Miracles, Part 3: The Corinthian Creed and the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection
Since we may now consider the truth of miracle claims, let us train our investigative tools on the greatest one of them all. Did Jesus Christ literally rise from the dead? The question is critical since upon its answer rests the veracity of all other Christian truth claims. As the apostle Paul asserts, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a hoax, and to expend any further energy to proclaim it, the efforts of a fool. Therefore, simply blindly believing in the resurrection of Jesus is not enough. We must know that he rose from the dead beyond any reasonable doubt.
"For I delivered to you as a matter of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, although some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."
There is wide consensus among scholars that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is a creed reflecting an early tradition that the apostle Paul is reciting to his readers rather than an original passage composed by Paul himself. When did Paul receive this creed? It is generally accepted that Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians about 55-57 A.D. Paul, however, is reflecting on his first visit to
There is evidence, however, that this creedal tradition which Paul passed on to the parishioners at Corinth may have had an even earlier origin. In Galatians 1:18-19, Paul records his visit to Jerusalem during which he spent fifteen days with Peter. During this visit, Paul also spoke with James, “the Lord’s brother.” Paul reveals in his account of this trip that it occurred only three years after his conversion. Therefore, it is virtually certain that Paul received this creedal tradition no later than during this visit. This would date the historical substance of this creed conservatively within five years or less of the actual events. This is a remarkably short historical distance and strong evidence that the tradition that Paul passed on to the Corinthians that Jesus died, was buried, was raised on the third day, and appeared had a very early origin.
Some might respond that ascribing an early date to this creed represents the consensus of only “fundamentalist” Christians and not truly “credible” critical scholars. They would be mistaken. Esteemed critical scholars of all stripes concur that this creed had a very early origin, perhaps dating back as early as 30 A.D. There is consensus across a broad range of theological perspectives that within this creed rests likely the most primitive evidence of what the earliest Christians actually believed and proclaimed.
Why is all of this important? A generation has been weaned on the radical teachings of the Jesus Seminar, which for almost three decades has aggressively popularized the notion that the story of the resurrection has no basis in fact, but was fabricated by later disciples for political or devotional reasons. Therefore, it is the people of this generation whose stone houses we need to call upon with the truth of the early date of the resurrection account. And we will continue to draw them into the light in our next post entitled "The Corinthian Creed and the Gospels."
Blessings,
Arnie Gentile
Subscribers, visit the Christian Apologetics Blog to view previous entries and comments and to view featured Christian Apologetics resources for specific Christian Apologetics Topics.
For information on contemporary issues in bioethics, visit www.cedarethics.org.
Visit the Christian Apologetics Bookshop.
Categories: Miracles and the Resurrection
Tags: Faith and Reason Miracles Apostle Paul First Corinthians Christian Apologetics Jesus Christ Resurrection
Just before Paul describes his first visit with Peter, doesn't he say that he received the gospel by direct revelation from Christ and not from any man?
Reply to this
Hi, Vinny,
Great question! Keep in mind that we are not seeking to establish when Paul received the gospel, but when he received the creed. When doing historical apologetics, we seek to locate those facts upon which the vast majority of critical scholars agree, and concede these facts to our opponent. Remember, we are not assuming that the Bible is the Word of God or even that it is exhaustively reliable. We assume that it is a piece of ancient literature just like any other. So we are building our case upon what the majority of scholars agree are historically reliable texts. Believing and unbelieving historical and textual critics may disagree over what Paul meant by the "revelation" he speaks of in Gal 1:12, but they agree that Paul likely received the Corinthian Creed when he visited Peter and James.
Hence, we have solid consensus across a range of theological perspectives that the account of the resurrection was circulating within five years of the event. That refutes the popular view that the resurrection story was constructed by the disciples later in the first century, which was our goal. Thus we have established our beachhead from which we will move forward in our subsequent posts to demonstrate that this claim connects to an actual historical event. Does that answer your question?
Blessings,
Arnie
Reply to this
I had that same question when I was reading on this site and other sites when referencing Paul's revelation. Very good answer Arnie, very helpful!
Reply to this
Thanks for participating, Joel. I'm glad this was helpful. It is truly remarkable how much agreement there is among historical critics, both believing and unbelieving, regarding the evidence for the resurrection. Failure to take the final step and believe is not a matter of the evidence anymore, but a matter of the heart.
Blessings,
Arnie
Reply to this
Arnie,
You say that you are trying to establish when Paul received the creed rather than when he received the gospel, but I don't see what justification you have for making such a distinction. Paul doesn't say anything about a creed. He talks about receiving the gospel and passing it on. The formulation of the creed could have taken place at any time between Paul's conversion and the time he writes his letter.
Reply to this
Hi, Vinny,
Thanks for your comment. You are correct. The text in Galatians does not specifically mention Paul receiving a creed. And it is true that we do not need to insist on the fact that Paul received the creed when he first visited Peter and James. Since there is no doubt that he had to be in possession of this wording prior to 51 AD, we may stop there and still boast that we have established an early date of reception, as I have mentioned in my entry. However, if there is still a substantial number of critical scholars, including skeptical ones, who argue that the creed was received even earlier, why not exploit that claim to our advantage?
There are two main reasons that scholars suggest that Paul received the creed during his visit recorded in Galatians 1:18. First, when Paul speaks of the visit in Galatians, he uses the Greek word historeo, which connotes an investigative inquiry. Some scholars argue that, in this context, the word could even be referring to a cross-examination. In any event, most agree that Paul's visit was purposive in seeking information. Second, it would be unlikely for Paul to share this information with the churches if he was not confident that it had come from an authoritative source. There is a good deal of information in the creed to which Paul would not likely have had access until he interviewed James and Peter, such as the order of the appearances and the appearance to the five hundred. Also, missing information that may have been potentially offensive to a strictly Jewish audience (such as the testimony of the women and their arrival at the tomb first) suggests a more primitive origin. There are even a few scholars who think that the creed may have been delivered to Paul in Damascus shortly after his conversion. This is not the consensus, however.
Of course, none of this constitutes a "proof" that Paul actually received the creed at this time, although I believe that the argument is a strong one. Nor is accepting the scholarly consensus in this case necessary in order to establish a sufficiently early date for the proclamation of the resurrection. But if the majority of mainstream historical scholars, including a substantial number of skeptics and unbelievers, are willing to concede that the creed contains persuasive evidence that the church was proclaiming the resurrection within only a few years of the event, why not bring this to the attention of a doubter? This is particularly important in a culture populated by a generation that has been jaded by the radical claims of the Jesus Seminar.
Blessings,
Arnie Gentile
Reply to this
As I read Galatians, Paul seems adamant that everything he knew he learned by direct revelation from Christ.
Reply to this
Thanks for participating in this conversation, Vinny. I really appreciate your high view of the Word of God. I leave you with a couple of thoughts. Keep in mind that our pupose from the beginning was to assume that the Bible was simply a piece of ancient literature, neither inspired nor inerrant. Then, we examined the facts that virtually all scholars agree upon regarding this literature, even those who are atheists. We concluded that these facts lead us to the resurrection.
Now I believe that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Even so, I would not agree that everything that Paul knew, he learned from direct revelation. In Galatians, Paul asserts that the gospel he preached he had "received through revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:12b). What were the contents of this gospel? Paul tells us in Acts 26:14-18. It is the gospel he is to preach to the Gentiles. This would likely be the revelation that Paul is talking about in Galatians. There is nothing in Scripture or Church history that would lead us to believe that Paul did not also learn things about the Church and the faith from other people. In fact, in Galatians 2:1-10, Paul tells us in some detail the story about just such a fact finding mission. He wanted to confirm that the revelation he had received was valid, and he sought authoritative counsel to do so. Scholars argue that there is reason to believe that the visit described in Galatians 1:18-24 was similar in its aim.
Finally, as a committed teacher and church planter, Paul would likely have memorized all of the creeds of the infant Church regardless of what he already had come to know by direct revelation. These creeds contained the core truths of the faith and would have formed a large part of the oral tradition of the Church at that time. In fact, this is not he only time Paul recites one in his letters (e,g., 1 Tim 3:16 and Phil 2:5-10). That one learns a creed from another source does not negate that he had previously recieved the message (or some portion of it) by revelation. The moment I became a Christian, God did not also dump all that I now know about theology and church history into my head. I learned these things from other sources. This in no way negates the immediate awareness I had of my Savior, my salvation, and God's call on my life the moment I was saved. Now I am no Apostle Paul, but I believe that the analogy is valid.
Nonetheless, Vinny, we can agree to disagree about this. I really appreciate your questions. I hope you will continue to follow my blog and feel free continue to ask questions. Many blessings on you and your family this Christmas.
Arnie
Reply to this