- It is widely accepted that 1 Cor. 15:3-7 is not Paul’s original composition written in c. 54/55 CE, but a transmission of an earlier Christian creed perhaps formulated as early as 10-15 years after the events, which is why it is considered very significant for historical purposes. Only verse 8 onwards is Paul’s addition to the creed. While vv. 3-7 do not explicitly include mention of an empty tomb, several scholars (N. T. Wright, Michael Licona, Richard Hays, Robert Gundry, among others; see Licona 2010:334) have argued that it is tacitly assumed, especially with the mention of Christ’s burial; the claim of resurrection would not have made sense to the Corinthian audience with a dead body still in the tomb. An example of such an argument is in J. G. Cook (2016), “Resurrection in Paganism and the Question of an Empty Tomb in 1 Corinthians 15”, where (among other things) he argues that Jews and pagans at the time conceived of the resurrection as bodily and that a semantic analysis suggests that the verb ἐγείρω (v. 4) in relation to resurrection implies a physical movement upwards, which would not make sense without an empty tomb. Remember that Paul here is trying to convince skeptical people that bodily resurrection is possible; trying to redefine the common understanding of “resurrection” into a purely spiritual event would not be a convincing argument.
So if you believe the appearance/vision to Paul happened after Jesus was believed to have gone to heaven then that means the sequence “buried, raised (ἐγείρω), appeared” does not necessarily denote physical interactions with a revived corpse on the earth.
This is simply conflating Paul’s “belief in the resurrection” with the “resurrection appearances” when those aren’t the same thing. Even if the earliest Christians believed in a physical resurrection, it does not therefore follow that “they really saw Jesus alive again.” Notice how the belief in a physical resurrection is just a belief, not an empirical observation because no one actually witnessed the resurrection itself. Rather, these people are only said to have experienced post-resurrection appearances, the nature of which is the exact point of contention. Apologists who use the red herring of appealing to the physical resurrection are making the further assumption that the physical resurrection necessarily entailed Jesus remained on the earth in order to be physically seen and touched like the later gospels describe. This doesn’t follow and it is a separate claim not actually found in Paul’s letters, the earliest evidence. As I stated in the OP, the earliest belief seems to be that Jesus went straight to heaven simultaneous with or immediately after the resurrection (regardless if it was physical/spiritual), leaving no room for any physical/earthly interactions. Thus, all of the “appearances” mentioned in 1 Cor 15:5-8 were originally understood to be of the already Exalted Lord in heaven and the gospel portrayals of a physical/earthly Jesus are necessarily false. Or at least that scenario seems equally likely from a reading of the Pauline material.
- It is significant that the creed in 1 Cor. 15:3-7 has a limited, clearly defined list of claimed eyewitnesses, which gives the appearances a historical character, rather than a mechanical one. If early Christians readily accepted any vague vision as evidence of the Resurrection, then we would expect Paul (or the creed) to appeal to a greater number and variety of eyewitnesses, including those among the Corinthians themselves.
Not necessarily. Paul alludes to other “false apostles” and those who “preach another gospel” elsewhere in his letters so he would be motivated to limit the list and seal it with a “last of all” comment in order to exclude what he considered false witnesses.
- That Paul adds his own personal experience to this creed (v. 8) does not prove much one way or the other regarding the nature of the resurrection appearances in vv. 3-7.
The phrasing “Jesus appeared (ὤφθη) to them and (ὤφθη) to me last” is more expected under the hypothesis they were understood to all be the same type. He makes no distinction and so we do not have a reason, given the text or elsewhere in Paul’s letters, to assume they were different in nature.
Jesus’ appearance to Paul occurs after his ascension, which would be a sufficient explanation for why it was more “heavenly” compared to the earlier appearances in the original creed.
You do not get a separate and distinct ascension until Luke/Acts. That’s not in Paul’s letters. He makes no distinction between pre or post ascension appearances. 1 Cor 15 can equally be read as referring to all the appearances happening after Jesus went to heaven.
Furthermore, it makes rhetorical sense for Paul to put it in there even if his experience is not quite at the same level of physicality as the others, because he wants to establish his credential as an apostle (a requirement of which was to be a witness of the resurrection - Acts 1:22) and his authority to instruct the Corinthians in serious doctrinal matters like bodily resurrection (the subject of 1 Cor. 15).
This sounds to me like you’re just trying to avoid the fact that Paul places a “vision” in the list of appearances. If Paul can use a “vision” as a “resurrection appearance” then it follows that “visions” could have been used by the other apostles as “resurrection appearances.”
- The argument is made that from Acts 26:19 we learn that the appearance to Paul was only a heavenly vision, without physical characteristics. However, it seems cherry-picking to believe Luke-Acts when he’s talking about the “heavenly” appearance to Paul but discount his accounts of other post-resurrection appearances which are clearly very bodily.
I don’t really need Acts. If you just had Gal. 1:16 “God revealed His Son in me” and 1 Cor 15:8 “Jesus appeared ὤφθη” then that is obviously not sufficient to claim these experiences were veridical. The verb ὤφθη did not necessarily indicate the physical appearance of a person and the word for “revealed” (apocalypse) was used to refer to “visionary disclosures.”
The only way one can argue this is if one has strong textual evidence that Luke-Acts was embellished over decades from containing only visions to also including bodily appearances, but you did not offer any such evidence.
I certainly did in my OP. Just compare Luke/Acts to Paul, Mark and Matthew. Do the earlier accounts mention the disciples being invited to inspect Jesus’ body, watch him eat fish, or ascend to heaven? Nope, those amazing details are only found in Luke/Acts.
- The reference to 2 Cor. 12:1 does not make sense. This passage is describing a heavenly vision which Paul had many years after his conversion, not his experience on the road to Damascus which led to his conversion.
If a person is a self admitted visionary are you more likely or less likely to believe what they say? How would a modern courtroom treat such testimony?
- The reference to Phil. 2:8-9 also doesn’t make sense. This is part of the Philippians “Christ hymn” (vv. 6-11), and if you pause to consider the theological content of the hymn, is purpose is not apologetic (trying to prove the Resurrection to skeptics) but to highlight Jesus’ divinity, act of humility in dying on the cross, and subsequent glorification. It’s similar to how not all Christian hymns today which mention Jesus’ glorification also mention the empty tomb. Therefore, it does not say much about the nature of the resurrection appearances. Wright (2003:227-228) argues that here Paul was trying to craft a poem which compared Jesus to the Roman emperor, and focusing on the resurrection would be out of place.
Some scholars see the hymn as pre-Pauline and it makes no distinction between resurrection/exaltation. It just goes from his death to exaltation without mentioning the resurrection. This would imply that Jesus was understood to have gone straight to heaven.