There are few Apologetics that have any meat on them. Most can be easily dismissed. One I rarely hear about is the Pre-Pauline Creed. The purpose seems to be to validate belief in an earthly Jesus and the Resurrection as an historical event by establishing that a creed was referred to by Paul going back to shortly after the Resurrection. I'm going to look at it and see for myself whether or not the Pre-Pauline Creed is a strong argument, or not. For me, it doesn't ultimately matter whether or not there was an early creed because all it could show is an early belief in the Resurrection, and not testify as to the truth behind those beliefs. However, I am curious as to what validity the creed has as part of an argument.
The Background
It is acknowledged that Paul wrote I Corinthians, which includes chapter 15, from which a Pre-Pauline Creed is extracted. I have only recently heard about this and while it has the feel of falseness like Isaiah 7:14, it's been around awhile.
To start out with our argument, let's look at the different possibilities. It is surmised by apologists that even if the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, that Paul was due to his vision of Jesus. For some, it is the claims by this one man in his writings that serves as the backbone for belief in the Resurrection more than the Gospel accounts themselves. This is big stuff, so let's roll our sleeves up and get to work.
Let's start out with a series of question related to Paul and I Corinthians itself before looking at I Corinthians 15.
1. Did Paul see Jesus? Could it not have been an evil demon instead? How could he know the difference?
2. Could the Vision of Jesus be an hallucination (mistake)? He could fully believe in the reality of Jesus in a vision without it being a reality.
3. Could the Vision of Jesus be a lie? Is it reasonable to leave open the possibility that he made it up to give authority to his letters?
Given just these three possibilities, I find it interesting how Christians accept what Paul wrote blindly, and with no sense of skepticism tempering their judgment.
Corinthians
This was a letter from Paul to the Christian church in Corinth (about 53-57 AD). The oldest copies of pieces of the letter date back to about 200 AD. There are a few verses in it that are likely later additions (interpolations). It's generally divided thematically into seven parts. The first deals with Paul establishing his own authority to speak on church matters, including claiming that God named him an Apostle. The second part is a thanksgiving for good health. The third part deals with the divisions in the Corinth church and how Paul explains how to fix them. The fourth part deals with reports of immorality in the Corinth church and how those concerns should be addressed. The fifth deals with various social issues and how those should be handled. Finally, in the sixth section, chapter 15 establishes a Doctrine of Resurrection, before the last section (chapter 16), some closing remarks.
The earliest papyrus that contains any of Corinthians is P46, dated about 200 AD, and included the 2nd and 3rd chapters. P15 is dated about 250 AD and contains chapters 7-8. P129 is dated about the same time and contains pieces of several other chapters, up to chapter 9. Finally, in P123, dated about 350 AD, chapter 15 shows up (verses 3-6).
The Creed
Let's look at that first occurrence in 350 AD, the first evidence of a creed. But a creed isn't evidence, it's a faith statement of what people believed. What is a creed used for? It's used to clarify a position; to separate what is orthodoxy from what is not. They come after a tradition is well-enough established that branching has begun and clarity is required to clear up what is correct (orthodoxy) and incorrect. This fits well into the purpose of Pauls letters. He's settling questions and differences, and in this context, a creed establishes the "correct" view. Find out what groups the creed is isolating and you find the purpose of the creed. I think it's a mistake to assume it was already long-established prior to Pauls letters. It could be the letters themselves were establishing it.That'll come in time. First, the first-discovered verses.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
It should be noted that 350 AD is a conspicuous date. It comes after Eusebius (who is often attributed as advocating the telling of lies for the greater good of bringing people to Christ). The insertion of the 'Testimonium Flavium' into Josephus work (Antiquities of the Jews) has often been attributed to Eusebius himself, and this should give pause to those considering the authenticity of Chapter 15 in Corinthians. However, let's leave that in our back pocket at this time and break down what those four verses say.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
Verse 3 starts with something that would not at all be advocated by church father Marcion. He would not agree with a teacher-student relationship regarding the passing on of information, and this is hinted at in this verse. However, who did he receive the information from? What if it's from other believers? Would this just be but hearsay passed on by Paul? A stronger indication of interpolation lies in the reference of "according to scriptures". What scriptures? What came earlier? Scriptures indicate something something already established as orthodoxy. This was supposedly written about 53 AD at the earliest. But even if he did happen to meet with Peter and James (on the supposition they gave it to him)? Where did they get it? "Christ died for your sins" is not an observed historical account, it's a faith statement.
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Verse 4 starts with "buried". Buried how? It was Roman practice to keep people up for extended periods of time. The purpose was more than just condemning a person to death. It was to humiliate and show the power of Rome on display as a spectacle, and serve as a lessen to all who had desires against her rule. When the corpses had been up long enough for that purpose (several days), they were taken down and thrown in an unmarked public grave. There was no burial. There were no tombs. They wouldn't allow them.
There is a second reference to "the third day according to the scriptures". Surely this is not midrash of Jonah 1:17 is it? When were the first accounts of this? The earliest Gospel was Mark, which is dated 65-70 AD. So, it could be that Corinthian was written about 53 AD, but if so these verses in chapter 15 have the marks of later interpolation.
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
Verse 5 is another giveaway. 'Cephas' is a figure that is never mentioned in the Synoptics, and outside of Pauls letters in fact is mentioned only a single time; in John 1:42. John was written no earlier than 90 AD and could be as late as 125 AD. However, Corinthians mentions him in four different places, and then again in Galatians. This is strong evidence that Chapter 15 was not in the earlier versions of Corinthians, and is likely not to have existed prior to the turn of the century, as it was probably inserted very shortly after John was written and had become disseminated enough that Cephas' mention would not elicit questions.
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
Verse 6 introduces the "five hundred". I say introduces because none of the Gospels (including John) mention anything about a "five hundred". Wherever he got this information, it wasn't from the Gospels. What is interesting, though, is what follows: "remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep". This seems to suggest that the author was purposely grounding the timing of this so that it should be seen more or less current to the events harkened back to.
Mark did not have a post-Resurrection of Jesus in the earlier versions and did not have the Ascension (nor does Matthew). In fact, the only Gospel that does is Luke (24:50-53), and his account is not to a multitude of "five hundred", but only of the eleven remaining disciples. The reference to the "five hundred" is much like that of "the twelve". Both relate to a tradition established in the past and understood by the listeners as such. So, either Corinthians was written at least after Mark and Matthew or else chapter 15 is a later interpolation.
More interestingly, though, verses 42-44 in the same chapter: "The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable … it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body". This verse seems to support WL Craig's belief that Jesus Resurrection was not of a physical body, but a spiritual one. But the bigger point is that as a Docetic view of Jesus, it would have been seen as strongly heretical by the First Council of Nicea and contradicts Luke's view of Jesus as resurrected physically (Luke 24:39). There appears to be a conflicting view of Jesus that played itself out in the early writings.
Conclusion
My conclusion is that it is likely that the entirety of chapter 15 was written after the Gospel of John was, and perhaps much later. Eusebius inserted commentary in his writings that he made up (ie, lied about), to back up his stories (like Philo knowing Peter, for instance), so it could be from this school of thinking that it grew. There are giveaways to indicate that it was not written in the time it portrays, but rather derives from a later tradition.
However, given all of this, take a step back and consider what lies at the center of this apologetic.It is based on an interpretation of something that may or may not have existed as part of the original document (the end of Mark is a good example of a later interpolation), but that is accepted at face value by modern scholars and believers as part of the original document. Further, this document is taken at face value although no extrabiblical contemporary corroborative sources exist for it. So, while there are no other contemporary texts to back up this claim, the claim is made and insisted upon as accurate and true. The only text backing up the scripture is the writing of the scripture itself. In any other area of human thought this would not be considered a reliable means of validating the truth of claims.
I want to make this point clear. I am not saying that Corinthians as a whole was written later. I am saying that at the least chapter 15 was. All signs point to a later writing. It had to have been added at least after Mark and Matthew, and likely after Luke and John. As a result, the apologist has to either admit that the creed is a later interpolation or that Corinthians as a whole was written later.
The Background
It is acknowledged that Paul wrote I Corinthians, which includes chapter 15, from which a Pre-Pauline Creed is extracted. I have only recently heard about this and while it has the feel of falseness like Isaiah 7:14, it's been around awhile.
To start out with our argument, let's look at the different possibilities. It is surmised by apologists that even if the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, that Paul was due to his vision of Jesus. For some, it is the claims by this one man in his writings that serves as the backbone for belief in the Resurrection more than the Gospel accounts themselves. This is big stuff, so let's roll our sleeves up and get to work.
Let's start out with a series of question related to Paul and I Corinthians itself before looking at I Corinthians 15.
1. Did Paul see Jesus? Could it not have been an evil demon instead? How could he know the difference?
2. Could the Vision of Jesus be an hallucination (mistake)? He could fully believe in the reality of Jesus in a vision without it being a reality.
3. Could the Vision of Jesus be a lie? Is it reasonable to leave open the possibility that he made it up to give authority to his letters?
Given just these three possibilities, I find it interesting how Christians accept what Paul wrote blindly, and with no sense of skepticism tempering their judgment.
Corinthians
This was a letter from Paul to the Christian church in Corinth (about 53-57 AD). The oldest copies of pieces of the letter date back to about 200 AD. There are a few verses in it that are likely later additions (interpolations). It's generally divided thematically into seven parts. The first deals with Paul establishing his own authority to speak on church matters, including claiming that God named him an Apostle. The second part is a thanksgiving for good health. The third part deals with the divisions in the Corinth church and how Paul explains how to fix them. The fourth part deals with reports of immorality in the Corinth church and how those concerns should be addressed. The fifth deals with various social issues and how those should be handled. Finally, in the sixth section, chapter 15 establishes a Doctrine of Resurrection, before the last section (chapter 16), some closing remarks.
The earliest papyrus that contains any of Corinthians is P46, dated about 200 AD, and included the 2nd and 3rd chapters. P15 is dated about 250 AD and contains chapters 7-8. P129 is dated about the same time and contains pieces of several other chapters, up to chapter 9. Finally, in P123, dated about 350 AD, chapter 15 shows up (verses 3-6).
The Creed
Let's look at that first occurrence in 350 AD, the first evidence of a creed. But a creed isn't evidence, it's a faith statement of what people believed. What is a creed used for? It's used to clarify a position; to separate what is orthodoxy from what is not. They come after a tradition is well-enough established that branching has begun and clarity is required to clear up what is correct (orthodoxy) and incorrect. This fits well into the purpose of Pauls letters. He's settling questions and differences, and in this context, a creed establishes the "correct" view. Find out what groups the creed is isolating and you find the purpose of the creed. I think it's a mistake to assume it was already long-established prior to Pauls letters. It could be the letters themselves were establishing it.That'll come in time. First, the first-discovered verses.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
It should be noted that 350 AD is a conspicuous date. It comes after Eusebius (who is often attributed as advocating the telling of lies for the greater good of bringing people to Christ). The insertion of the 'Testimonium Flavium' into Josephus work (Antiquities of the Jews) has often been attributed to Eusebius himself, and this should give pause to those considering the authenticity of Chapter 15 in Corinthians. However, let's leave that in our back pocket at this time and break down what those four verses say.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
Verse 3 starts with something that would not at all be advocated by church father Marcion. He would not agree with a teacher-student relationship regarding the passing on of information, and this is hinted at in this verse. However, who did he receive the information from? What if it's from other believers? Would this just be but hearsay passed on by Paul? A stronger indication of interpolation lies in the reference of "according to scriptures". What scriptures? What came earlier? Scriptures indicate something something already established as orthodoxy. This was supposedly written about 53 AD at the earliest. But even if he did happen to meet with Peter and James (on the supposition they gave it to him)? Where did they get it? "Christ died for your sins" is not an observed historical account, it's a faith statement.
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Verse 4 starts with "buried". Buried how? It was Roman practice to keep people up for extended periods of time. The purpose was more than just condemning a person to death. It was to humiliate and show the power of Rome on display as a spectacle, and serve as a lessen to all who had desires against her rule. When the corpses had been up long enough for that purpose (several days), they were taken down and thrown in an unmarked public grave. There was no burial. There were no tombs. They wouldn't allow them.
There is a second reference to "the third day according to the scriptures". Surely this is not midrash of Jonah 1:17 is it? When were the first accounts of this? The earliest Gospel was Mark, which is dated 65-70 AD. So, it could be that Corinthian was written about 53 AD, but if so these verses in chapter 15 have the marks of later interpolation.
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
Verse 5 is another giveaway. 'Cephas' is a figure that is never mentioned in the Synoptics, and outside of Pauls letters in fact is mentioned only a single time; in John 1:42. John was written no earlier than 90 AD and could be as late as 125 AD. However, Corinthians mentions him in four different places, and then again in Galatians. This is strong evidence that Chapter 15 was not in the earlier versions of Corinthians, and is likely not to have existed prior to the turn of the century, as it was probably inserted very shortly after John was written and had become disseminated enough that Cephas' mention would not elicit questions.
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
Verse 6 introduces the "five hundred". I say introduces because none of the Gospels (including John) mention anything about a "five hundred". Wherever he got this information, it wasn't from the Gospels. What is interesting, though, is what follows: "remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep". This seems to suggest that the author was purposely grounding the timing of this so that it should be seen more or less current to the events harkened back to.
Mark did not have a post-Resurrection of Jesus in the earlier versions and did not have the Ascension (nor does Matthew). In fact, the only Gospel that does is Luke (24:50-53), and his account is not to a multitude of "five hundred", but only of the eleven remaining disciples. The reference to the "five hundred" is much like that of "the twelve". Both relate to a tradition established in the past and understood by the listeners as such. So, either Corinthians was written at least after Mark and Matthew or else chapter 15 is a later interpolation.
More interestingly, though, verses 42-44 in the same chapter: "The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable … it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body". This verse seems to support WL Craig's belief that Jesus Resurrection was not of a physical body, but a spiritual one. But the bigger point is that as a Docetic view of Jesus, it would have been seen as strongly heretical by the First Council of Nicea and contradicts Luke's view of Jesus as resurrected physically (Luke 24:39). There appears to be a conflicting view of Jesus that played itself out in the early writings.
Conclusion
My conclusion is that it is likely that the entirety of chapter 15 was written after the Gospel of John was, and perhaps much later. Eusebius inserted commentary in his writings that he made up (ie, lied about), to back up his stories (like Philo knowing Peter, for instance), so it could be from this school of thinking that it grew. There are giveaways to indicate that it was not written in the time it portrays, but rather derives from a later tradition.
However, given all of this, take a step back and consider what lies at the center of this apologetic.It is based on an interpretation of something that may or may not have existed as part of the original document (the end of Mark is a good example of a later interpolation), but that is accepted at face value by modern scholars and believers as part of the original document. Further, this document is taken at face value although no extrabiblical contemporary corroborative sources exist for it. So, while there are no other contemporary texts to back up this claim, the claim is made and insisted upon as accurate and true. The only text backing up the scripture is the writing of the scripture itself. In any other area of human thought this would not be considered a reliable means of validating the truth of claims.
I want to make this point clear. I am not saying that Corinthians as a whole was written later. I am saying that at the least chapter 15 was. All signs point to a later writing. It had to have been added at least after Mark and Matthew, and likely after Luke and John. As a result, the apologist has to either admit that the creed is a later interpolation or that Corinthians as a whole was written later.
Comments