Baptism for the Dead Article

[pelagius]

I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest, but I read an interesting article today from a 2006 New Testament Studies about 1 Cor 15:29. Anyways, if you are interested in how scholars are currently talking and thinking about the reference to "baptism for the dead" then I definitely recommend taking a look at that following article:

PATRICK, JAMES E., 2006, Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: ‘Baptised for the Dead’ in 1 Corinthians 15.29, New Testament Studies 52, 71-85.

The abstract:

Baptism in the Corinthian church was an expression of allegiance to honour not only Christ but also the ‘patron’ apostle in whose testimony the convert had believed (1 Cor 1.12–17). Some apostles known to the Corinthians had died (cf. 15.6), yet their testimony lived on and bore fruit in Corinth, resulting in baptism for the honouring of the dead apostles. In the context of 15.20–34 Paul uses this practice to expose the hypocrisy of those who deny the resurrection and yet seek to honour apostles who depend on the resurrection for receiving honour, as do Christ and God the Father.

Obviously the author's conclusion runs contrary to standard Mormon interpretations of 1 Cor 15:29 (the Mormon view even gets a very brief mention on page 74). However, it is still a good read and I think very useful in terms of background and some of the interpretative issues involved. Also, I thought I would post the abstract because I don't think many Mormons are aware of alternative ways this passage can be interpreted.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest, but I read an interesting article today from a 2006 New Testament Studies about 1 Cor 15:29. Anyways, if you are interested in how scholars are currently talking and thinking about the reference to "baptism for the dead" then I definitely recommend taking a look at that following article:

PATRICK, JAMES E., 2006, Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: ‘Baptised for the Dead’ in 1 Corinthians 15.29, New Testament Studies 52, 71-85.

The abstract:



Obviously the author's conclusion runs contrary to standard Mormon interpretations of 1 Cor 15:29 (the Mormon view even gets a very brief mention on page 74). However, it is still a good read and think very useful in terms of background and some of the interpretative issues involved. Also, I thought I would post the abstract because I don't think many Mormons are aware of alternative ways this passage can be interpreted.

I heard there was 45+ different interpretations of that scripture or something.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

I heard there was 45+ different interpretations of that scripture or something.

There is clearly a lot of different ones and your number is pretty close to what the article suggests. Here is a quote from the article:

From the second century into the twenty-first, interpretations have been proposed, rejected, categorised and reproposed, and at present there appear to be approximately forty distinguishable opinions on the meaning of this practice. Some recent scholars have suggested that there exist ‘More than two hundred’ interpretations, but this exaggeration stems ultimately from hearsay rather than careful counting. For the purposes of this paper I would refer the interested reader, as does Fee, to the detailed overviews and critiques of the ‘more than forty!’ varieties of interpretation in Foschini’s thorough (five-part) ‘exegetical historical dissertation’, a categorisation of practically all attempts at interpretation to date.