1 Cor 15 as evidence for historical Jesus

[_richardMdBorn]

The thread on the historical Jesus has gotten off topic so I am starting threads on specific texts.
Take for evidence Gary Habermas’s comments in his debate with Anthony Flew in Did Jesus Rise From the Dead:

This is especially based, for instance, on I Cor 15:3ff. where virtually all scholars agree that Paul recorded an ancient creed concerning Jesus’ death and Resurrection That this material is traditional and pre-Pauline is evident from the technical terms delivered and received, the parallelism and somewhat stylized content, the proper names of Cephas and James, the non-Pauline words and the possibility of an Aramaic original.

Concerning the date of this creed, critical scholars almost always agree that it is of very early origin, usually placing it in the A.D. 30s.

p. 23

Thus, this creed would date within a decade of Jesus' death. I assert that's strong evidence for a historical Jesus.

[_GoodK]

The thread on the historical Jesus has gotten off topic so I am starting threads on specific texts.
Take for evidence Gary Habermas’s comments in his debate with Anthony Flew in Did Jesus Rise From the Dead:

This is especially based, for instance, on I Cor 15:3ff. where virtually all scholars agree that Paul recorded an ancient creed concerning Jesus’ death and Resurrection That this material is traditional and pre-Pauline is evident from the technical terms delivered and received, the parallelism and somewhat stylized content, the proper names of Cephas and James, the non-Pauline words and the possibility of an Aramaic original.

Concerning the date of this creed, critical scholars almost always agree that it is of very early origin, usually placing it in the A.D. 30s.

p. 23

Thus, this creed would date within a decade of Jesus' death. I assert that's strong evidence for a historical Jesus.

This is evidence??? Strong evidence?

For what exactly? This is the testimony of an unknown author... FYI.

[_The Nehor]

The thread on the historical Jesus has gotten off topic so I am starting threads on specific texts.
Take for evidence Gary Habermas’s comments in his debate with Anthony Flew in Did Jesus Rise From the Dead:

This is especially based, for instance, on I Cor 15:3ff. where virtually all scholars agree that Paul recorded an ancient creed concerning Jesus’ death and Resurrection That this material is traditional and pre-Pauline is evident from the technical terms delivered and received, the parallelism and somewhat stylized content, the proper names of Cephas and James, the non-Pauline words and the possibility of an Aramaic original.

Concerning the date of this creed, critical scholars almost always agree that it is of very early origin, usually placing it in the A.D. 30s.

p. 23

Thus, this creed would date within a decade of Jesus' death. I assert that's strong evidence for a historical Jesus.

This is evidence??? Strong evidence?

For what exactly? This is the testimony of an unknown author... FYI.

Evidence suggests it comes from the 30s A.D. Why would it matter who wrote it? If it was signed Timothy or Jonas or Simon or Fronzel Neekburm would that somehow make it credible?

[_TAK]

The thread on the historical Jesus has gotten off topic so I am starting threads on specific texts.
Take for evidence Gary Habermas’s comments in his debate with Anthony Flew in Did Jesus Rise From the Dead:

This is especially based, for instance, on I Cor 15:3ff. where virtually all scholars agree that Paul recorded an ancient creed concerning Jesus’ death and Resurrection That this material is traditional and pre-Pauline is evident from the technical terms delivered and received, the parallelism and somewhat stylized content, the proper names of Cephas and James, the non-Pauline words and the possibility of an Aramaic original.

Concerning the date of this creed, critical scholars almost always agree that it is of very early origin, usually placing it in the A.D. 30s.

p. 23

Thus, this creed would date within a decade of Jesus' death. I assert that's strong evidence for a historical Jesus.

How was this determined to be within 10 years of the death ?

[_GoodK]

The thread on the historical Jesus has gotten off topic so I am starting threads on specific texts.
Take for evidence Gary Habermas’s comments in his debate with Anthony Flew in Did Jesus Rise From the Dead:

This is especially based, for instance, on I Cor 15:3ff. where virtually all scholars agree that Paul recorded an ancient creed concerning Jesus’ death and Resurrection That this material is traditional and pre-Pauline is evident from the technical terms delivered and received, the parallelism and somewhat stylized content, the proper names of Cephas and James, the non-Pauline words and the possibility of an Aramaic original.

Concerning the date of this creed, critical scholars almost always agree that it is of very early origin, usually placing it in the A.D. 30s.

p. 23

Thus, this creed would date within a decade of Jesus' death. I assert that's strong evidence for a historical Jesus.

This is evidence??? Strong evidence?

For what exactly? This is the testimony of an unknown author... FYI.

Evidence suggests it comes from the 30s A.D. Why would it matter who wrote it? If it was signed Timothy or Jonas or Simon or Fronzel Neekburm would that somehow make it credible?

Why would it matter who wrote it?

Um... Ok... I guess it doesn't matter who wrote the Bible. As long as the words are there... that's all that matters.

If someone who had never met Jesus wrote a testimonial about how Jesus was crucified and resurrected, don't you think it would be important to know that the person knew or didn't know what they were talking about?

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello richard,

I like that you're piecing this out! Here is the quote that you supplied:

This is especially based, for instance, on I Cor 15:3ff. where virtually all scholars agree that Paul recorded an ancient creed concerning Jesus’ death and Resurrection That this material is traditional and pre-Pauline is evident from the technical terms delivered and received, the parallelism and somewhat stylized content, the proper names of Cephas and James, the non-Pauline words and the possibility of an Aramaic original.

Concerning the date of this creed, critical scholars almost always agree that it is of very early origin, usually placing it in the A.D. 30s.

The only problem with the above, richard, is that there would need to be some sort of evidence of the ancient creed itself and I don't see that there is one though the comment above is very brief.

Note this in the the last line of the commentary: "the proper names of Cephas and James, the non-Pauline words and [b]the possibility of an Aramaic original." [b]

That's like saying there is a possiblity of a Q gospel. There is no evidence of Q and there is no evidence of an Aramaic original.

Possibilities, yes. Proof? No.

[_richardMdBorn]

The thread on the historical Jesus has gotten off topic so I am starting threads on specific texts.
Take for evidence Gary Habermas’s comments in his debate with Anthony Flew in Did Jesus Rise From the Dead:

This is especially based, for instance, on I Cor 15:3ff. where virtually all scholars agree that Paul recorded an ancient creed concerning Jesus’ death and Resurrection That this material is traditional and pre-Pauline is evident from the technical terms delivered and received, the parallelism and somewhat stylized content, the proper names of Cephas and James, the non-Pauline words and the possibility of an Aramaic original.

Concerning the date of this creed, critical scholars almost always agree that it is of very early origin, usually placing it in the A.D. 30s.

p. 23

Thus, this creed would date within a decade of Jesus' death. I assert that's strong evidence for a historical Jesus.

This is evidence??? Strong evidence?

For what exactly? This is the testimony of an unknown author... FYI.

Who do mean by unknown author? The writer of I Cor? There's no controversy as far as I know about the authorship of I Cor.

The text is

3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.


Perhaps Nevo could comment about current scholarship with regard to this text since I defer to his greater knowledge.

See also the following from William Lane Craig:

In order to answer this question, we need to look first at one of the oldest traditions contained in the New Testament concerning the resurrection. In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (AD 56-57) he cites what is apparently an old Christian formula (1 Cor 15. 3b-5), as is evident from the non-Pauline and Semitic characteristics it contains.{4} The fact that the formula recounts, according to Paul, the content of the earliest apostolic preaching (I Cor 15. 11), a fact confirmed by its concordance with the sermons reproduced by Luke in Acts,{5} strongly suggests that the formula originated in the Jerusalem church. We know from Paul's own hand that three years after his conversion (AD 33-35) at Damascus, he visited Jerusalem, where he met personally Peter and James (Gal 1. 18-19). He probably received the formula in Damascus, perhaps in Christian catechesis; it is doubtful that he received it later than his Jerusalem visit, for it is improbable that he should have replaced with a formula personal information from the lips of Peter and James themselves.{6} The formula is therefore probably quite old, reaching back to within the first five years after Jesus' crucifixion.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/tomb2.html

[_Nevo]

Perhaps Nevo could comment about current scholarship with regard to this text since I defer to his greater knowledge.

Thanks Richard, but I'm afraid I can't claim any great knowledge of this text. But I did manage to track down a few more sources for you.

The German New Testament scholar Hans Conzelmann wrote in a 1966 article that "nobody can seriously deny today that in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 we find a formula belonging to the tradition of the primitive church." He cited in support the following authorities:

A. Seeberg, Der Katechismus der UrChristenheit, 1903, pp. 48 ff.; Α. ν. Harnack, SAB, phil.-hist. Kl., 1922, pp. 62 ff.; W. G. Kümmel, Kirchenbegriff und Geschichtsbewusstsein in der Ur gemeinde und bei Jesus, 1943; E. Lichtenstein, "Die älteste christliche Glaubensformel," ZKG 63, 1950/51, pp. 1 ff. E. Bammel, ThZ 11, 1955, pp. 401 ff.; E. L. Allen, NTS 3, 1956/57, pp. 349 ff.; P. Winter, NovTest 2, 1957/58, pp. 142 ff.; J. Manek, NovTest 2, 1957/ 58, pp. 276 ff.; H. v. Campenhausen, Der Ablauf der Osterereignisse und das leere Grab, SAH phil.-hist. Kl., 15 (2nd ed.), 1928, pp. 8 ff.; Κ. H. Rengstorf, Die Auferstehung Jesu, 1960, pp. 128 ff.; G. Klein, Die zwölf Apostel, 1961, pp. 38 ff.; H. W. Boers, The Diversity of New Testament Christological Concepts and the Confession of Faith, Diss, Bonn 1962, pp. 107 ff.; H. Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, 2nd ed., 1962, pp. 94 ff. 297 f.; F. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, 1963, pp. 197 ff.; U. Wilckens, Der Ursprung der Überlieferung der Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen, in: Dogma und Denkstrukturen, edited by W. Joest and W. Pannenberg, 1963, pp. 56 ff.

(See Hans Conzelmann, "On the Analysis of the Confessional Formula in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5," Interpretation 20 [1966]: 18n17.)

Conzelmann summarized the evidence for the formula in his commentary on 1 Corinthians:

The fact that vv 3–8 contain a formula which Paul has taken over from the church tradition is proved not only by his own explicit statement, but also by an analysis. The following are indications: similar formulations in other, non-Pauline passages; the style, particularly the non-Pauline linguistic usage; the content, which goes beyond the immediate occasion (proof of the resurrection of the dead) and is self-sufficient. Opinions differ as to the extent of the quoted text. Linguistic considerations indicate that it extends as far as v 5. For in v 6 the grammatical construction begins anew. . . .

The language shows peculiarities in comparison with Paul’s usage elsewhere: ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, ὤφθη, ἐγήγερται. Since there are echoes of the LXX, the formula originated in a Greek-speaking, Jewish-Christian community. More than this we cannot say. [Joachim] Jeremias, on the ground of Semitic coloring in the language, assumes a Semitic source. But the form we now have before us is at all events a thoroughly Greek composition.

-- Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. J. W. Leitch (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 251.

A more recent commentator writes:

The formulaic introduction to the credal formula, "I delivered to you what I also received" (15:3), suggests--and its non-Pauline vocabulary confirms--that the creed of 15:3b-5 is a traditional formulation. Some scholars, especially Philipp Vielhauer and Hans Conzelmann, have argued that the confessional formula arose in Hellenistic Christian circles, but most scholars (e.g., Joachim Jeremias, John Kloppenborg) are convinced that it originated in a Palestinian context. Every element of the confession derives its meaning from Jewish apocalyptic thought: Christ, sins, scripture, resurrection, and the symbolic "Twelve" (v. 5). An anarthrous "Christ," the Aramaic "Cephas" (v. 5), and the parallelismus membrorum point to its Palestinian origins. The formulation of the creed may have been modified in the Hellenistic church. The expressions "according to the scriptures" and "appeared" and the Septuagintal allusions suggest a final Hellenistic form.

-- Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians (SP; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999), 531; cf. John S. Kloppenborg, "An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula 1 Corinthians 15:3b-5 In Light of Some Recent Literature," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40, no. 3 (1978): 351-367.

As far as I can tell, scholars are pretty much unanimous in agreeing that the formula is pre-Pauline--and therefore dates to the early to mid-30s.

[_TAK]

Nevo:

As far as I can tell, scholars are pretty much unanimous in agreeing that the formula is pre-Pauline--and therefore dates to the early to mid-30s.

I am still not fully understanding why this creed is so certain to be within 10 Years of Christ's presumed death..

Regardless I don’t think its unanimous in what it all means..

http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html

[_GoodK]

So we are sure that Paul wrote this?