....Most commentary I have read suggests that Paul was merely recognizing a practice that existed in the First Century Greek world without approving of it. .......What do you think?
This is one of those passages that I put into the 'unknown' or 'I don't know' category. I suppose I generaly agree with what some commentaries say and let it go at that:
JFB (emphasis mine):
"29.
Else--if there be no resurrection.
what shall they do?--How wretched is their lot!
they . . . which are baptized for the dead--third person; a class distinct from that in which the apostle places himself, "we" (1 Corinthians 15:30); first person. ALFORD thinks there is an allusion to a practice at Corinth of baptizing a living person in behalf of a friend who died unbaptized; thus Paul, without giving the least sanction to the practice, uses an ad hominem argument from it against its practicers, some of whom, though using it, denied the resurrection: "What account can they give of their practice; why are they at the trouble of it, if the dead rise not?" [So Jesus used an ad hominem argument, Matthew 12:27]. But if so, it is strange there is no direct censure of it. Some Marcionites adopted the practice at a later period, probably from taking this passage, as ALFORD does; but, generally, it was unknown in the Church. BENGEL translates, "over (immediately upon) the dead," that is, who will be gathered to the dead immediately after baptism. Compare Job 17:1, "the graves are ready for me." The price they get for their trouble is, that they should be gathered to the dead for ever (1 Corinthians 15:13,16).
Many in the ancient Church put off baptism till near death. This seems the better view; though there may have been some rites of symbolical baptism at Corinth, now unknown, perhaps grounded on Jesus' words (Matthew 20:22,23), which Paul here alludes to. The best punctuation is, "If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized
for them" (
so the oldest manuscripts read the last words,
instead of "for the dead")?"