 681. 15. So Cranfield, “Romans” (1985), 129. 16. Dunn, JDG “Romans” 2 volumes (1988), Vol 1 327. 17. Morris, L “Romans” (1988), 246, N (11). 18. Bousset, W in his book “Kyrios Christos: a History in the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus” (1970), Abingdon, Nashville, traces further his view of early connections with the mysteries. Cited by Johnson, L, op. cit., 96. 19. Dunn, op. cit., 327. 20. Johnson, L, op. cit., 96.

161

21. Fitzmyer, J, op. cit., 433. 22. Cranfield, op. cit., 130. 23. So Fitzmyer, op. cit., 433. 24. ibid., 434. 25. ibid., Fitzmyer’s translation as “co-buried”. 26. Dunn, op. cit., 316. 27. Byrne, op. cit., (1996), 190. 28. ibid., 191. 29. ibid. 30. So Fitzmyer, op. cit., 436 for further details on these slight variations in the MSS. 31. Metzger, B “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament” (1971), United Bible Soc, 519. 32. Cranfield, CEB (1985), 212. 33. So Morris, L. “Romans” (1988),340. 34. Cranfield CEB op. cit., 212. 35. Dunn, J (1988), 506. 36. Cranfield, op. cit., 212. 37. Morris, op. cit., (1988), 340. 38. So Morris(1988). 39. According to Metzger, BM “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament” (1971), United Bible Societies, 531. 40. ibid. 41. Fitzmyer, J “Romans” (1993), Doubleday, NY, 691. 42. Byrne, B “Romans”, (1996), 410. 43. ibid. 44. Moo, D “The Epistle to the Romans” (1996), 845. 45. ibid. 46. ibid., and N (87). 47. op. cit., Fitzmyer, 691. 48. ibid. 49. ibid. 50. Cranfield, CEB “Commentary on Romans” (1985), 34.

162

E (2) Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and other Pauline Literature

163

As has already been indicated in the chapter on relevant comparisons of various passages in Romans with that of I Cor 15:29, there are further comparisons within other Pauline literature. In this chapter an examination of three of these which are relevant to our discussion is made. These are in turn Galatians 3:27-28; Ephesians 4:9-10 and Colossians 2:12-13. There may well be other verses which could be cited within the whole Pauline corpus (e.g. I Thess 4:13-15), but these above passages will suffice in terms of a sampling. The selection is by no means random since in a thcouple of cases they have been cited by authors of articles on I Cor 15:29. These citations will be discussed after observations have been made of the verses in question. In terms of Pauline authorship, Galatians is the only one of these epistles which is not contested by scholars. However both Ephesians and Colossians stand firmly within the Pauline school of thought.

Exegesis of various passages (a) Galatians 3:27-8 27) o3soi ga\r eiv Xristo\n e0bapti/sqhte, Xristo\n e0nedu/sasqe Interlinear: - for as many as into Christ you were baptized, Christ you put on. NRSV: - as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with Christ.

28) ou0k e1ni 0Ioudai=ov ou0de\ 3Ellhn, ou0k e1ni dou=lv ou0de\ e0leu/qerov, ou0k e1ni a1rsen kai\ qh=lu: pa/ntev ga\r u9mei=v ei[v e0ote e0n Xristw=| 0Ihsou=. Interlinear: - There cannot be Jew or Greek, there cannot be slave or freeman. There cannot be male or female; for all you (are) one in Christ Jesus. NRSV: - There is no longer Jew or Greek there is no longer slave nor free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Of these two verses, the first is the most relevant to our quest to find relevant comparisons than the second. The second does at least show the universal scope of the unity which exists in Christ Jesus, transcending ethnic, sexual and socio-economic status. What was true in this respect for the Galatians was equally true for the Corinthians as well. So from this point on our main focus will be on verse 27. It is of interest to note with Matera that this verse is the only mention of baptism in Galatians.(1) Perhaps in direct contrast to Romans 6:3 where Paul describes baptism into Christ as

164 being a baptism into this death, here we have an imagery of being clothed with Christ through baptism. Elsewhere in the Pauline literature, this “being clothed with” (e0nedu/sasqe) is used, as for example Col 3:10 clothing oneself in the new self cf Eph 4:24 (new person). In Rom 13:12-14 and I Thes 5:8 this kind of language is used in Paul’s ethical exhortation in these two contexts. Perhaps closest to our verse (I Cor 15:29) we have Paul’s description of being clothed (e0ndusasqai; e0ndu/shtai) with the unperishable immortality of the resurrection body (I Cor 15:53-4). So this is perhaps the most relevant correlation in that the same word can be used in putting on Christ at baptism(2) and ultimately also in the resurrection state.

(b) Ephesians 4:9-10 9) to\ de\ 0Ane/bh ti/ e0stin, ei0 mh/ o3ti kai\ kate/bh ei0v ta\ katw/tera [me/rh] th=v gh=v; Interlinear: - Now the he descended what is it except that also he descended into the lower parts of the earth? NRSV: - when it says, “He ascended”, what does it mean but that had also descended in to the lower part of the earth?

10) o9 kataba\v au0to/v e0stin kai\ o9 a0naba\v u9pera/nw pa/ntwn tw=n ou0ranw=n, i3na plhrw/sh| ta\ pa/nta. Interlinear: - The (one) descending himself is also the (one) ascending far above all the heavens, in order that he might fill all things. NRSV: - He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.

The only textual variation on this passage is for v9 where prw=ton was added in some authorities (e.g. NcB Cc K P Y 88 614 Byz Lect al) after kate/bh (meaning ‘he descended first’). According to Metzger this appears to be a “natural expansion introduced by copyists to elucidate the meaning”.(3) He goes on to decide in favour of the shorter text (i.e. the omission of prwton as this is strongly supported by the following authorities (p46 Ν* A C* D G 1739 al).(4) This reference to the verse from Psalm 68:18 quoted in the previous verse 8, is elaborated upon further in verses 9 and 10. It is important to see in these spatial terms ascent and descent as applied to Christ another example of

165

the multi-storied cosmology of that era. In this particular instance we are presented with three stories namely heavens (ou0ranw=n, v10); far above these (u9pera/vw, v10); and the lower parts of the earth (ta\ katw/tera me/rh th=v gh=v; v9). Usually the three storied universe was seen to be heaven above, earth below and the lower parts of earth below referring usually to Sheol and/or hell. In terms of traditional understandings of this “lower parts of the earth” in verse 9, references found in Gen 44:29; Ps 63:10; 139:15; Ezek 32:18,24 indicate ‘Sheol’ as the “deepest places of the earth” or “the depth of the earth” and therefore the scene of “death and for destruction”.(5) Such was the place understood by traditional exegesis(6) and even down to more recent exegetes(7) as a “locus classicus” attesting to Christ’s descent to hell, the “ad inferos”.(8) Some other recent exegetes such as Barth(9) and MacDonald(10) have put forward their alternative views, but even further evidence from the New Testament itself seems to support the “ad inferos” view. (e.g. Acts 2:27;31; Rom 10:7; Phil 2:10; I Peter 3:19; 4:6).(11) So therefore in the light of traditional cosmological understandings of that New Testament era along with its Old Testament heritage as well as further corroborative evidence with the NT cited above, the ‘ad inferos’ view is to be preferred. The support for this view from a long line of exegetes both past and present is impressive.

(c) Colossians 2:12-13 12) suntafe/ntev au0tw=| en tw=| baptismw=|, e0n w[| kai\ sunhge/rqhte dia\ th=v pi/stewv th=v e0nergei/av tou= qeou= tou= e0gei/rantov au0to\n nekrw=n: Interlinear: - Co-buried with him in the baptism, in whom also you were co-raised through the faith of (in) the operation of God raising him from the dead. NRSV: - When you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

13) kai\ u9ma=v nekrou\v o1ntav e0n toi=v paraptw/masin kai\ th=| a0krobutia| th=v sarko\v u9mw=n, sunezwpoi/hsen u9ma=v su\n au0tw=| xarisa/menov h9mi=n pa/nta ta\ paraptw/mata. Interlinear: - And you dead being in the trespasses and in the uncircumcision of the flesh of you, he co-quickened you with him, forgiving you all the trespasses;

166

NRSV: - And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses.

In regard to the textual variations the words for baptism namely baptiomw=| and baptismati, both are “well supported” according to Metzger.(12) The former is found in p46 Nc B D* G 1739 al whilst the latter word is used in N* A C Dc K P Ψ 33 81 614 al, whereas the versional evidence is ambiguous. Even though baptismati found in the various Greek MS cited above, the majority of the translation committee preferred baptiomw=|, because as Metzger states: “… being the less usual term for Christian baptism in the ancient church … copyists were more likely to alter it to baptismati than vice versa”.(13) This less usual term has the meaning of “dipping” or “ritual washing” (cf Mk 7:4: Heb 9:10 and 6:2 where it refers to “instruction about baptisms”).

The other words of interest are suntafe/ntev ...sunhge/rqhte meaning “you were buried with him… you were raised with him…” Macdonald makes the point that the prefix sun meaning “with” is used repeatedly throughout Colossians as seen in this section as well (Col 2:12, 13, 20; 3:1, 4).(14) In this particular case “the focus is on the experience of the death and resurrection in which believers have already shared through baptism”.(15)

When comparing Col 2:12 with Romans 6:4-6 the prefix sun is used by Paul to refer to the present union of believers with Christ. This is an interesting comparison with these two passages, though dia\ is the prefix used in Rm 6:4, which whilst literally meaning “through” can be translated as “with”. However both verses use the word root (suntaf) “buried with”, and overall are close in meaning.

However the difference in tense between Romans 6:4-5, 8-11, 13 and Colossians 2:12 is significant. In the former being united with Christ in resurrection has a strong future dimension (e.g. 6:5 … we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his (NRSV)). With Colossians there is a change of emphasis with “an almost exclusive focus on the present…”.(16) Even the usage of the verb sunhge/rqhte “you were raised with”, as an aorist passive indicative, with God as the implied agent, shows the past 167 status and present emphasis in contrast to the future reference of the resurrection state in Romans.(17)

Colossians is dated after Romans and these kinds of significant changes in emphasis as shown here tend to strengthen the case for pseudonymous authorship of Colossians. However there is a strong continuity of thought in spite of the authorship question. Verse 13 illustrates the ethical implications of the present status in contrast to the past (i.e. dead because of your transgressions…).(18) As such it does not add much significantly to the import of verse 12.

The Relationship Between These Passages and I Cor 15:29 Having now commented on these three passages exegetically one is now in a position to examine the comparisons with I Cor 15:29. MacDonald, in an overall observation of the Colossian passage states: Early Christian literature reveals that baptism was a powerful but somewhat ambiguous ritual that was interpreted in various ways… Social-scientific thought on ritual can help us understand how ritual can figure prominently in social conflict.(19) If this principle applies to Colossians, one can also readily observe how it can apply equally in the conflict and strife of the Corinthian correspondence. It is abundantly clear that vicarious baptism for the dead is also an example of baptism seen to be powerful and yet a “somewhat ambiguous ritual… interpreted in various ways”. It is no wonder then that this ritual figures prominently in the social conflict exhibited at Corinth over many issues including belief in the resurrection. Downey, writing a decade and a half before MacDonald, pre-empts her somewhat in his positing that for the early church “the purpose of baptism was thought of as polyvalent”.(20) By this he goes on to define having other values than undoubtedly associated with the remission of sin.(21) One of these other values central to his article is that “baptism was seen as a protection against and deliverance from the superior powers both in this world and the next”.(22) Downey develops his argument along these lines: Christ’s death and resurrection was not merely a victory over sin and death. It was also a subjugation of these superhuman powers...but the Christian participated in Christ’s victory only through baptism.(23) As evidence for this cosmic aspect of baptism in the New Testament, Downey cites

168

Col 2:10-15; I Peter 3:19-22 and I Cor 8:6.(24) He then relates the foregoing approach to I Cor 15:29 in this way: It is suggested that I Cor 15:29 should be seen within this context. When some of their members died, it was brought home to the bereaved Christian community that the deceased, not having been baptized, would be prey to the influence of cosmic powers. Consequently the living were baptized on behalf of the dead.(25) Downey also sees his approach as also addressing the “now neglected theology of Christ’s descent/ascent”.(26) In so doing he is making connection with not only I Pet 3:19-22 but also in our view this reference in Eph 4:9-10. More will be said about the I Peter reference in the next chapter and what has been said earlier on in this chapter on Eph 4:9-10 will not repeated here.

De Maris cites Downey a decade later. He sees Downey arguing that “the Corinthians used vicarious baptism to protect their dead from the cosmic powers that might impede them on their journey to their final resting place”.(27) De Maris goes on to describe the primary significance of vicarious baptism, sociologically speaking, as a rite of passage,(28) which involves the elements of separation, transition and incorporation.(29) De Maris proceeds to apply these three elements as follows: The baptismal language of Paul and the Pauline communities invariably conveys departure or separation from a previous status and incorporation or integration into a new condition: buried into death/ raised to newness of life (Rm 6:4; Col 2:12) putting off the body of flesh or stripping off the old self / clothing yourself with the new self (Col 2:11; 3:9-10 cf II Cor 5:17); Old status – Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female / new status – oneness in Christ (I Cor 12:12-13; Gal 3:27-8); and so forth … (30)

He then connects and correlates this particular approach with I Cor 15:29 by observing: Baptism for the dead would have alleviated any apprehension the Corinthian Christians might have had about the destiny of the newly deceased, because the ritual allowed them to enact, and thus be assured of, the departed one’s transition to the next world.(31) Both Downey and De Maris have together brought out important relevant comparisons in the Pauline school of thought. For Downey this is seen supremely in his cosmological dimension as it applies to baptism for the dead and Col 2:10-15 with

169 implications for Eph 4:9-10. For De Maris, who endorses Downey’s view at this point, the sociological element as a “rite of passage” for the practice of vicarious baptism correlates with Gal 3: 27-28 and Col 2:11-12.

Such then are the continuities which exist between I Cor 15:29 and these passages from the other Pauline literature, whether Pauline (Galatians) or Deutero-Pauline (Ephesians and Colossians). They provide supporting connecting links with Paul’s undisputed epistles, Romans and its earlier pre-cursor Galatians, and their latter successors in Ephesians and Colossians.

170

FOOTNOTES 1. Matera, FJ “Galatians” (1992), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 142. 2. Attention should be drawn at the lovely symbolism inspired by this verse of the baptism robe put on by catechumens at their baptism in Easter, a custom which has its modern echoes in the infant’s christening gown. 3. Metzger, BM “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament” (1971), (3rd edn) United Bible Society, 605. 4 ibid. 5. According to Barth, M “Ephesians 4-6” (Vol 2) (1974), Doubleday, NY, 433, N (46). 6. These traditional exegetes include: Tertullian, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Victorinus, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Pelagius, Thomas Acquinus, Bengel, Estius, Hofmann, Westcott and Robinson (so ibid., N (45)) 7 More recent exegetes such as Bousset, W “Kurios Christos”, 30-1 and Beare, FW “Interpreter’s Bible”, Vol 10, 689 (so also ibid., N (45)). 8. Barth, M ibid., 433. 9. ibid., 433-4. 10. MacDonald, MY “Colossians and Ephesians” (2000), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn, 290-1. 11. This latter NT reference to I Peter 3:19 and 4:6 will be explored further in a later chapter. 12 Metzger, BM op. cit., 623. 13. ibid. 14. MacDonald, MY op. cit., 100. 15. ibid. 16. ibid., 101. 17. Hay, DM “Colossians” (2000), Abingdon, Nashville, 92, observes in this connection: “...the vital difference here, the resurrection of believers is presented as an already accomplished fact, whereas Romans 6 presents it as future”. 18. ibid., Hay observes “The undisputed Pauline letters uses “trespasses” (transgressions) quite often in the plural, but never use the verb for forgiveness in this way (cf Col 3:13; Eph 4:32)”. 19. op. cit., MacDonald, MY, 107. 20. Downey, J “I Corinthians 15:29 and Theology of Baptism” (1985), (in) Euntes

171

Docete (Rome), 24. 21. ibid. 22. ibid. 23. ibid., 25. 24. ibid. 25. ibid. 26. ibid. 27. De Maris RE “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (I Cor 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature (1995), 676. 28. ibid. 29. Here, 676-7, De Maris uses A Van Gennup’s analysis of baptism, marriage and funeral ceremonies having these three features as a “rite of passage” (so A Van Gennup’s “The Rites of Passage” (1960), University Press, Chicago, 10-11; 63, 79, 93-5). 30. ibid., 677. 31. ibid.

172

E (3) Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and Petrine Literature

173

It has been demonstrated that there are textual comparisons with I Cor 15:29 along with continuity within the other epistles of Paul through to the so called deutero-Pauline epistles. But what of other New Testament writers and schools of thought? In this chapter we look to connections with the Petrine school of thought, that is to the correlations of I Peter 3:19 and 4:6 with I Cor 15:29.

These two Petrine verses concern Christ’s own ministry to the dead (4:6) and “spirits in prison” (3:19). They therefore provide an interesting possibility for an overall context for ministry ‘to’ (in the case of Christ’s ministry) and ‘for’ (in the case of human ministry) the dead. This is an appropriate approach since all ministry in the life of the Church ultimately is derived from Christ’s ministry first and foremost (Mt 28:18-20; Jn 15:1-5; II Cor 5:17-20).

Questions of Authorship and Date of I Peter When turning to the thorny issue of the authorship of the Petrine epistles in terms of the traditional apostolic authorship (i.e. Peter himself) or the Pseudonymous position or even a position in between (i.e. Silvanus, inter alia), as author, this will not be important enough to discuss much further. It is clear that probably the vast majority of modern New Testament scholarship accepts the Pseudonymous authorship of both Petrine epistles ‘per se’, in most cases being unable to identify the exact author. Both epistles are dated late in the first century, well beyond the traditional martyrdom of Peter c 64AD, in Nero’s persecution.

Questions of the authorship and the related issue of dating of these epistles, is not ultimately important, if with most scholarship we agree that Petrine inspiration and some biographical allusions is incorporated within both. It is in this kind of light that the two epistles can be viewed within a Petrine school of thought.

Exegesis of the Two Passages As far as our approach to these verses is concerned this will involve an exegesis within the framework of questions arising particularly in 3:19 but also in 4:6. Most commentators have identified these questions arising in similar ways because the essential issues are the same. By looking at these questions one is in a better position to focus on the matters for interpretation which have given rise to a lively debate over the

174 last half century or so. Both verses are set in an overall context of baptismal teaching. This is a particular feature of the first epistle, with which we are mostly concerned. The second epistle has only tangential relevance. So for the sake of the overall argument examining relevant comparisons with I Cor 15:29 the context of these verses (i.e. I Peter 3:18 – 4:6) will be commented upon in our concluding discussion, after examining the key verses of 3:19 and 4:6 first. a) I Peter 3:19 (Greek and English translations) 19) e0n w[| kai\ toi=v e0n fulakh=| pneu/masin poreuqei\v e0kh/rucen, Interlinear: - in which indeed to the in prison spirits going he proclaimed NRSV: - in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison

In terms of textual considerations, Achtemeier(1) makes a couple of points about this particular verse. (i) The Greek phrase e0n w[| kai has led to the speculation that the letters e0nw=k are either a misreading of the name 0Enw=x (Enoch) or that by haplography the name 0Enw=x was omitted. However in a further reference to this possibility Achtemeier dismisses it as “The conjecture regarding the mention of Enoch at the beginning of v19 is thus to be discarded”.(2) To this we concur. Achtemeier comments further on 3:19. (ii) A few minuscules read tw= h1dh (“Hades”) for (in place of) fulakh=|, probably under the influence of the later interpretation of this verse announcing Christ’s ‘decensus ad inferos’.(3)

Key Questions Relating to the Exegesis of 3:19 Beyond these minor variations in textual history, there is nothing further to report. This brings us to the questions which arise from this text. Best in his commentary has listed these questions as follows: “(i) What is the antecedent of ‘in which’? (ii) When did Christ go to preach to the spirits? (iii) Who are the spirits in prison? (iv) Where is their prison? (v) What did Christ preach to them? (vi) Do 3:19 and 4:6 refer to the same event?(4) These questions posed by Best provide a convenient framework for endeavouring to arrive at some possible solutions to these various issues. Taking them in order of above then: (i) What is the antecedent of ‘in which’ (i.e. the en w[|)? Dalton has argued that this

175 means “in this sphere” (of the spirit) or “under this influence” as being the simplest way to understand it.(5) Another alternative would be to take this expression as a conjunction and translate it as “on which occasion”.(6) This reference to time in turn introduces the next question, namely (ii) When did Christ go to the spirits in prison? There appear to be three main options in trying to locate this occasion. These are a) Before Christ’s incarnation; b) at the time of his ascension; or c) between his death and resurrection.

Taking these in the order of above a) seems to have originated with Augustine (Epistles 164:14-18, Ep Euod) who suggested that the proclamation concerned took place in the time of Noah, who by the Spirit of Christ, preached repentance to those who rejected his message and subsequently died in the flood that followed. Augustine’s view here has been espoused by others in recent times.(7) Achtemeier notes by way of a criticism that the “evident references to Christ’s death and resurrection in v18 render questionable the notion that the events in v19 occurred prior to these events”.(8)

The second option b) above is advocated by Walton(9) and Achtemeier(10) who both argue that because the point of zw|opoihqei/v de\ pneu/mati (but made alive in the spirit, in v18) seems to be Christ’s resurrection, the activity of going and preaching would have to be subsequent to that event, that is, during Christ’s ascension.(11) The main critique of this option comes from Kelly who points out that “…there can be no real doubt that it i.e. en w[| (v19) refers back to the ‘in the spirit’ (v18) as antecedent. The meaning must therefore be, ‘in which’, i.e. in His spiritual mode of existence, as ‘spirit’ ”.(12) This clearly rules out the resurrection being referred to here (so Dalton and Achtemeier) and in turn leads to option c). This is the more widely held view which asserts that the proclamation of Christ occurs whilst in His spiritual state in the interval between his death and resurrection, the triduum mortis.

Supporters of this view have included commentators such as Beare, Reicke, Best, Cranfield and Windisch.(13) Best cites the following supports for this view. Firstly the poreuqei\v ‘he went’ is an aorist participle, describing a single action in the past and follows on from a similar aorist participle in v18 i.e. zw|opoihqei/v ‘made alive’. In view of what has already been said above about this latter verb (in v18) and to what it

176 refers in what follows in v19, this is a consistent use of tenses referring to the same event. Reicke points out further that if “poreuqei\v ‘he went’ refers to the ascension” (as per option (b)) then we should more correctly expect a present participle (i.e. ‘on his way to heaven he preached’) rather than the aorist ‘he went’ we have here.(14) These grammatical considerations show consistency and a cogent argument in favour of option (c).

Another important support for this third option (c) is the internal New Testament evidence as supporting the idea of Jesus’ ministry during the interval between his death and resurrection. This is to be found in the following references including Acts 2:25ff (quoting Ps 16:8-11, 13, 35); Rom 10:7; and Matt 12:40. In Hebrews 9:1-10:14, Jesus offers his blood on the heavenly altar. In Luke 23:43 indicates a common journey of Jesus and the penitent thief to paradise, whilst the Johannine usage u9you=n ‘lift up’ indicates that his death is also his exultation.

Best concludes his survey of these verses and former supports by stating: “We conclude that the reference in “he went” is to a journey prior to the resurrection”.(15) Thus the immediate contextual and other NT scriptural support the belief that Christ’s ministry to the dead occurred between His death and resurrection, as affirmed in the Apostles Creed’s “he descended to the dead” after his crucifixion and before the resurrection propositions. We shall have more to say about this idea in the next chapter.

(iii) Who are the spirits? As one might expect “spirit” (pneu/mata or pneu/masin; this latter word is used in v19) relates to the non-material beings. It is true also that ‘spirit’ can denote the spiritual aspect of human beings, often used interchangeably with ‘soul’ in general parlance. However in this particular instance it would appear that “spirits” indicates supernatural beings, good or evil depending on the context. This is seen in the Inter-Testamental literature which provides the background for the New Testament (e.g. Tob 616; 2 Mac 3:24; Jubilees 15:31; I Enoch 60:11ff; Testament of Dan 1:7; 5:5; I Qs 3:15ff; IQm12:8f; 13:10). More specifically Achtemeier draws attention to: a clear Jewish tradition, however, in which the angelic beings of Genesis 6:1-6, whose disobedience caused the flood were subsequently imprisoned. These beings are identified as pneu/mata and are clearly to be understood as non- human.(16)

177

His footnotes to substantiate this Jewish tradition are derived from the Inter-Testamental literature including those cited above. His conclusion to his quest to identify the “spirits” is: that it is this tradition which underlies the reference to “spirits” in our verse seems therefore likely to be the case.(17) Actually this identification of the disobedient spirits in the days of Noah, as given in the following v20 seems to confirm it as well.

(iv) Where is the prison of these spirits? Having just identified these spirits with the beings who rebelled against God prior to and during the Flood, it is clear therefore that their sin should cause their imprisonment. Various locations have been suggested for this prison. In II Peter 2:4 we are informed that the fallen angels are “cast into Tartarus (rendered as “hell” in the NRSV) and committed them to chains of deepest darkness to be kept until the judgement”. There can be little doubt that this verse in the other epistle, which goes on to refer to Noah in the verse following is an important correlation of I Peter 3:19. In Revelations 20:3, 7, 10 there are references to Satan being flung into the pit, called “prison” in v7. Again in the Inter-Testamental literature there are references to the abode of these “spirits” and/or fallen angels being ‘bound in the depths of the earth’ (Jubilees 5:6 cf IQH 3:17f). In I Enoch 10:4,12 it is described as in darkness and in the valleys of the earth, where flame and fire are present (10:6,13); in the abyss (21:1-7). In chapters 17-19 it is a place beyond heaven and earth. All this kind of imagery seems to suggest as Best concludes: The evidence indicates that it is much more probable that the spirits are considered to be imprisoned in the underworld, than in the upper air or second heaven.(18) This certainly appears to be the better alternative of the two presented by Best in the comment.

(v) What was it that Christ preached to the spirits? In question (ii) above, in regard to the “when” Christ went to the spirits in prison in the interval between His death and resurrection as traditionally affirmed in the creeds. If as has been demonstrated that the spirits concerned were evil and that their abode at Christ’s death was imprisoned in an underworld, then it would logically follow that Christ’s proclamation to them would be appropriate to their state at that time. In discussing the fate of the imprisoned spirits and the nature of Christ’s proclamation to them, Achtemeier states: “…the content of the

178 announcement (e0kh/rucen) to the imprisoned spirits would be not their salvation but their condemnation”.(19) He arrives at his view on this subject on the extent of the influence of such Inter-testamental literature as I Enoch, especially 12:4-6; 13:1; 14:3-6; 16:3. Dalton supports this view further when he notes the parallel between the descriptions of Christ’s activity in I Peter 3:19-20a and I Enoch 12:4; 13:3; 15:2, which he considers to be impossible to be purely coincidental.(20) The influence of this Enoch literature is not just confined to these Petrine texts but also in related verses such as Jude 14-15 (citing I Enoch 1:9); I Enoch’s great emphasis on Genesis 6:1-6 is alluded to also in Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4, mentioned above. So all of these verses provide important comparisons of thought.

(vi) Do 3:19 and 4:6 refer to the same event? Best seems to have come to a sustainable conclusion on the relationship of these verses when he claims: “3:19 and 4:6 do not refer to the same event; 3:19 relates to spirits, 4:6 to men; both, however, may have been preached to on the same journey of Christ”.(21) He elsewhere notes that the belief in some form of a journey by Christ dates from an earlier time than I Peter (e.g. Acts 2:27; Rom 10:7; Eph 4:9).(22) Best’s logic in the light of what has already been said of the spirits will be seen to contrast with the situation in 4:6.

Exegesis of I Peter 4:6 6) ei0v tou=to ga\r kai\ nekroi=v eu0hggeli/sqh, i3na kriqw=si me\n kata\ a0nqrw/pouv sarki\ zw=si de\ kata\ qeo\n pneu/mati. Interlinear: - for this for indeed to dead men good news was preached, in order that they might be judged on the one hand according to men in the flesh might live, on the other hand according to God in the spirit. NRSV: - For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does.

This verse like 3:19 is difficult to interpret and therefore like the other has various interpretations. It is however possible to arrive at some kind of understanding. Firstly it should be set in its immediate context with 4:5b, particularly with its reference to the judging of “the living and dead”. This phrase as various commentators indicate is probably a “fixed liturgies or credal phrase relating to the Last Judgement”.(23) It relates

179 to other texts in the New Testament and later texts where Christ appears as judge (Acts 10:42; II Tim 4:1; and Barnabas 7:2; Polycarp, Philippians 2:1, 2 Clement 1:1 cf Rom 14:9). This judgement was expected shortly (4:7) and included all in its ambit.

As far as textual history relates to 4:6 Achtemeier has identified only one matter. This phrase, kata\ a0nqrw/pouv, could also be rendered “according to human standards” as the comparable phrase, kata\ qeo\n could be rendered as “according to divine standards”.(24) The comment does not relate to the matter of establishing the text among any variations. Rather it seeks to explicate further the implications of these two phrases in 4:6.

Whilst a longer verse than 3:19, 4:6 does not have the complications of the former verse and therefore this survey of opinion will be correspondingly less. There are two main issues in this verse, firstly the identity of the preacher of the gospel and secondly the identity of the dead. The identity of the preacher is an issue because the Greek verb eu0ggeli/sqh is aorist tense, with no subject expressed it can be seen as somewhat impersonal. However Kelly mentions the fact that the verb could be rendered as “he was preached”, but as the various earlier versions such as the AV, RV, RSV and NEB translate this as “the gospel was preached”, the “implication might be that Christ himself was the preacher”.(25) It is clear that both Christ is the subject of the gospel and within the context of this verse, (being preached to the dead) only Christ could have done this.

As for the identity of “the dead”, Best suggests four possibilities, these being as follows: (i) They are the spiritually dead (ii) They are the righteous dead of the Old Testament (iii) They are Christians who have already died (iv) The dead are all who are physically dead and who are in this state when they hear the gospel.(26)

Taking these in order then: (i) Has problems because the physically dead are referred to in the preceding v5 and in any case such a view would require a verse in the present tense (so ‘the gospel is being preached to the spiritually dead’) not in the aorist simple past

180

tense, as is found here; (ii) This is also improbable because it requires a change of meaning between v5 and v6 in the meaning of ‘dead’. But such a reference to the righteous dead is irrelevant to the main point of the argument, which is the encouragement to Christians to persevere under persecution. (iii)This has been favoured by both Selwyn and Dalton, in regard to the alleged parallel in I Thess 4:13-17, the dead in Christ are specified by Paul as “those who have fallen asleep”. However in vv5-6 the dead are not qualified further, indeed they include all the dead and not a particular sub-division of them, which is not specified in any case. (iv) This view espoused by Beare and Best as “Taken all in all this fourth interpretation is preferable”.(27) This is because unlike the former three alternatives, there is no need to change the meaning of the “dead” between v5 and v6 as they are both referring to the physically dead. Best rightly identified these dead as those who existed: prior to Christ’s death and include both the righteous and the unrighteous. The Gospel is now offered to those who never had the opportunity of hearing it when alive . This creates a stronger link between verses 5 and 6: all face judgement (v5) because all, even the dead, have heard the gospel(v6).(28) To this astute conclusion one must give assent bearing in mind the consistency in meaning and reference of vv5 and 6 taken together. Best sums up the linkage between 3:19 and 4:6 when he states, somewhat tentatively in the light of difficulties in exegesis of these enigmatic verses: If that which is here advocated is adopted then the occasion of this preaching to the dead will probably be the same as that of 3:19 i.e. Christ’s descent to Hades.(29) This relevant comparison between these two verses is maintained.

In essence these two verses 3:19 and 4:6 provide contrast and correlation. The contrast is Christ’s proclamation is directed to spirit beings on the one hand pronouncing the condemnation, whilst the human dead have the offer of salvation in the finished work of Christ upon the cross. The relationship occurs in the timing of these separate events, both occurring between the crucifixion and resurrection. Continuity occurs in the ministry of Christ to spirit beings and human beings now both in different states of the

181 after life.

The Overall Context - I Peter 3:18 – 4:6 The overall context of this passage within the First Epistle of Peter (i.e. 3:18 – 4:6) now needs to be surveyed with relevant comparisons noted between this and I Cor 15:29. This will require noting the leading themes in 3:18 and 3:20-22 and 4:1-4 from a theological viewpoint rather than a full exegesis which is not needed. Of the three sub- sections, noted above, the first two i.e. 3:18 and 3:20-22 are more helpful than the third 4:1-4, which is largely the ethical implications and exhortations for the receivers of the epistle. Whilst these are important in their own right, they are not so directly relevant to this survey.

Achtemeier provides a helpful framework for the inter-relationship of the verses 3:18- 22, when he comments upon the middle verse 20: The verses preceding (v18-19) and following (v22) recount the salfivic and triumphant career of Christ: his suffering, death, resurrection, his announcement of triumph over supernatural forces of evil and his assumption of divine authority. Thus they provide the context within which to interpret vv20-21.(30) This is a clear statement of the inter-acting nature of these verses within which the baptismal analogy is set, which Achtemeier also believes “vv20-21 show how Christians share in Christ’s victorious and salfivic career”.(31)

In verse 18, there is some scholarly debate on the usage of either the verb a0pe/qanen (he [Christ] died) or e1paqen (he[Christ] suffered). Best outlines the case in terms of the majority of manuscripts including a more recently discovered M72 favour e1paqen, even if one of the best, ‘B’ (Codex Vaticanus) favours a0pe/qanen. He decides in favour of ‘died’ (a0pe/qanen) being what the author wrote on the basis of ‘early credal or liturgical foundation’.(32) Achtemeier favours e1paqen, being the minority rendering in the manuscripts as indicated above, but in spite of this being “more appropriate both to the immediate context……and the larger setting of the letter……and hence more likely to be original”.(33) However both Best and Achtemeier agree that such suffering would include Christ’s death and so the meaning is the same either way.(34) In any case Christ’s suffering and death was an unrepeatable(35) sacrifice, being unique in itself and contrasting sharply with the regular repetition required in the Old Testament sacrificial

182 system.

Davids identifies four elements in Christ’s suffering and death, these being as follows: It was unjust suffering; It was the righteous on behalf of the unrighteous The purpose of the suffering was to lead you to God; The death of Christ did not destroy him, just as death will not destroy the Christian sufferer.(36)

In regard to the first two elements, Davids observes: It is the formula of substitutionary atonement, the death of the victim on behalf of the sins of another. Thus the traditional formula expresses the fact that Christ also suffered innocently, and not just innocently but on behalf of another’s sins.(37) Notice that the word “penal” is not used in front of “substitutionary” here, and therefore should be distinguished from this other theory of the atonement. Certainly the notion of a vicarious sacrifice by Christ is clear in this verse, especially with the usage of the preposition u9pe\r (i.e. di/kaiov u9pe\r a0di/kwn, the righteous for the unrighteous). More will be noted on this matter later.

The verses 20-22 taken together, particularly the first two concern the baptismal analogy or to use the Greek term a0nti/tupon (antitype) (i.e. v21). In relation to this analogy of Noah’s ark, Achtemeier makes an important distinction when he notes: While the ark served as a symbol of the church itself in early ecclesiastical tradition or its wood was taken as a reminder of the wood of the cross… The symbol here is salvation in relation to water (di 0 u3datov)rather than in relation to the ark, as is required by the typology of baptism in v21.(38)

In regard to the water he mentions also a problem of interpretation in connection with this. This is the way in which the preposition dia/ can be understood in either instrumental or local sense. An instrumental sense of dia/ would mean that the water was the instrument by which those in the ark were saved. However strictly speaking it was the ark not the water which saved them, the latter being the agent of destruction. For Achtemeier, this dilemma is resolved in the following way: … by appealing to the typology of the next verse (i.e. 21) where the water of

183

baptism is instrumental in human salvation. A locative sense, viz, Noah and his family escaped “through water” is sometimes understood to mean the water through which they waded before they got into the ark.(39) Achtemeier opts for what he calls a “locative construal view” which he explicates further as: Thus the waters effected Noah’s deliverance from his evil world as baptism effected the deliverance of the Christians from their evil contemporary world: by passing through them, both entered into their new existence.(40) To this astute observation we can readily give assent.

Reicke takes the above thoughts a few steps further when he says: Just as in the Old Testament the flood signified the death of the old world and the birth of the new, so the New Testament Christians connected baptism with the death of the old man and the birth of the new (Rom 6:13; Eph 4:22; Titus 3:5) … In turn, the individual was thought of as being baptized into the death of Christ (Rom 6:3).(41) It is of special interest that Reicke makes comparisons here with the Pauline epistles. He does this further with the nature of baptism described in v21b, in terms of an agreement before God, rather than merely divesting oneself of the uncleanness of the flesh. Reicke likens this latter aspect as not being negative since it may be compared with the “figure of putting off the garment of the old man which, tangibly or symbolically preceded the descent into the waters of baptism (cf Eph 4:22; Col 3:9)”.(42) He believes also that the ascent from the waters of baptism concerns the acquisition of new virtues (Rom 6:11-23).(43) So for Reicke the comparisons between Petrine and Pauline thinking of these issues in common are worth noting.

Comparisons Between the Petrine Verses and I Corinthians 15:29 This then brings one to finally make some comparisons between the above Petrine material and I Cor 15:29. In the exegesis section earlier, the import of this was seen in Christ’s ministry to the realm of the “spirits in prison” (3:19) and the human dead (4:6). In the first case a message of condemnation to those “in former times did not obey” (v20a) but in the latter case a proclamation of the gospel to the dead, though being judged as others are also, “they might live in the spirit as God does” (4:6b). Now of course Christ’s ministry to this latter group is directly to them, the reason being that

184 they might hear the message of salvation in the finished work of Christ upon the Cross, seen in the triumphant word Tete/lestai, meaning “it is finished or accomplished” (Jn 19:30). This message would of course be addressed to those living prior to Christ’s coming who would not have had the opportunity to have heard it in their life time. In a similar manner the dead who did not have an opportunity to be baptised, had this sacrament applied to them by their friends and relatives who were baptized on their behalf. Of course there are obvious differences – Christ’s ministry “in the spirit” (3:18) was directly to the two groups of recipients, Christians cited in I Cor15:29 offering for vicarious baptism could only perform this kind of ministry indirectly, as the living for the dead.

Other comparisons can be cited as well. It is instructive to note the role of the resurrection in I Peter 3:21(b), along with the subsequent events of the ascension and heavenly session of Christ who now has “angels, authorities and powers made subject to Him” (v22).

Paul’s teaching on the resurrection in I Cor 15 provides the backdrop for this query in v29 about the futility of vicarious baptism if there is no resurrection. The assumption is being made by Paul that such persons involved in vicarious baptism believed in the resurrection. So in both I Peter 3:21(b) and I Cor 15:29 there is a common correlation between baptism and the resurrection of Christ and ultimately also our own. The only difference is the persons to whom the baptism is being applied.

Finally there is the importance of the principle of vicariousness. In I Peter 3:18 the vicarious sacrifice of Christ as “the righteous for the unrighteous” is made clear. This of course is on a higher level than the vicarious baptism of I Cor 15:29. Christ’s vicarious sacrifice is e0fa/pac “once for all”, whereas the vicarious baptism, whilst offered individually can be offered by the many (alive) for the many (unbaptized) dead. Still the essential ideal of one person offering to do something for another (unable to do for themselves) is still the same in both.

185

FOOTNOTES

1. Achtemeier, PJ “I Peter” (1996), Fortress, Minneapolis, 239. 2. ibid., 254. Achtemeier cites his reasons for this comment in an Excusus entitled “The Figure of Enoch in I Peter 3:19” (253-4) and claims support for his judgement on this issue from Kelly JND. (1969), 152 “a brilliant but untenable guess” and also Beare, FW (1958), 171; Metzger, BM (1971), 693 states “…the word e0nox breaks the continuity of the argument by introducing an abrupt and unexpected change of subject from that of verse 18”. 3. Achtemeier, op. cit., 239. He has no further comment on this point. 4. Best, E. “I Peter” (1971), Oliphants, London, 140. 5. Dalton, WJ “Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits” (1965), (2nd Edn) Analecta Biblica 23 Rome, 137-43. 6. So Reicke, B. “Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism” (1946), Copenhagen, 113. 7. So Morris, WD “I Peter iii 19” in Expository Times 38 (1926-27), 470 who claims that Nw=e (Noah), was dropped from the original text, not 0Ενωχ (as per N (2) above). More recently Grudem, WA “The First Epistle of Peter” (1988), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, in his commentary has espoused this view, 157-8. also his Appendix 203ff. 8. Achtemeier, PJ op. cit., 258. 9. Dalton, WJ (2nd edn) op. cit., 140, 181. 10. Achtemeier, op. cit., 258. 11. ibid. 12. Kelly, JND (1969), 152. 13. So Beare, 173; Reicke, “Spirits” 118; Best, 140; Cranfield, 103; Windisch, 71. Luther’s view (quoted in German and then translated by Achtemeier is as follows: “Christ preached to the spirits, that is, to human souls, among whom were (souls of) the unbelieving from the time of Noah” (258, N 219) 14. Best, 141. 15. ibid., 142. 16. Achtemeier, op. cit., 256. 17. ibid. 18. Best, op. cit., 143.

186

19. Achtemeier, op. cit., 260. 20. Dalton, (2nd edn), op. cit., 176. 21. Best, op. cit., 144-5. 22. ibid., 146. 23. Best, ibid., 154. 24. Achtemeier, op. cit., 275. Metzger’s Textual Commentary has no comment on 4:6. 25. Kelly, op. cit., 172. 26. Best, op. cit., 155-6. 27. ibid., 157. 28. ibid., 156. 29. ibid., 158. 30. Achtemeier, op. cit., 262. 31. ibid. 32. Best, op. cit., 137. 33. Achtemeier, op. cit., 247. 34. Best, 137 cf Achtemeier, 247. 35. Achtemeier favours this rendition of the Gk a9pac cf also e0fa9pac, both of which mean “once for all” (i.e. not repeatable), so 246, 247. 36. Davids, PH “The First Epistle of Peter” (1990), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 134-6. 37. ibid., 135. 38. Achtemeier, op. cit., 264. 39. ibid., 265-6. 40. ibid., 266. 41. Reicke, B. “The First Epistle of Peter” (1964), Doubleday, NY, 113-4. 42. ibid., 114-5. 43. ibid., 115.

187

E (4) – Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and Credal Formulae

188

This chapter explores Credal comparisons with I Cor 15:29. The creeds concerned are the Apostles and Athanasian Creeds and the most relevant statements are those cited below: “….he descended to the dead” (Apostles Creed) (1) “… descended into hell”(2) (Athanasian Creed)

Credal Terminology The Nicene Creed has no reference whatsoever of Christ’s descent to the dead.(3)

In terms of the vocabulary used, in the section entitled “Notes” (4) in A Prayer Book for Australia (APBA) (1995) there is a helpful explanation about the reasons why the word “hell” was replaced by “the dead”. This is given as follows: Line 8: “descended to the dead” The word ‘hell’ which appeared here in The Book of Common Prayer and An Australian Prayer Book (AAPB) was originally a broad term representing either a place of eternal punishment or the place of departed spirits, for example, ‘Hades’, ‘Sheol’. Most Australians take it to mean the former and associate it with damnation. There is much debate as to what meaning should be attached to this word in the creed. Some have found the word helpful; others have found it deeply offensive and inappropriate. The original Latin could be translated ‘the lower regions’. ELLC (English Language Liturgical Commission) chose to use ‘the dead’ as the least misleading term for today.(5) This explanation provides an adequate justification for the change in terminology. It is a more effective communication of the meaning to our contemporary generation. In this light we could take the liberty to read “the dead” in the Athanasian Creed as well.

JND Kelly(6) is another authoritative support for this change in terminology. He distinguishes between the Latin “inferna” and “inferos”, within the phrase “descendit ad inferna/inferos”. The earlier and former “descent to hell” being replaced by the latter form ‘inferos’. Kelly justifies this by stating: “the form ‘inferos’ is nowadays preferred as indicating that the place of the departed, not the damned, is meant: so the Roman breviary”(7). Coming as this does from such a venerable authority as JND Kelly, the earlier explanation from the notes of the APBA, is securely based.

189

Having clarified the terminology to avoid ambiguity, one is now in a position to survey how this statement was incorporated into the creed(8). Once this historical survey is completed, relevant comparisons with I Cor 15:29 may then be explored along with the related Credal statement: “… he will come to judge the living and the dead”(9).

Origins of Christ’s Descent to the Dead Kelly traces the origins of the ‘descent to the dead’ back to the New Testament itself when he observes: The belief that Christ spent the interval between His expiry on the cross and His resurrection in the underworld was a common place of Christian teaching from the earliest times(10). He then goes on to cite the following texts to substantiate this claim. These include: According to one strain of patristic exegesis (e.g. St Cyprian, Testim 2:25) the Lord Himself had hinted at it in His prophesy (Mt 12:40) that the Son of Man would spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (e0n th=| kardi/a| th=v gh=v). St Paul’s remarks in Rom 10, 7 as well as Col 1, 18, were widely interpreted as involving a visit of Christ to the place of the departed. So, too, was St Peter’s speech in Acts 2, 27-31, transferring to Christ the word so Ps 16; 18ff (“Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell” etc), was taken as a clear pointer in the same direction, as were the famous texts I Pet 3,19 and 4,6 suggesting that He had preached to ‘the spirits in prison.(11) In the light of our earlier chapter on Petrine connections Kelly’s citing of these two references from I Peter as “famous” is significant.

In terms of the descent to the dead being cited by the Fathers, Kelly mentions Ignatius (Magn 9); Polycarp (Ad Philippi); Irenaeus (Adver Haer 4, 27, 2; 5, 31, 1; 5, 33, 1) and Tertullian (De Anima 55). To quote the last of these as indicative of the early Fathers: Christ our God, Who because He was man died according to the Scriptures, and was buried according to the same Scriptures, satisfied this law also by undergoing the form of human death in the underworld, and did not ascend aloft to heaven until He had gone down to realms beneath the earth.(12) As far as when the ‘descent to the dead’ found its way into the creeds is concerned, Kelly states… its first credal appearance was in the Fourth Formula of Sirmium, the Dated Creed

190

of 359, which affirmed (with an allusion to Job 38,17) that the Lord had “died, and descended to the underworld (ei0v ta kataxqo/nia katelqonta)” and regulated things there, whom the gatekeepers of Hell saw and shuddered.(13) Kelly indicates that the Homoean Synods also meeting at Nike about the same time (i.e. AD 359) and at Constantinople in 360 “published creed armed with similar statements”; even if both were “modifications of the Fourth Formula of Sirmium”.(14) Ultimately it is very likely that the West admitted ‘the descent to the dead’ to its own formularies under Eastern influence.(15)

Kelly mentions the fact that when the Descent became an accepted article of the creed, “a rather different complex of ideas was being associated with it…”.(16) These ideas included Christ’s subjugation of hell and the ruler of the underworld along with Ruginus”(17) concept that “The Descent was coming to be viewed as the occasion of the redemption, not just of the patriarchs of old, but of mankind in general”.(18) This general mission to all mankind through the Descent of Christ was one of the reasons, probably the most significant of all, for this doctrine’s being welcomed in the Western Church.(19)

Kelly observes also in this connection that the “imagination of Christians delighted to dwell on the Saviour’s experiences in the underworld, as can be seen from the numerous and often fantastic attempts to portray them in art”.(20) Kelly thus concludes his masterful historical survey of the insertion of the ‘descent to the dead’ in his chapter on the origins of the Apostle’s Creed.(21) As such he has traced the importance of this particular doctrine from its scriptural origins to its Credal formulation. As has been noted in the last chapter on Petrine comparisons, the concept of Christ’s coming from heaven to “judge the living and the dead” is closely related to his preaching to the dead (I Peter 4:5-6).

So it is therefore pertinent that these two related concepts are mentioned together in the Apostles’ and Athanasian Creeds, albeit separated by a few lines in each case. In the case of the Nicene Creed, as alluded to earlier, only the judgement of the living and dead is mentioned. Of course the venue for these two ministries of Christ is vastly different, one being the abode of the dead, the other originating in heaven. The former is a past event, accomplished between his death and resurrection; the latter is futuristic

191 in eschatological ‘time’. But the common thread correlating to both is that both missions concern the dead, both past and future.

Set then in the overall framework of Christ’s universal mission, both to the living and the dead, this sets the context in turn of the relevant comparison with I Cor 15:29. It is of interest at this point to take note of the “two broad, often intermingling streams of interpretation (that) can be distinguished” according to Kelly. These are on the one hand, the “triumphant act of liberation” already alluded to above, and on the other hand “Christ was active during the mysterious three days preaching salvation or else administering baptism ‘to the righteous of the old Covenant’ ”.(22) I have underlined ‘administering baptism’ to highlight this particular activity of special relevance to our present discussion.

Kelly cites(23) as support for this alternative ‘stream of interpretation’ the author of the Gospel of Peter (vv41f); St Justin (Dialog.72); St Irenaeus (Adversus Haer 3, 20, 4; 4, 22, 1) and Origen (Contra Celsus 2, 43). As further extensions to this line of thinking Kelly also cites: “St Hippolytus added the pleasing detail that John the Baptist acted as the Lord’s precursor in the underworld as on earth” (De Christo et anti-Christo 45), while Hermas suggested the Apostles and teachers who had passed away carried on His ministry below and baptized their converts (Similtudes 9, 16, 6f, 5-7).(24)

Comparisons with I Cor 15:29 and Credal Tradition Again I have underlined the above to emphasise it as a point of discussion. The most interesting thing in both of these underlined sections is the importance given to baptism of the dead both by Christ and then later by deceased Apostles and teachers. Thus relevant comparisons of Christ’s ministry to the dead and following his example the deceased Apostles is maintained in this line of thought. It is only but a few steps more for the living to seek baptism on behalf of their dead relatives and friends, as asserted in I Cor 15:29. Now of course there is a significant difference (as has already been noted in the Petrine chapter) between ministries to the dead and for the dead, as can be seen again here, however not withstanding this point, it is still ministry, in this case baptism, to benefit the dead – hence the relevant comparison.

Kelly identifies the main difficulties facing this particular line of thought. These are

192 twofold, namely that the Old Testament saints scarcely needed illumination, since they had foreseen Christ’s coming, and that it seemed inappropriate that the unconverted should receive a second opportunity for repentance in the other world.(25) One senses the gravity of his first of these two difficulties, however the second could still include converts and therefore those baptized, who were not receiving their second opportunity to respond as their first. In other words such baptismal ministry offered by Christ and the Apostles to the dead was for those who had never had an opportunity to respond, since they lived prior to Christ’s coming and were not among the “Old Testament saints”.

When one is able to qualify Kelly’s second difficulty in this light, then this particular “Stream of interpretation” offers valuable insights into the whole issue of baptismal ministry to and for the dead. It also serves as a kind of precedent in that according to this line of thought Christ and the Apostles set an example for Christians to follow.

To get it all in perspective in conclusion, it is clear that the creeds of the church only specify that Christ descended to the dead and will one day come to judge the living and the dead. Nevertheless the early church/others as cited above saw implications of this scriptural teaching in terms of baptismal ministry to and for the dead. When one notices the relevant comparisons that can be derived in church tradition in this way, then connections can be made between the creeds and I Cor 15:29.

193

FOOTNOTES

1. As cited in “A Prayer Book for Australia” (APBA) (1995), EJ Dwyer, Alexandria, NSW, 37. 2. ibid., 837. 3. ibid., 123. 4. ibid., 820-823. 5. ibid., 821. 6. Kelly, JND “Early Christian Creeds” (1972), (34th edn), Longman, Harlow, Essex. 7. ibid., 378, N (3). 8. From this point onwards our historical survey will only be concerned with the Apostles’ Creed, as the Athanasian Creed comes from a later period. 9. op. cit., APBA, 37. 10. Kelly, JND, op. cit., 379. 11. ibid., 379-40. 12. Tertullian ‘De Anima 55’, cited by Kelly, ibid., 380. 13. ibid., 378. 14. ibid. 15. ibid., 379. 16. ibid., 381. 17. Kelly cites Rufinus’ Comm in symb apost 14f. 18. ibid., 381. 19. ibid., 383. 20. ibid. 21. Kelly’s chapter XII is devoted to the Apostles Creed (368-88) within which his ‘Descent to Hell’ (378-83) is set. 22. ibid., 380. 23. ibid., 381. 24. ibid. 25. ibid.

194

Concluding Reflections

195

In Retrospect…

The conclusions and reflections of this thesis seek to distil out the theological significances of I Cor 15:29 in the life of the Christian community. The introduction to the thesis indicated the framework of five sections by which methodology the topic of the thesis would be addressed. Thereupon the overall literature of survey of this enigmatic verse was charted. It was found convenient to outline the intensive research of Foschini and Thistleton within the scope of a matrix. This in turn embraced these two scholars’ categories of classification of the various interpretations. In the case of Foschini, who provides the most erudite scholarship on the interpretation of this verse both in his own day over fifty years ago and since, many trajectories into the eras extending back to post-New Testament time were traced. With Thistleton, a thorough coverage of the past was provided. Together these two scholars provide an overall framework and overview of multi-faceted interpretive approaches to this verse. A cross-section of some of the lesser significant scholarly contributions was outlined in the two chapters since Foschini.

In the second section the contributions of the more significant scholarship was revealed in the issues and debates thrown up in the wake of their research. The great contribution to New Testament scholarship of Rudolf Bultmann, particularly indicative of his many controversial approaches is his two volume Theology of the New Testament (published in its English translation in the early fifties). The first of these contains his approach to the Pauline component of the New Testament and of special interest and relevance his comments on I Cor 15:29. His acceptance of vicarious baptism for the dead is made clear along with his acknowledgement of the need ‘to give even those who had died the benefit still of the life provided by Christ’s own resurrection’.

However he states rather baldly that ‘no distinction can be drawn between sacrament and magical act’ and so tends to alienate other scholars with a more sacramental disposition. He also ignites a debate on his view of Paul’s alleged misunderstanding of the gnosticizing party at Corinth. Scholars such as Schnackenburg, Beasley-Murray, Conzelmann, Joyce, Hurd, Wedderburn and Tuckett all comment upon Bultmann’s views over the next four decades, so indicating his on-going influence. Apart from Bultmann’s own distinctive contribution, the debates over the interpretation of I Cor 196

15:29 concern two main issues, the vicarious view and locating a context. The Jeremias-Raeder collaboration produced an espousal of the final meaning of υπερ with its rejection of any possibility of substitution and in turn the vicarious view. Support for this approach came from scholars such as Schnackenburg, Howard, Reame and Thistleton among others. Critiques of it came from Conzelmann, Orr and Walther, and White along with Kittel’s article on υπερ having the last word against the final meaning.

Another approach against the vicarious view originated in the early sixties but continued for the next three decades, was that of the amended wording and punctuation view of scholars such as Thompson, O’Neill and Campbell. In arriving at their views these scholars tended to rely on the early church Fathers Tertullian and Chrysostom. But even here they tended to re-interpret the Fathers to support their own position and this flaw among others was critiqued by Conzelmann, Murphy-O’Connor, Fee and White. In both of these approaches against the vicarious view, the unwillingness to accept the plain reading of the text seems to have motivated their efforts at re-interpreting it.

The other major issue arising over the past fifty years was the debate of the context of I Cor 15:29. Again variation in thinking here related back to either an acceptance or rejection of the vicarious view. Scholars in the latter category included Foschini, Murphy-O’Connor and White who in turn were critiqued by Schnackenburg, Fee and Collins. For those who affirmed the vicarious view, a context was located in various alternatives including spiritual powers (Downey); socio-rhetorical (Witherington); archaeological-cultural (De Maris) and pastoral compassion (Joyce and Walter). All of these offer fascinating insights even when critiqued by Murphy O’Connor, White and Campbell.

As an example of an interpretation of I Cor 15:29 which effectively believes in a literal application of the vicarious view and the practice of it today, we have the Mormon Church position. This particular view originated with the teachings of Joseph Smith in the early decades of the nineteenth century in the United States. It was Smith who is regarded as the founder of this Church laying down the Church’s doctrine in such works as “The Book of Mormon” and “Doctrines and Covenants”. Whilst originating with Smith, the Mormon position has been elaborated further in modern times by the writers

197 of the Mormon Encyclopedia and apologists such as Robinson, both of these latter dating from the past ten years.

The Mormon position has had its critics ever since the first baptisms for the dead were performed in the Mississippi River in 1840. This, with other controversial issues resulted in a Mormon migration to Utah in 1847 to establish a homeland away from their persecutors and detractors. In more recent times their position has been critiqued by Foschini along with a steady stream of internet sources among many others. Whilst a good majority of modern scholars agree with the vicarious view, none of those scholars (apart from Mormon scholars) would advocate its literal application or restoration from early church practice both at Corinth and by the Marcionites. This critique of the Mormon position rests on critical comment by Church Fathers such as Tertullian and Chrysostom together with the inadvisability of erecting a doctrine and practice on the basis of only one verse of scripture.

Having narrowed down the field through the above process as illustrated in the top half of the hourglass diagram, one arrives at the centre point of the text and context. An exegesis of the Greek text taking into account textual criticism firstly reveals no variation in establishing the text as it stands in the Greek original. With the exegesis followed by an excursus of the usage of u9pe\r, a crucial preposition for the verse’s proper interpretation, the principle of vicariousness is seen to be at work in this verse’s reference to baptism. In terms of its function it is clear that it is an example of an ad hominem argument for belief in the resurrection. Consistency demands that those who participated in vicarious baptism for the dead must have had belief in the resurrection to have sufficient motivation themselves to undergo the rite on others behalf. The espousal of a deliberative rhetorical context would be in accord with the conventions of persuasive argument or rhetoric as demonstrated by Paul in his advocacy of belief in the resurrection. The prevailing socio-economic setting, identified by Witherington and cultural context advocated convincingly by De Maris provide a wider Corinth community context for better understanding I Cor 15:29.

From this standpoint arrived at by this stage, one is able to widen the context of I Cor 15:29 by this example of a relevant comparison. Such are the notions which come to mind in surveying literature such as various Pauline references in Romans, Galatians,

198

Ephesians and Colossians. Further afield is the Petrine literature and later post New Testamental Credal formulae.

In the case of the references in Romans we see some of what De Maris calls “wider implications” of I Cor 15:29 with Romans 6:1-11. Bearing in mind that Paul wrote Romans in Corinth after his writing the Corinthian correspondence one can detect comparisons in his earlier observations of vicarious baptism for the dead and in the abovementioned passage. The believers’ identification with Christ in his death and resurrection particularly illustrates this along with Christ being Lord of the dead as well as the living (Rm 14). Similarly in other Pauline literature various other interesting comparisons have been shown as well.

When turning to the remaining New Testament passages outside of the Pauline Corpus, the Petrine literature stands out. It too, like Romans, derives from a later period than that referred to in I Corinthians and in fact the Pauline literature is referred to in the second epistle (II Pet 3:15-16). Particularly significant are the two verses in I Peter 3:19 and 4:6 along with their contexts as has been demonstrated in the relevant chapter. In these two verses one learns of Christ’s ministry to the dead, both imprisoned spirits (3:19 and former humans (4:6) which in turn form the basis of the Apostles and Athanasian Creeds affirmation of Christ’s descent to the dead. Futuristically I Peter 4:5 is also affirmed in the end time judgement awaiting the living and the dead, also affirmed in the above creeds as well as the Nicene Creed.

If the above summation of the thesis is intended to bring together some of the more significant points further elaborated upon earlier on, what conclusions and reflections can one distil from this particular study?

At the outset, from the originating scriptural reference, it is clear that a plain reading of the text of I Cor 15:29 reveals that vicarious baptism for the dead was practiced in the church at Corinth. Whether one regards this as an aberrant practice or otherwise is in the ultimate irrelevant because Paul makes no value judgement on it either way. As it is also the only verse in the whole of scripture which comments upon this practice, we may safely assume it was limited to Corinth.

199

Therefore the only function of this verse is to advance the case for belief in the resurrection as indeed the whole of the main thrust of I Cor 15 is calculated to do. Paul’s deliberative rhetorical strategy was driving towards commending resurrection belief. Therefore all elements of this chapter including the enigmatic verse 29, is subjugated to this objective. The use of the word ‘enigma’ here is something of a misnomer, since when one accepts the plain literal meaning of the text any enigmatic elements in its interpretation dissolve immediately.

Therefore by contrast it is more an enigma when one seeks to obfuscate the plain meaning by advancing alternative interpretations in order to avoid this plain meaning, as has been illustrated in various debates. As far as motivation for these many and various alternative interpretations are concerned, one can only speculate about this. For some one suspects an uneasiness with the sacramental element as pertaining to any human effort directed towards changing the status of dead persons before God and His end time judgement. Yet one is reminded again that He is both the Lord of the dead and the living (Rm 14:9) and also that death, inter alia, cannot separate anyone from Christ’s love. (Rm 8:38).

For many persons who take seriously the theological dictum of justification by grace through faith, particularly individual faith, I Cor 15:29 as understood literally seems to raise a number of issues. Chiefly among these appears to be element of the individual choice made by only a living person in responding to the offer of salvation. This line of thinking does not allow for a vicarious approach of one acting for another in this process, whether living, as in the case of infant baptism or much less the dead. In my humble view this may well lie at the back of opposition to the vicarious view by certain scholars with this kind of outlook. When one notes in this connection the weakness of the final view of υπερ being espoused by many who reject the vicarious view, this seems to be an intellectually vulnerable position to take.

In some other cases of those who reject the vicarious view one cannot help but feel that this is motivated by an unwillingness to concede to what is seen as the Mormon position. This would be particularly the case in the United States among critics of the Mormon Church and its doctrines. As has been surveyed earlier in the relevant section on the Mormon position and a critique of it, they are correct in seeing vicarious baptism

200 practiced in this verse. However in my view along with most other Christians who adhere to the historic creeds of Christendom, they are incorrect in building a doctrinal structure on the basis of one verse of scripture much less to advocate a revival of the practice of vicarious baptism for the dead. Further, the way in which this is applied by the Mormons in a somewhat indiscriminate manner through the use of their extensive genealogical records is to depart from the original intention of the Corinthian church member’s departed family and friends.

It is clear from our knowledge of the early Church Fathers of Tertullian and Chrysostom among others including Epiphanius, that their acknowledgement of the revival of vicarious baptism for the dead was chiefly among Gnostic inspired groups such as the Marcionites. Even here the details by which these early commentators described Marcionite practice of this rite was somewhat bizarre, where live persons answered for the corpse in close proximity to it.

This rather weird element together with the early church’s opposition to Gnosticism in general and Marcion’s version of it in particular meant that Christians subscribing to the historic creeds could not countenance the practice of vicarious baptism for the dead. This essentially remains the position taken by these Credal based churches today along with other Christians who agree with the doctrinal formularies enshrined in the Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian creeds.

With these safeguards, from church tradition as defining orthodoxy, preventing any revival of the practice of vicarious baptism for the dead, how then is one to finally reconcile an acceptance of the literal meaning of I Cor 15:29 with its recognition of this practice in the Church in Corinth? I believe that this study has tried to demonstrate through a series of relevant comparisons that ministry offered for the dead by humans and to the dead by Christ himself is still significant. This is ultimately because God’s grace and care extends beyond this life to embrace those who pass beyond it to the next life.

In this connection there is the all important principle of Divine Theodicy – God’s righteousness and justice, extended universally to all humanity. Wolfhart Pannenburg, a contemporary German theologian, in dealing with the issue of the scope of God’s

201 salvation, particularly to the unbaptised and those who have never heard of Christ or His message has much to offer by way of an overall conclusion to this thesis.

Pannenburg(1) cites Jesus’ anticipation of people from all nations participating in God’s Kingdom, in his words: “People will come from the east and the west, and from the north and south and sit at table in the Kingdom of God” (Lk 13:29). Equally universal in scope is the Parable of the Last Judgement in Matthew 25:31-46, where it is stated that many will be admitted to the Kingdom of God on the basis of their compassionate activity for others, although they did not know Jesus (Mt 25:40). Whilst Pannenburg observes that this parable has often been interpreted restrictively as referring to believers only, he does not think that there is any basis in the wording to justify such a restrictive exegesis. On the contrary, the general expectation is that all humanity will face the eschatological judge, as presumed in the parable.

Pannenburg elucidates further that this parable also implies that Jesus and his proclamation are the final norm in deciding whether a person is included or excluded from His Kingdom. He is the norm even in relation to those who never knew Him (i.e. Jesus) in their lifetime. The implication here is that many in fact belong to Jesus and the kingdom he proclaimed who were neither members of the chosen people of Israel or even the Christian Church. However it is the affinity of their lives to Jesus’ mission and proclamation that will prove decisive in their eternal salvation.

Thus Jesus remains the final criterion for all human beings and Pannenburg calls this line of thinking as outlined above “Christian inclusivism”. He claims further that this inclusivist conception was established theologically in the second century by Justin Martyr. Justin’s idea was that some “germs” of the Divine Logos have been dispersed everywhere in human history, whilst the complete Logos appeared only in Jesus Christ. At the same time, the Credal affirmation of Christ’s descent to the realm of the dead after His death on the cross was related to the salvation of those before and after His Coming who would not have had the opportunity to hear the message of His Kingdom.

Pannenburg’s work “Jesus – God and Man”(2) had earlier elaborated the unconscious participation “of human persons from former generations in the salvation brought about by Jesus Christ”.(3) This idea is in substance close to what he later said above in regard

202 to Luke 13:29 and Matthew 25:40.

In conclusion, Pannenburg, a theologian of international standing, seems to have effectively addressed the eternal destiny of those who have neither been baptised nor even heard of Christ. Therefore modern attempts to perform vicarious baptism for the dead for those in these categories are pointless. In the ultimate God’s theodicy will be worked out for all in His eschatological judgement (Matt 25:31-46) and this will apply to baptised and unbaptised alike.

203

FOOTNOTES

1. Pannenburg, W “Religious Pluralism and Conflicting Truth Claims: The Problem of a Theology of World Religions” (in) D’Costa, G (Ed) Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions (1992), Maryknoll, New York. Pannenburg’s observations as outlined here and following are on pages 98-9 of D’Costa’s book. 2. Pannenburg, W “Jesus: God and Man” (1968), (ET) SCM, London. 3. ibid., 272.

204

Appendix I

Two Classifications of Various Interpretations of I Corinthians 15:29 (Foschini and Thistleton)

205

This particular topic will require two parts for an adequate treatment of the classifications of the various interpretations of I Cor 15:29. This is in line with the two scholars who have attempted a classification, namely BM Foschini in 1950-51 and A Thistleton in 2000. Interestingly and somewhat conveniently for this thesis, these two classifications commence and conclude the fifty year period of modern scholarship on the interpretation of this enigmatic verse. However in making this observation one should also take into account the fact that both of these scholars refer to their academic predecessors dating back to the early church fathers. In effect their classifications taken together represent the great majority of scholarly comment in I Cor 15:29 over the past two millennia of Christian history.

This realisation has required a different kind of approach in presenting these two classifications namely the use of a matrix in each case. Within each matrix there will be the title of each classification along with the particular scholars description of the various interpretations associated with the classification category; its origins among scholars who have espoused it, and a critique by either Foschini or Thistleton on each interpretation. The various headings to be used in the two matrices will reflect the abovementioned data. The use of the matrix in presenting these two classifications provides an easy and most direct access to many and various interpretations of the verse in question. Also, it will hopefully avoid the tedium of too much extraneous comment of each particular view along with its critique.

In what follows the two matrices will be presented in turn with the referencing of the items within each column. Part A will feature Foschini and Part B, Thistleton. At the end of presenting these a comparison of both scholars will be undertaken along with contrasts which characterise them both. This examination provides an overall framework for subsequent chapters. At the very end of presenting their classification of the various interpretations, both Foschini and Thistleton give their own respective ‘solution’ on the interpretation of this verse. These respective interpretations are dealt with briefly and an explanation for this given in the conclusion. It has to be stated of course that Thistleton’s work coming as it does some fifty years after that of Foschini should take account of this fact when comparisons are made at the end.

Further detail on many of the scholars mentioned within each matrix will be given in later chapters of the thesis, including their various critics. However in mentioning those

206 scholars encompassed by each of our two classifications a brief outline will also serve to give both an introduction and overview of what follows. This will result in turn in being able to identify further the issues about which scholarly debate has focused over the past fifty years of the contemporary literature survey of I Cor 15:29.

Before turning to presenting each matrix one must be clear about the various interpretive categories used by Foschini and Thistleton. These are as follows: Part A: Foschini (NB. These are derived from his series of five articles entitled: “Those who are baptized for the dead I Cor 15:29: an Exegetical Historical Dissertation”. (Articles 1-5) in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 1950-51. Ch I: Baptism in the Metaphorical Sense (First Article) Ch II: Baptism in the Proper Sense, but not as a Sacrament (Second Article) Ch III: Baptism as a Sacrament of the New Law Subdivided as: Art I: Baptism received for the benefit of others. (Third Article) Art II: Baptism for the benefit of those who are baptized. (Fourth Article) Art III: Baptism for the living, not for the dead. (Fifth Article) (Foschini’s “Solution to Question”) (NB - Further detail in the above is given later). Part B: Thistleton (his Commentary pp 1242-9 published in 2000) (A) (1) - (10) Interpretations “unconvincing”; (B) (11) - (12) Interpretations “widespread & influential”; (B) (13) Interpretation “most likely” (his solution).

207

PART A “Those who are baptized for the Dead" (I Cor 15:29 (Articles I-V)”* An Overview of BM Foschini’s Classification

Title Article Page(s) *Introduction First (I) 260-64 ♦Chapter 1, BAPTISM in the METAPHORICAL SENSE “ Art I EXPOSITION of the Opinions “ 264-69 Art II CRITICISM of the Opinions 269-76 ♦Chapter II BAPTISM in the PROPER SENSE, but NOT Second (II) 379-88 as the SACRAMENT Art I: EXPOSITION of the Opinions “ 379-83 Art II: CRITICISM of the Opinions “ 384-88 ♦Chapter III: BAPTISM as a SACRAMENT of the Third (III) 46-78 NEW LAW Art I: BAPTISM RECEIVED for the BENEFIT of “ OTHERS “ Sect II: EXPOSITION of the Opinions “ 46-61 Sect III: CRITICISM of the Various Opinions 61-78 ♦Chapter III: (continued) Fourth (IV) 172-98 Art II: BAPTISM for the BENEFIT of THOSE WHO ARE BAPTIZED “ Sect I: EXPOSITION of the Opinions “ 172-85 Sect II: CRITICISM of the Opinions “ 185-98 ♦ Chapter III: (continued) Fifth (V)# 276-83 SOLUTION of the QUESTION (& final) Art III: BAPTISM for the LIVING, NOT for the DEAD Our opinion “ 277-82 General Conclusion “ 283 # Foschini’s Solution is not included here but outlined further in Section B, Chapter 5 * Publishing details are in the Bibliography.

208

PART A – FOSCHINI’S CLASSIFICATION - Ch I: BAPTISM in the METAPHORICAL SENSE Origin/Support Description Critique Category/Ref Ch 1: Baptism in the Jesuits; St Robert 1) Baptism as the Works of Penance for • Baptism does not denote any affliction or suffering whatever, METAPHORICAL Sense Belamine the Relief of the Dead. but a vehement affliction wrought from without (Article I) (1857) (I:264-5) • (therefore) it cannot be applied to voluntary afflictions such as prayer, alms, fasting, which are undertaken to help the dead (I:272) Brockman & Calmet 2) Baptism is Sadness over Death • There is no reason why (St Paul) should leave this topic and (I:266) inquire about those mourning the dead and now they can be consoled. • Mourning for the dead (as per Brockmann) in no way supposes a belief in the resurrection (I:273-4) AM Shurmann 3) Baptism denotes the Labours and • Schurmann with too much confidence interprets the word Dangers of the Apostolate (i.e. Baptism ‘nekrw=n’ as meaning the living faithful as a prolepsis) (I:266-7) • Paul does not use this term for the faithful in any passage (I:274-5) Hoekstra 4) Baptism as the Persecutions endured • It is not proved that the faithful underwent persecutions and in order to hasten the Parousia (I:267-8) calamities to hasten the parousia & thus help the dead. (I:275) Maldonatus, Guilladus, 5) Baptism identified with Martyrdom • Not justified in equating “baptism for the dead” as “baptised for Massi, Kistermaker, (I:268- 9) defence of the Resurrection of the dead”. J Lightfoot & Morus • If Paul wanted to use an elliptical form he should have omitted “for the Dead” (I:275) FOSCHINI’S CONCLUSION TO THIS SECTION: (I:276) “The metaphorical interpretation ... entangled in many difficulties and seems alien to Paul’s thought”

209

FOSCHINI’S CLASSIFICATION Ch II BAPTISM in the PROPER SENSE, but NOT as a SACRAMENT

Category/Reference Origin/Support Description Critique BAPTISM in the Beza (1598) 1) Washing of the Dead (II:379) •Objections on both grammatical and historical grounds. (II:385) PROPER Also Beza (1598) 2) The Wetting of those who washed •This other hypothesis of Beza seems (to us) to be altogether sense, but NOT as a the Dead (II:380-1) deficient (II:386) SACRAMENT (Article Lapide; Brugensis, 3) The Ritual Ablution used by the •Sacrifices for the dead among Jews were uncommon. (II:386) II) Menochius (1877) Jews (II:381) Numbers 19:11-22 4) Ablution because of Contact with the •Uncleanness contracted from clean and unclean animals, in Dead. (II:381-2) whose resurrection no one believed. (II:387) Numbers 19:11 and 5)Vicarious Purification for those who •But this alleged practice is no where mentioned in the Turrianus (1572) died in Impurity (among the Jews) OT/Apocrypha and is still to be proved historically. (II:387) (II:382) Flaccius (cited by) 6) The Immersion of Divers after the •But the shipwrecked will rise from the dead. (II:388) Heydenreich Bodies of the Shipwrecked (II:382) It is scarcely worthy of mention Ceulemans (1926) 7) The Ceremonies of Baptism or a •A mere hypothesis, words meaning is contraverted and lacks Fouard (1942) Rite Analogous to these (II:382-3) historical foundation (II:388) FOSCHINI’S CONCLUSION: (II:388) “This does not offer a solution satisfying (proper sense) in every respect...removing doubt.”

210

FOSCHINI’S CLASSIFICATION Ch III BAPTISM as a SACRAMENT of the NEW LAW Category/Reference Origin/Support Description Critique Baptism Received for the Ambrosiaster 1) Vicarious Baptism (III:46-57) • It must be rejected in so far as: Benefit of OTHERS (Article - it is contrary to the Sacred text and history III) (Part 1) - or at least it has no basis therein (III:70) Joseph Smith and Mormons 2) Vicarious Baptism of the Mormons • we find Mormon Baptism for the dead entirely erroneous and (III:57-3) arbitrary (III:73) Preisker (1924) 3) Vicarious Eschatological Baptism • this is not drawn from text and context – but naively assumed that (III 54-5) this theory is supported there (III:73) Julian of Exlanum 4) Baptism for the Dead sought vicariously • The text excludes this form of baptism (III:74) (III:55-6) Prat; Ricciotti 5) Baptism: suffrage for the Dead • The “dead” = unbaptised dead, although text and context neither (III:56-8) imply or exclude the idea (III:75) Olshausen 6) Hastening of the Parousia and Aid for • No definite evidence to indicate the disputed “dead” had been the Dead (III:58-9) baptized • Context and text give no precise information (III:76) Muller (Mueller) 7) The Defence of the Dead and of their • An inconsistency between those believers in the resurrection being faith in the Resurrection (III:59-60) defended by those who deny it (III:77) Hoffman 8) The Baptised have something to do for The difference in tense between “poiesousin” and “baptizontai” in the Dead (III:60-1) regard to “for the dead” not significant and therefore this is rejected. (III:77) FOSCHINI’S CONCLUSION TO THIS SECTION: “None of them removes all uneasiness and uncertainty”(III:77)

211

FOSCHINI’S CLASSIFICATION Ch III BAPTISM for the BENEFIT of THOSE WHO ARE BAPTISED Category/Reference Origin/Support Description Critique Baptism for the Benefit of those Tertullian and St John 1) Baptism for Dead Bodies (IV:172-5) • If Paul meant “Baptised for the Dead” = dead bodies, or baptized and dead WHO ARE BAPTISED Chrysostom were the same, he would have expressed himself more clearly. (Article IV) (Part 2) (IV:187) Arius Montanus 2) Baptism of those who have already received • It does not follow necessarily that those baptized (in this way) came to be the Holy Spirit (IV:175) witnesses to the resurrection of the body (IV:188) Julian of Exlanum, J Alber 3) The Mortification of the Passions • If St Paul had referred to a mortification here, he would have used the first (IV:175-6) person (e.g. I Cor 15:30) (IV:188) Epiphanius: J Calvin 4) The Baptism of the Dying or that which will • As with the critique of (No 1) above, the same difficulty applies when avail after death (IV:177) considering the baptized = the dead. (IV:189) Bachmann 5) Baptism will be useless after death • The words ‘for the dead’ should be joined with ‘to be baptized rather than (IV:178-9) ‘what shall they do’. (IV 190) Richterus 6) Baptism by which we gain nothing beyond • Similar to (no 5 ) above (IV:191) what the unbaptised have. • If ‘hyper’ is to mean ‘beyond’, it would govern the accusative not genitive. (IV:179) J Cleric, Ellys, Excell & Schott 7) Baptism by which we take the place of • Baptism looks to the benefit of the individual more than the community Christians who have died. (IV:179-80) therefore unlikely they were baptized to take place of others (IV:192) Heinsuis 8) Baptism by which the name of dead • This is foreign to the mind of Paul Christians are received • Involves a confusion of the dead and living – a play on words – NOT rational exegesis (IV:193)

212

FOSCHINI’S CLASSIFICATION Ch III BAPTISM for the BENEFIT of THOSE WHO ARE BAPTISED Category/Reference Origin/Support Description Critique Baptism for the Benefit of those Luther 9) Baptism over the Sepulchres of the Martyrs This idea is generally rejected for historical, grammatical and dialectical reasons WHO ARE BAPTISED (IV:180-1) (IV:193) (Article IV) (Part 2) Luther: Spanhemius 10) Baptism for the Dead means baptism for • This is disproved in (III No 5) Christ • Implies this baptism for the dead refers to Christ and being immersed into his (IV:181-2) physical and mystical body (IV:194) Vaterus: Samlerus 11) Baptism for Christ and the other dead • The veneration of Christ being held nearly in the same honour as the early (IV:182-3) saints and martyrs in Corinth is unlikely (IV:195) M Henry (1811) 12) Baptism received on account of the dead • This idea is based on the hypothetical assumption that a contagious plague (IV:183) was raging in Corinth, a gratuitous assumption Krausins 13) Baptism received for fanciful reasons • ‘nekron’ is not the same as ‘mataia pistis’ (IV:183-4) • In no place does Paul give such a unique meaning to ‘nekron’ (IV:196) JEC Schmidt 14) Baptism which frees us from the fear of • The phrase ‘baptised for the dead’ cannot be translated as meaning being death (IV:184) initiated into sacred rites to raise above fear of death (IV:197) Gerlach:Dachsel Bonnet 15) Baptism received in order to obtain the • The words ‘ton nekron’ do not seem to indicate the Church triumphant Kingdom of the Blessed (IV:184-5) (IV:197) FOSCHINI’S CONCLUSION (To this section): (IV:198) “These opinions (above) seem to us more probable than the others. However, they weaken and almost destroy the force of many questions in v29ff”

213

PART B – THISTLETON’S CLASSIFICATION Category/Reference Origin/Support Description Critique UNCONVINCING • Bullinger (d 1575) “Washing their dead for burial” and/or • Neither of these two views has syntax, context or exegraphical interpretations (Commentary • Beza (d 1605) washing themselves from ceremonial support 1242-4) • Cocceius (D 1669) defilement from corpse. A1 (P1242) • More recently JM Ford • J Lightfoot (d 1664) Baptism interpreted metaphorically • Strains tw=n nekrw=n unduly A2 (p1242) referring to a “baptism of suffering and • “no such role is ascribed to martyrs at such an early time” martyrdom”

• Aquinus ‘upe\r tw=n nekrw=n = mortal sins for sake • Anachronistic and violates exegetical criteria A3 (p1242) • D de Lyra (d 1349) of which people are baptized

• Luther (1485-1546) ‘upe\r (local sense) baptism over the • Local use of u9pe\r apparently foreign to NT A4 (p1242) • More recently Ewald graves or tombs of the dead • No special attention to tombs of Christians in Corinth AD54-55

and Grosheide

• Ephanius supported by Catechumens on their deathbed being • However this forces the Greek of v29 A5 (pp 1242 & 1243) Calvin, Flacius & baptized

Bengel (1500-1750)

Olshausen (1840) followed Those baptised to fill the place of the dead • This idea seems foreign to Paul A6 (p 1243) recently by Preisker & • Very few accept it in the end Edwards J Edwards (1692) Those who are baptised having witnessed • Force of u9pe\r becomes strained the courage of the martyrs (e.g. Paul and • Paul’s uses of oi9 baptizo/menoi rather than oi9 pisteu/ontev, (as Stephen the First martyr) would be demanded by this view)

214

PART B – THISTLETON’S CLASSIFICATION (continued) Category/Reference Origin/Support Description Critique A8 (p1243) Chrysostom tw=n nekrw=n is an ellipsis, reflecting • This imports into the Greek an additional phrase which is absent Theophylact baptismal creed in faith therefore the dead • This seems hardly an “elliptic” use of tw=n nekpw=n further Photius is the “soon to be” dead bodies (a view explanation. Erasmus popular in the patristic era) R Anderson (1905) followed Repunctuate the verse, with a full stop • This also strains the syntax A9 (p1243-4) recently by WE Vine between tw=n nekrw=n and oi9 • “None (of those) is compelling” (So Fee 766) baptizo/menoi so as to read: “Otherwise what shall they do who are baptised? It is for dead persons if the dead do not rise?” J Murphy-O’Connor (1981) Baptised for the dead originated as an anti- • This view is speculative in nature and lacks clear linguistic support

Pauline slogan concerning Paul’s suffering • Precarious to suppose that Paul defined “apostle” as one of “the A10 (p1244) and support for an inferior class of dead” in the present verse (So White) believers who are dead to “true wisdom”

215

PART B – THISTLETON’S CLASSIFICATION (continued) Category/Reference Origin/Support Description Critique B(11) a-c and B(12) B(11) contemporary period • “wording is in favour of the ‘normal’ • Many remain unconvinced by this (i.e. vicarious view) from Interpretations Conzelmann, Collins, Weiss, exposition in terms of vicarious baptism: in patristic era. Reformation and recent years. “WIDESPREAD AND Oepke, Wendland, Parry “and Corinth living people have themselves • “The difficulty… is that Paul’s understanding of the way the INFLUENTIAL” (pp1244- many others” (i.e. the vicariously baptized for dead people” (so sacraments work would never have permitted him to condone 1248) vicarious view) Conzelmann, 275) such superstition in any of his churches… The dead cannot • This shows the “sacramentalism” prevailing in make an act of faith that saves (Rom 10.9)” (so Murphy- Corinth, and Paul does not criticize the custom O’Connor, J “Corinthians” (1997):178) but makes use of it for his argument” (so “The ferocity with which Tertullian and especially Chrysostom Conzelmann, ibid.) view such a practice and characterize it as bizarre among heretics • “some sort of transferred application of would not be too easily forgotten or swept aside” (So Thistleton, benefits, a vicarious effect” (Collins, 559) 1246) Slight variations on above • Non-sacramentalist “Jewish” approach in terms • This is “too slender and tenuous to bear the weight of such an of the blood of the martyrs (i.e. 2 Macc 12:45) extension of the theology of baptism” (Stauffer NT Theology (so Preisker 298-304) (1955) 202, 299) • “a careful softening by Hays and restrictions by Allo which puts this view (vicarious) just within the bounds of remote possibility” [Thistleton, 1244 N (185) (iv) • “the community can act meaningfully on behalf of those who are not able to act on their own” (Hays, 267, 268)]

216

PART B – THISTLETON’S CLASSIFICATION (Continued) Category/Reference Origin/Support Description Critique B(11)(a) Schmithals advocates a • Baptism by proxy was common among • In the light of such an immoderate statements, it is scarcely “history-of-religions” the Gnostics, indeed in Gnosticism, surprising that Conzelmann describes this verse as “hotly disputed” approach (Specifically baptism for the dead has greater (So Conzelmann I Cor, 275) Gnostic) significance than for the living • (as above) (Gnosticism at Corinth, 257-9) (and • “the state of the dead hardly seems to allow for a serious among Mormons today) understanding of what baptism represents and entails” (Thistleton, • The effect of baptism for the dead was 1247) magical, as witnessed in Gnostic texts • Already alluded to in reference to these Church Fathers. (e.g. Pistis Sophia) offering parallels to 15:29 • Vicarious baptism alluded to in Tertullian, Chrysostom and Epiphanius referring to this practice among Marcionites and other sects B(11)(b) Other approaches to “Proxy” • A baptism on behalf of unbaptised • “Would not Paul deeply care if this important rite, with all its self or vicarious baptism Christians (Wedderburn, Baptism and involving role as an effective sign of grace, is reduced to mere resurrection, instrumental mechanism” (Thistleton, 1246-7) 288-9) • An opus operation “Sacramentalism” (Von Soden, Sakrament und Ethik, 22- 40)

217

PART B – THISTLETON’S CLASSIFICATION (Continued) Category/Reference Origin/Support Description Critique B(11)(b) continued Other approaches to “Proxy” • Some “baptised vicariously on behalf of • The difficulties which beset B(11)(a) also apply, even less vicarious baptism deceased friends and relatives” (Horsley, I forcefully to this proposal, together with an apparently abrupt Cor 206-7) switch to positive in V30. (Thistleton, 1247-8) • A non-sacramental, but an • Schnackenburg criticizes Preisker’s view as “unacceptable” eschatological/apocalyptic background to (Baptism in the Thought of Paul, 97) vicarious baptism. This background in 4 Thistleton agrees that he is “rightly criticized” (1245) Ezra 4:35; I Enoch 47:4; Rev 7:2-4 connect with I Cor 15:24-28, - with the resurrection of the righteous, those standing “near” to them could benefit from their deeds by proxy. [Preisker, in ZNW (1924): 298-304] • “The plain and necessary sense of the words implies the existence of a practice of vicarious baptism at Corinth, presumably on behalf of believers who died before they were baptized” (So Parry, First Epistle, 228) Overall comments “If baptism entails (Thistleton, 1247) a serious appropriation of the grace of identification with Christ in his death and resurrection, how can the context be other than believers, of (in a later second generation context) an initiating plea for grace on the presupposition of nurture within the Christian home” PART B – THISTLETON’S CLASSIFICATION (Continued)

218

Category/Reference Origin/Support Description Critique B(11)c “Some softening” of a version of • Catechumens in their own baptism wish to (As Allo’s view is similar to Hay’s see Hay’s critique on this). the vicarious view be identified in near or actual Christian Also faith. That is a “baptism of desire”, not an • Although many argue that Paul does not necessarily approve official baptism. (Allos, Premiere, Epitre, of this practice, the transition to v30, through kai\ h9mei=v 411-14). Allo cites Tertullian, seems to suggest a continuity of practice which has Paul’s Chrysostom and wider patristic material in approval, and this is scarcely conceivable, even if we grant substantiating his view here. that the ‘special case’ proposed by Allo might well merit a • “the community can act meaningfully on pastoral blind eye. (so Thistleton, 1246) behalf of those how are not able to act on their behalf” (Hays, I Cor, 267). Paul’s view is “less individualistic” than modern Protestant thought. – Paul did not “commend” vicarious baptism; he points out the inconsistency in practicing it while doubting the resurrection. NB Comparisons of vicarious principle in infant baptism

219

PART B – THISTLETON’S CLASSIFICATION (Continued) Category/Reference Origin/Support Description Critique B(12)(p1247) A variant of B(11) • “Some of the survivors allowing • Since the practice “dwindled away”, it maybe inferred that themselves to be baptized on behalf of this is something “with which he (Paul) could have no real (believing) friends who have died without sympathy” (so Alford, Greek Testament Vol 2 (1991);613) baptism…but…Paul does not mention it • In regard to ti/ poih/sousin, “there is in these words a tacit without a slur on it” [Alford, Greek reprehension of the practice about to be mentioned, which is Testament, (4 vols) (1881) II, 612] hardly possible to miss” (Alford, ibid., 611) • Alford refers to references to it in • These Fathers repudiate this practice as non-Christian or Tertullian, Chrysostom, Epiphanius heretical • Chrysostom (most critical) asks whether there could be any benefit from such a practice. B (13)* “highly probable, least • Refers to the decision of a person or • Such a conversion would depend on mixed motives, but – problematic and most convincing persons to ask for, and to receive, baptism “there is no room for pretence or self interest on a deathbed” view of all” Jeremias (Raeder, as a result of the desire to be united with (So Thistleton, 1249) Findlay) their believing relatives who have died • u9pe\r (final sense) “for the sake of” * NB – a further expansion on Thistleton’s ‘solution’ will be given in a Section B Chapter 2 of this thesis

220

Points of Contrast and Comparison Having now presented the two matrices, one is then in a position to make some comparisons in conclusion. There are perhaps three things which stand out most. Firstly there is the issue of thoroughness and comprehensiveness. There can be really no comparison between the two on either of these two criteria. Foschini is far and away ahead of Thistleton in terms of thoroughness and comprehensiveness. With five erudite articles to his credit on the interpretation of this verse covering the period from the early church fathers up to 1950 Foschini has never been improved upon both before his time or since. Even in the period since 1950-51 when he published his five articles, Foschini is still regarded fifty years later as the premier authority on this topic at least until 1950. The depth and breadth of his scholarship has been acknowledged in the academy of scripture scholars as can be witnessed in their footnotes citing his work. The only limitation of course is the fact that Foschini cannot be consulted for the fifty year contemporary period, i.e. from 1950 to 2000 AD. It is at this point that Thistleton’s classification can and should be used. Even though Thistleton refers to the pre-1950 period and his portrayal and assessments of this early period are helpful, again he cannot be compared here with Foschini. Still, his coverage of the contemporary period most likely represents the best introduction and evaluation of the more significant scholarship from 1950 to 2000 AD; when in 2000 AD he published his commentary.

Secondly there is the issue of the theological framework within which both scholars endeavour to classify the various interpretations. Here again there is a sharp contrast between the two. On the one hand there is Foschini’s theological scheme as seen for example in his three major categories with their sub-divisions, all of which rotate around the doctrine of baptism as it applies to I Cor 15:29. On the other hand, Thistleton whilst focusing upon the verse in question, nevertheless uses terms to describe his classifications which indicate his own estimation of probability and plausibility. This is a kind of process of elimination which ultimately leads Thistleton to state his own views. Of course, Foschini does a similar sort of thing, albeit from his more theological approach.

Thirdly is both scholars’ individual “solution” to the interpretation of the verse. Interestingly, both compare when it comes to their rejection of the vicarious view. In the case of Thistleton this is stated briefly at the end of the matrix. However, in the case

221 of Foschini his is presented in his fifth and last article, where perhaps the theme of this says it all: “Baptism for the Living not for the Dead”. For the sake of brevity together with the need to do justice to Foschini’s view, this is dealt with in a later chapter (Section B Chapter 5). In either case the individual ‘solution’ of both scholars is not as important in this chapter as their presentation of the views of others. But even with just noting at this point their common rejection of the vicarious view, they nonetheless espouse a different ‘solution’ to one another.

In conclusion, it has been worthwhile presenting the classification of both these two scholars because at the outset of this thesis it is most important to gain an “overview” of the various approaches of a cross-section of interpretation of this enigmatic verse down through the past two millennia of Christian history. Not only is it important to have this overview but also to have thereby an overall context within which one can explore further other interpretations since Foschini as seen in the next two chapters.

222

Appendix II

The usage of u9pe\r within the principle of vicariousness

and I Cor 15:29

223

As alluded to in the conclusion of the last chapter there is a need to explore further the wider implications of u9pe\r as they relate to I Corinthians 15:29. These wider implications concern the principle of vicariousness. As has been identified throughout the first three sections of the thesis the principle of vicariousness is of vital importance in understanding the text. Indeed much of the scholarly debate and issues arising from it rotated around the vicarious issue in itself.

But this concept is not limited to this verse and in fact originates within the whole Biblical witness and also the inter-testamental literature at certain points. Therefore it is required at this stage to set I Cor 15:29 within the wider context of the crucially important vicarious principle.

In this excursus the usage of υπερ will be outlined within the principle of vicariousness and our verse. However one needs to be clear about the meaning of the word “vicariousness”. According to the Oxford Illustrated Dictionary the adjective “vicarious” means “deputed, delegated, acting, done, endured for another; vicariously (adv); vicariousness (n)”.(1) This meaning of the English word corresponds closely to “in the place of”; “instead of” being very close to the sense of “on behalf of”, which are the meanings of the Greek u9pe\r followed by the Genitive case. As seen already in the chapter on the exegesis of I Cor 15:29 the favoured translation of such versions as the NRSV, REB and NJB is “on behalf of the dead” or alternatively “for the dead” of the NIV and AV/KJV.(2)

However any discussion of the various meanings of the preposition u9pe\r needs to be set first of all among the different options. According to Kittel’s article on u9pe\r (3) the different options include three main divisions, namely: A. u9pe\r with the Genitive (with 5 sub-divisions); B. u9pe\r with Accusative and C. u9pe\r as Adverb. Our discussion of these will only be concerned with the first of these as the latter two are of no relevance. As indicated Kittel’s further sub-divides the first i.e. u9pe\r + Genitive as: 1) Over, beyond; 2) On behalf of:

224

3) In the place of; 4) With reference to; 5) On account of. Before one can examine the more relevant of these various nuances, it is important first to survey the etymology. According to Kittel: This preposition comes from the Indo-European ‘uper’, Sanskrit ‘upari’, Gothic ‘ufar’ and like all words originally beginning with ‘I’ it has a rough breathing. It has the general sense of “over”; “across”; “beyond”, which with the genitive especially developed a transferred meaning. The genitive is far more common than the accusative; the rare dative occurs in dialects. In the Hellenistic age u9pe\r invades the spheres of peri/ and a0nti/... .(4) In regard to the five sub-divisions of u9pe\r with the genitive we may eliminate the first, fourth and fifth which are irrelevant to this study and instead seek to concentrate only on the second and third. These are: 2)on behalf of and 3)in the place of. These two have close meanings and show the close comparisons between their respective usages in the New Testament.

Taking the second of these two first, Kittel’s reports: It has been shown already that the sense “on behalf of” is sometimes very close to “in the place of”; “instead of”, “in the name of”… .(5) Kittel’s goes on to make the following observations in regard to our verse, after identifying the ‘representative sense’ in I Cor 15:29: None of the attempts to escape the theory of a vicarious baptism in primitive Christianity seems to be wholly successful (so N(29) Raeder (1955) “for the sake of the dead” the final sense of u9pe\r of purpose; (also) Lietzmann, K Allo, EB (1956); Beasley-Murray, GR (1962) Rissi, M (1962)). If one thus presupposes that there may be baptism “for the dead” this implies that the dead, probably relatives, were unbaptised at death. We thus have a kind of substitution even if, as one may suppose, the candidate was baptised for himself as well as with respect to someone who had died unbaptised.(6) In the last part of the footnote (29) already referred to above, this part of the article concludes with these words: It should be noted that in I Cor 15:29 Paul is referring to a practice in Corinth, though he does not expressly repudiate it.(7)

225

All of the above comments come with the widely recognized authority that Kittel’s Theological Dictionary has in the world of New Testament scholarship and therefore needs to be taken seriously.

The second subdivision of u9pe\r with the genitive has a much wider usage in the New Testament and because of its close correlation with the third, needs to be surveyed at this stage. In so doing the wider context of the principle of vicariousness throughout the New Testament will be seen.

In regard to the “on behalf of” usage, Kittel’s notes: After the terms of sacrifice or dedication u9pe\r has the literal or transferred sense of “for”.(8) There are two examples of this literal or transferred sense, the first: In this connection one may note expressions which use u9pe\r to denote the offering of life, or suffering and death, “in favour of” or “for someone”. In the background are Jewish concepts of the vicarious significance of the death of the martyrs and the just.(9) This is indeed a significant origin for this particular concept and can be amply illustrated further in the Second Book of Maccabees. The incident in question is found in Chapter 12:39-45 and is quoted directly in full so as to gain a clear understanding of what might otherwise be a relatively unknown passage.

It is as follows: 39) On the next day, as had now become necessary, Judas and his men went up to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to be with their kindred in the sepulchres of their ancestors. 40) Then under the tunic of each one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was the reason why these men had fallen. 41) So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; 42) and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened as a result of the sin of those who had fallen. 43) He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of

226

silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honourably, taking account of the resurrection. 44) For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45) But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin.(10)

This incident is set within the Maccabean campaign against Eupator and relates to the death of soldiers upon whose bodies were found pagan amulets or protective charms. These amulets were probably inscribed with a representation of the god Dagon of Azotus (cf I Macc 10:84) and were banned from Israelites according to the commandments (Deut 7:25-6). By contrast the people in Israel were instructed to bind the commandments ‘as a sign on the hand and wear them as a phylactery on the forehead’ (Deut 6:8). In spite of the serious nature of this sin of covert idolatry these soldiers of the Maccabean armies had died fighting for their noble cause and therefore vicarious prayers from the living were requested so that this sin might be blotted out (II Macc 12:42). These vicarious intercessions of the faithful living were augmented by Judas’ collection of a sin offering to free the dead from their sin (II Macc 12:43 cf Lev Chs 4-5). This Levitical law code laid down a sin offering to make expiation for the inadvertent sins of the dead as well as Judas’ own intention to expiate the sins of the living. All of this was done ‘taking account of the resurrection’ (II Macc 12:43). In an interesting parallel with I Cor 15:29 where Paul asks the point of being baptized for the dead if these is no resurrection, II Macc 12:44 states: For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. All this activity was “to make atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin” (II Macc 12:45). This particular passage has been an important precedent for both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine of prayers for the dead.(11) Certainly the comparisons with our verse and this passage have been noted by Stauffer who could observe: Paul writes about the Corinthian baptism for the dead, quite in the spirit, indeed in the same form as the argument of II Macc 12. Accordingly he conceives the Corinthian baptism pro defunctis as an analogy to the Jewish oblatio pro defunctis

227

i.e. as an act of intercession.(12) The correlation is clear enough to provide some kind of analogy for Paul as he encountered this practice at Corinth in the light of his knowledge of the Maccabean war.

The second of these usages of u9pe\r having the literal or transferred sense of “for” is illustrated in the New Testament where Aquilla and Prisca are willing to give their lives for Paul (Rom 16:4) along with his own self-sacrifice (Rm 9:3) and sufferings for the churches (2 Cor 12:15).

However far and away the most important usage of u9pe\r in this literal and transferred sense is: In Christological sayings u9pe\r is used to show the thrust of the work of salvation. The death and Passion of Christ are for men and accrue to their favour.(13) This article goes on to claim: This employment of the preposition finds its NT starting-point in a formula of faith and confession which belongs to the oldest strata of Christian tradition.(14) This is a significant claim in terms of the importance of u9pe\r in soteriological formula, as seen for example in the confession Xristo\v a0pe/qanen u9pe\r tw=n a9martiw=n (Christ died for our sins) (I Cor 15:3). The salvific intent of the phrase “for our sins” was worked out by Paul in his earlier epistle to the Galatians where Christ takes upon himself vicariously on our behalf, the curse of the law on law-breaking sinners both Jew and Gentile (Gal 4:3-8). Thus: “Jesus in His death vicariously took upon Himself (kata/ra is abstractum pro concreto: bearer of a curse) the mortal curse (Deut 21:22; 27:26) which the Law brings and itself represents. He did so u9pe\r h9mw=n... “in our favour” though intrinsically the concept of substitution might suggest that it also means “in our place or stead”.(15)

Having defined our terms as outlined above the question then arises as to the origins of the u9pe\r h9mw=n in connection with texts involving the death of Christ. According to Kittel’s the u9pe\r pollw=n (for many) reference in Mk 14:24 originates from the oldest stratum of the gospel tradition, with an Aramaic discerned behind the Greek. The allusion to Isa 53 must have been there before the translation of the Eucharistic sayings into Greek, for u9pe\r does not occur in Isa 53:11f in the LXX, though polloi\ does.(16)

228

Kittel’s sums up this whole line of thought in the following terms: The u9pe\r u9mw=n of the cup sayings in Mk probably represents the earliest stage of u9pe\r phrases with a personal reference in statements about the death of Jesus.(17) The writer continues No matter how one may assess the direct influence of Isa 53:11f on the self awareness of Jesus and primitive Christian Christology, the beneficial quality (u9pe\r) of the death of someone, even in the categories of Jewish martyr theology, can be understood only against the background of the sacrificial concepts of the OT. Exclusively an act of self-sacrifice, the negative fact of death can become a positive event which may produce fruitful results for others.

This quote sums up this whole issue very well, bringing together the implications of Christ’s sacrifice vicariously for others against the backdrop of the sacrificial language of the Old Testament and later Jewish martyr theology, as seen for example in the Maccabean martyrs. The last sentence of this quote whilst applying supremely to the death of Christ in a vicarious way still can also be seen to be an exemplar for Christians as well. As later observed in this article: “The acceptance of suffering and death by Christians in discipleship of Jesus is also to the advantage of fellow Christians”.(18) Part of this latter advantage of fellow Christians could well be the vicarious baptism of the living for their dead. Thus the vicarious self offering of Christ for others becomes an inspiration not only for Christian martyrdom in the early church but also a vicarious ministry of the living for the dead. The interconnectedness of these related concepts through the exemplary role of Jesus provides as it were a kind of precedent for the kind of vicarious ministry offered for deceased friends and relatives as illustrated at Corinth.

In conclusion, the overall context of I Cor 15:29 has been located within the Biblical and Inter-testamental principle of vicariousness. However in order to properly understand our verse from when it first appeared in the Corinthian church, the immediate context needs to be identified. This will include the immediate scriptural context and also the socio-cultural setting as well.

229

FOOTNOTES

1. “Oxford Illustrated Dictionary” (1962), (3rd edn), University Press, Oxford, 916. 2. Infra “An Exegetical Exposition of I Cor 15:29”, 6-7. 3. Kittel, G “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (Vol VIII) (ET 1972), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 507. (Hereafter TDNT). 4. ibid. 5. ibid., 512. 6. ibid., 513. 7. ibid., N (29). 8. ibid., 508. 9. ibid. 10. “New Revised Standard Version” (NRSV) (1993), Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, (The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament), 222-3. 11. As found in two articles in the “New Catholic Encyclopaedia” (1967), Vol IV, 672 “Prayers for the Dead” by JH Wright and Vol XI, 1034 “Purgatory” by JFX Cevetello. 12. Stauffer, E “New Testament Theology” (1955), (ET 5th edn) SCM, London, 229, N (544). 13. Kittel, G op. cit., “TDNT” (1972), Vol VIII, 508-9. 14. ibid., 509. 15. ibid., It is also noted in the footnotes on this translation of u9pe\r that Paul does not use anti/ for sacrificial substitution (N14). 16. ibid., 510. 17. ibid., 511. 18. ibid.

230

THESIS BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

1) “The Greek New Testament” (1993), (4th rev edn) (Edited by) B Aland, K Aland, J Karavidopoulos, CM Martini (and) BM Metzger [in co-operation with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Munster, Westphalia], Deutscher Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, Stuttgart. 2) “A Textual Commentary on the New Testament” (1971), (3rdedn) (Edited by) BM Metzger [on behalf of The Editorial Committee of the] United Bible Societies, Stuttgart. 3) “The Revised Standard Version” (RSV) Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (1972), [Based on a literal English translation of the Nestle Greek Text by A Marshall and also a marginal text of the RSV] S Bagster, London. 4) “The New Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible” (NRSV) (1989), Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 5) Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (1993 27th edn), Deutsche Bibelgesellshaft, Stuttgart. 6) Roberts, A & Donaldson, J (Eds) “The Ante-Nicene Fathers” (1980), Vol 3, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 7) Bettenson, H (Ed) “Documents of the Christian Church” (1963 2nd edn), University Press, Oxford. 8) Stevenson, J A (Ed) “A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church to AD 337” (1975) SPCK, London. 9) Stevenson, I (Ed) “Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church AD 337-461” (1966), SPCK, London.

SECONDARY SOURCES

1. Achtemeier, PJ “I Peter” (1996), Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis, Minn. 2. “Baptism for the Dead” (from) Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia on the internet (March 2003). 3. Barclay, W “The Letters to the Corinthians” (1956), (2nd edn) (Daily Study Bible

231

Series) St Andrews Press, Edinburgh. 4. Barrett, CK “Paul: An Introduction to His Thought” (1994), Chapman, London. 5. Barrett, CK “A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians” (1971), (2nd edn) A & C Black, London. 6. Barrett, CK “The Epistle to the Romans” (1962), A & C Black, London. 7. Barth, K “A Shorter Commentary on Romans” (1959), SCM, London. 8. Barth, M “Ephesians 4-6” (Vol 2) (1974), Doubleday, New York. 9. Barth, M (and) Blanke, H “Colossians” (1994), Doubleday, New York. 10. Bartlett, JR “The First and Second Books of the Maccabees” (Cambridge Bible Commentary) (1973), University Press, Cambridge. 11. Beare, FW “The First Epistle of Peter” (1958), Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 12. Beasley-Murray, GR “Baptism in The New Testament” (1962), Macmillan, London. 13. Best, E “I Peter” (1971), Oliphants, London. 14. Bieringer, R (Ed) “The Corinthian Correspondence” (1996), University Press, Louvain. 15. Black, M “Romans” (1973), Marshall, Morgan & Scott, London. 16. Blomberg, CL “I Corinthians” (1994), Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 17. “The Book of Common Prayer” (1662), (reprint 1968), University Press, Cambridge. 18. “The Book of Mormon” (1830), (reprint 1981), Corporation of President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. 19. Bookidis, N “The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: An Archaeological Approach to Ancient Religion” (as summarised in) American Journal of Archaeology 91 (1987), New York, Archaeological Society of America. 20. Bousset, W “Kyrios Christos: a History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity” (1970), Abingdon, Nashville. 21. Brakemeier, G “Die Auseinanersietzung Des Paulus Zu I Kor 15” (1968), Dissertation, University of Gottingen. 22. Bratt, JD “The Re-Orientation of American Protestantism 1835-45” (in) Church History (Mar 1988), Chicago. 23. Bray, G (Ed) “Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture” (Vol VII) (NT) (1999), 1-2 Corinthians Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 24. Bray, G (Ed) “Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture” (2000), (James,

232

1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude) Inter Varsity Press (IVP), Downers Grove, Illinois. 25. Bromiley, GW “Historical Theology: an Introduction” (1978), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 26. Brown, C “Christianity and Western Thought: from the Ancient World to the Age of Enlightenment” (1990), Apollos, Leicester. 27. Brown, RE (and) Fitzmyer, JA (and) Murphy, RE (Eds) “The Jerome Biblical Commentary” (1968), (I Vol) G Chapman, London. 28. Bruce, FF “I & II Corinthians” (1971), Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 29. Bruce, FF “Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit” (1977), Exeter, Paternoster. 30. Bruce, FF “Romans” (1963), IVP Leicester. 31. Bultmann, R “Theology of the New Testament” (2 Vols) (1952), SCM, London. 32. Byrne, B “Romans (Sacra Pagina)” (Vol 6) (1996), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota. 33. Campbell, RA “Baptism and Resurrection” (in) Australian Biblical Review 47 (1999), Melbourne, Fellowship for Biblical Studies, Queens College. 34. Carnley, P “The Structure of Resurrection Belief” (1987), Oxford, Clarendon. 35. Carson, DA “Did Paul Baptize the Dead?” (in) Christianity Today Aug 10 (1998), Carol Stream, Illinois. 36. Chadwick, H “The Church in Ancient Society: from Galilee to Gregory the Great” (2001), University Press, Oxford. 37. Chester, A (and) Martin, RP “The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter & Jude” (1994), University Press, Cambridge. 38. Collins, RJ “First Corinthians” (1999), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota. 39. Conzelmann, H “I Corinthians” (1975), Fortress, Philadelphia. 40. Cranfield, CEB “I & II Peter & Jude” (1960), SCM, London. 41. Cranfield, CEB “On Romans and Other New Testament Essays” (1998), Clark, Edinburgh. 42. Cranfield, CEB “Romans: A Critical & Exegetical Commentary” (2 vols) (1975), T & T Clark, Edinburgh. 43. Cranfield, CEB “Romans: A Shorter Commentary” (1985), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 44. Crehan, J “Early Christian Baptism and the Creed: A study in Ante-Nicene Theology” (1950), Burns, Oates & Washbourne, London. 45. Cross, FL (and) Livingstone, EA (Eds) “The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian

233

Church” (3rd Edn) (1997), Oxford University Press (OUP), Oxford. 46. Dalton, WJ “Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits” (1965), Analecta Biblica 23, Rome. 47. Davids, PH “The First Epistle of Peter” (1990), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 48. Davies, JG “Factors Heading to the Emergence of Belief in the Resurrection of the Flesh” (in) Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972), Oxford University Press, Oxford. 49. Davies, WD “Jewish and Pauline Studies” (1984), Fortress, Philadelphia. 50. Deluz, G “A Companion to I Corinthians” (Edited and translated by GE Watt) (1963), Darton, Longman & Todd, London. 51. De Maris, RE “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (I Cor 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature 114/4 (1995), Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis Middetown, Conn,. 52. “Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation” (edited by JH Hayes) (Vol A-J) (1999), Abingdon, Nashville 53. Dodd, CH “The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments” (1936), Hodder & Stoughton, London. 54. Dodd, CH “The Epistle to the Romans” (1932), Hodder & Stoughton, London 55. Donfried, KP (Ed) “The Romans Debate” (rev edn) (1991), T & T Clark, Edinburgh. 56. Downey, J “I Corinthians 15:29 and the Theology of Baptism” (in) Euntes Docete, 38 (1986), Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, Rome, 57. Dunn, JDG “Romans” (1988), Word Books, Dallas. 58. Dunn, JDG “The Theology of Paul the Apostle” (1997), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 59. Dutmie, C (Ed) “Resurrection and Immortality” (1979), Bagster, London. 60. Edwards, DL “Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years” (1997), Cassell, London. 61. Ellingworth, P & Hatton, HA “Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians” UBS Handbook (1994), UBS, NY. 62. Ellis, EE “Pauline Theology: Ministry & Society” (1989), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 63. Engberg-Pedersen, “Paul in this Hellenistic Context” (1995), Fortress, Minneapolis. 64. “Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament” (3 Vols) (Edited by H Baly & G

234

Schneider) (1990), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 65. Fee, G “I Corinthians” (1987), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 66. Ferguson, E “Encyclopaedia of Early Christianity” (1990), St James Press, Chicago. 67. Fitzmyer, JA “According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle” (1993), Paulist, New York. 68. Fitzmyer, JA “Romans” (1993), Chapman, London. 69. Foschini, BM “Those Who are Baptised for the Dead I Cor 15:29” (in) Catholic Biblical Quarterly 12 (1950), (2 Articles) and 13 (1951), (3 Articles) Catholic Biblical Association of America, Washington DC. 70. Getty, MA “First and Second Corinthians” l (1983) Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 71. Goldstein, JA “II Maccabees” (1983), Doubleday, NY. 72. “A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament” (5th Edn) (1996), Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, Rome. 73. Grant, RM “Paul in the Roman World: The Conflict at Corinth” (2001), Westminster, John Knox Press, Louisville. 74. Grosheide, FW “Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians” (2nd Edn) (1954), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 75. Grudem, WA “The First Epistle of Peter” (1988), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 76. Guthrie, D “New Testament Theology” (1981), IVP, London. 77. Hanson, RPC “Tradition in the Early Church” (1962), SCM, London. 78. Hastings, A (Ed) “A World History of Christianity” (1999), Cassell, London. 79. Hawthorne, GF (and) Martin, RP (Eds) “Dictionary of Paul and His Letters” (1993), Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 80. Hay, DM “Colossians” (2000), Abingdon, Nashville. 81. Hay, DM (and) Johnson, EE (Eds) “Pauline Theology” Vol III - Romans (1995), Fortress, Minneapolis. 82. Heil, JP “Romans – Paul’s Letter of Hope” (1987), Biblical Institute Press, Rome. 83. Hengel, M “Between Jesus & Paul: Studies in Earliest History of Christianity” (1983), SCM, London. 84. Hering, J “The First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians” (translated from French by AW Heathcote & PJ Alcock (2nd edn) (1962), Epworth Press, London. 85. Hock, RF “The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry” (1980), Fortress, Philadelphia.

235

86. Holding, JP “An Examination of “Baptism for the Dead”” (this is an early version of “The Mormon Defenders”), internet article March 2003. 87. Horsley, RA (Ed) “Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Empirical Society” (1997), Trinity Press, Harrisburg PA. 88. Horsley, RA “I Corinthians” (1998), Abingdon, Nashville. 89. Howard, JK “Baptism for the Dead: A Study of I Cor 15:29” Evangelical Quarterly 37/3 (1965), Paternoster, Exeter. 90. Hurd, JC “The Origin of I Corinthians” (1965), Society Propagation Christian Knowledge (SPCK), London. 91. Jackson, W “Mormon Doctrine: Baptism for the Dead” (from) Christian Courier Archives, (Mon, May 24, 1999). internet article March 2003. 92. Jeremias, J “Flesh and Blood cannot inherit Kingdom of God (I Cor 15:29)” (in) New Testament Studies 2 (1955-6), Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, London. 93. Jewett, R “Dating Paul’s Life” (1979), SCM, London. 94. Johnson, LT “Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary” (1997), Crossroads, NY. 95. Joyce, JD “Baptism on Behalf of the Dead: An Interpretation of I Corinthians 15:29-34” (in) Encounter 26 (1965), Indianapolis Second School of Religion, Buttler University Christian Theological Seminary. 96. Kasemann, E “Commentary on Romans” (1973), (ET 1980), SCM, London. 97. Kelly, JND “A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude” (1969), Ace Black, London. 98. Kelly, JND “Early Christian Creeds” (1972, 3rd edn), Longman Harlow, Essex. 99. Kelly, JND “Early Christian Doctrines” (1977 5th edn) Longman Harlow, Essex. 100. Kilgallen, JJ “First Corinthians: an Introduction & Study Guide” (1987), Paulist NY. 101. Kistemaker, SJ “New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians” (1993), Baker, Grand Rapids. 102. Ladd, GE “A Theology of the New Testament” (1993), (rev edn) (Ed by DA Hagner) Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 103. Lincoln, AT “Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly Dimension” (1981), (in) “Paul’s Thought With Special Reference to His Eschatology”. University Press, Cambridge. 104. Livingston, EA (Ed) “Studia Patristica” (1989) Vol XIX, Peters Press, Louvain.

236

105. Ludlow, DH (Ed) “The Encyclopaedia of Mormonism” (1992), (4 Vols) Macmillan, New York. 106. MacArthur, JF, “First Corinthians” (1984), Moody Bible Institute, Chicago. 107. MacDonald, MY “Colossians and Ephesians” (2000), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 108. MacDonald, JY “The Pauline Churches: a Socio-Historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings”(1988), Cambridge University Press (CUP), Cambridge. 109. McGrath, AE “Christian Theology: an Introduction” (1994), Blackwell, Oxford. 110. Mack, BL “Rhetoric and the New Testament” (1990) Fortress, Minneapolis. 111. Martin, DB “The Corinthian Body New Haven” (1995) University Press, Yale. 112. Martin, RP (and) Davids, PH (Eds) “Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments” (1997), Inter-Varsity Press, Downer’s Grove, Illinois. 113. Martin, RP (and) Chester, “A New Testament Theology: the Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude” (1994), University Press, Cambridge. 114. Martyn, JL “Galatians” (1997), Doubleday, New York. 115. Matera, FJ “Galatians” (1992), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 116. Meeks, WA “The First Urban Christians: the Social World of the Apostle Paul” (1983), New Haven, Yale. 117. Michaels, JR “I Peter” (1988), Word Books, Waco, Texas. 118. Moo, D “The Epistle to the Romans” (1996), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 119. “Mormon Baptism for the Dead” from www.truthandgrace.com/deadbaptism.htm, internet article March 2003. 120. “The Mormons – Baptism for the Dead” (from) BBC Religion and Ethics, from bbc.co.uk, internet article March 2003. 121. “Mormonism’s Baptism for the Dead” (from) Catholic Answers, 2020 Gillespie Way, El Cajon, CA. internet article March 2003. 122. Morris, L “The Epistle to the Romans” (1988), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 123. Morris, L “I Corinthians” (1985), (rev 2nd edn), IVP, Leicester. 124. Morris, L “New Testament Theology” (1986), Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 125. Murphy, D “The Apostle of Corinth” (1966), Campion Press, Melbourne. 126. Murphy-O’Connor, J “ ‘Baptised for the Dead’ (I Cor XV, 29): A Corinthian Slogan?” (in) Revue Biblique 88 (1981), Librairie Lecoffre, Paris. 127. Murphy – O’Connor, J “Corinthian Slogans in I Cor 6:12-20” (in) Catholic

237

Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978), Catholic Biblical Association of America, Washington DC. 128. Murphy – O’Connor, J “Corinthians” (1980), Veritas Publications, Dublin. 129. Murphy – O’Connor, J “I Corinthians” (1979), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn. 130. Murphy – O’Connor, J “Paul: A Critical Life” (1996), Clarendon Press, Oxford 131. Nanos, MD “The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter” (1996), Fortress, Minneapolis. 132. Neuhaus, RJ “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: the Ratzinger Conference on Bible and Church” (1989), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 133. Nibley, H “Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times, the Improvement Era” (1949), Salt Lake City. 134. O’Collins, G “Jesus Risen: the Resurrection, What Actually Happened and What Does it Mean?” (1987) Darton, Longman & Todd, London. 135. O’Neill, JC “I Corinthians 15:29” (in) Expository Times 91 (1980), T & T Clark, Edinburgh,. 136. Orr, WF & Walther JA “I Corinthians: A New Translation” (1976), Doubleday, NY. 137. Pannenburg, W “Jesus–God and Man” (1968), SCM, London 138. Pannenburg, W “Religious Pluralism and Conflicting Truth Claims: the Problem of a Theology of World Religions” (in) D’Costa, G (ed) “Christian Uniqueness Reconsidered: the Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions”, (1992), Maryknoll, NY. 139. Pannenburg, W “Systematic Theology” (3 Vols ET) (1991), T& T Clark , Edinburgh 140. Perkins, P “First and Second Peter, James and Jude” (1995), John Knox Press, Louisville. 141. Pfitzner, VC “First Corinthians” (1982), Lutheran Publishing House, Adelaide. 142. Plevnik, I “Paul & The Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation” (1997), Hendricksen Ponbody, Massachusetts. 143. Plevnik, I “What are They Saying about Paul?” (1986), Paulist, NY. 144. Quast, K “Reading the Corinthian Correspondence: an Introduction” (1994), Paulist, Murwah NJ. 145. Raeder, M “Vikariastaufe in I Kor 15:29?” (in) Zeitschrift fur die

238

Neuentestamentliche Wissenschaft (ZNW) 46 (1955), A Topelmann Verlag, Berlin. 146. Reaume, JD “Another Look at I Cor 15:29, Baptised for the Dead” Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (1995), Dallas Theological Seminary & Graduate School of Theology, Dallas. 147. Reicke, B “The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism” (1946), Copenhagen. 148. Reicke, B “The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude” (1964), Doubleday, NY. 149. Richardson, A “An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament” (1958), SCM London. 150. Rissi, M “Die Taufe Fur Die Toten” (1962), (in) Abhandlung Zur Theologie Des Alt Und Neutestamenten 42, Zwingli Verlag, Zurich. 151. Robertson, EM “The Epistles to the Corinthians” (1973), Macmillan, New York 152. Robinson, SE “Are Mormons Christians?” (1991), Bookcraft, Salt Lake City. 153. Ruef, J “Paul’s First Letter to Corinth” (1977), SCM, London. 154. Salvoni, F “Il Battesimo per i Morti (I Cor15:29)” (in) Ricerche Bibliche Religiose 8, Milan. 155. Sampley, JP (Article on I Corinthians) (in) The New Interpreter’s Bible (2002), Abingdon, Nashville. 156. Sanders, EP “Paul and Palestinian Judaism” (1977), SCM, London 157. Schauerte, H “Die Totentaufe” (in) Theologische Glauben 50 (3, 60) 158. Schnackenburg, R “Baptism in the Thought of St Paul” (1964 ET), Blackwell, Oxford. 159. Selwyn, EG “The First Epistle of St Peter” (1964), (reprinted), Macmillan, London. 160. Sporlein, B “Die Leugnung der Auferstehung: Eine Historish-Kritische Untersuchung zu I Kor 15”(1971), Regensburg. 161. Stauffer K “New Testament Theology” (1955), (et 5th edn), SCM, London. 162. Talbert, CH. “Reading Corinthians: a Literary and Theological Commentary on I & II Corinthians” (1989), Crossroads, NY. 163. Theissen, G “The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth” (1982) Fortress, Philadelphia,. 164. “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (edited by) G Kittel (Vol 1 – A- T) (ET 1964), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 165. Thistleton, AC “The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek

239

Text” (2000), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 166. Thompson, KC “I Cor 15:29 and the Baptism of the Dead” (in) Studia Evangelica II (ed) FL Cross (1964), Akademie Verlag, Berlin. 167. Thrall, ME “The First and Second Letters of Paul to the Corinthians” (1965), UP, Cambridge. 168. Van Gennup, A “The Rites of Passage” (1990), University Press, Chicago. 169. Walker, J “Twisting I Corinthians 15:29: Mormonism’s Baptism for the Dead” (2000), Watchman Fellowship, internet article March 2003. 170. Walter, EL “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (1971), Herder & Herder, New York. 171. Watson, DF “The New Testament and Greco-Roman Rhetoric: A Bibliographical Update” (in) Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 33 (1990), Jackson Mississippi. 172. Watson, DF “Paul’s Rhetorical Strategy in I Corinthians 15” (in) Rhetoric and New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelburg Conference (ed by) SE Porter (and) TH Olbricht (1993), Academic Press, Sheffield. 173. Watson, N “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (1992), Westminster, London. 174. Wedderburn, AJM “The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in I Corinthians XV” (in) Novum Testamentum (XXIII) (1981), E J Brill, Leiden. 175. Wedderburn, AJM “Baptism & Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology Against its Graeco-Roman Background”, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchen Neuen Testament 44 (1987), Tubingen, Mohr. 176. Wedderburn, AJM “The Reasons for Romans” (1991), T & T Clark, Edinburgh. 177. “What is Baptism for the Dead Mentioned in I Cor 15:29?” Bible Knowledge Commentary on I Cor 15:29. Dallas Seminary Faculty, internet article March 2003. 178. White, JR “Baptized on Account of the Dead: The Meaning of I Cor 15:29 in its Context” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature 116/3 (1997), Society for Biblical Literature and Exegesis, Middletown Connecticut. 179. Wilson, JH “The Corinthians Who Say There is No Resurrection of the Dead” (in) ZNW 59 (1968), Alfred Topelmann Verlag, Berlin. 180. Witherington, B “Conflict & Community in Corinth: a Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on I & II Corinthians” (1995), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 181. Ziesler, J “Paul’s Letter to the Romans” (1989), SCM, London.

240