I was reading this article the other day which touches on how Paul appears to use a creedal form in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
The writer argues that the words here are not original to Paul but rather are evidence of Paul citing an early type of creed. An agreed, liturgical form of words affirming shared faith. The writer goes on to suggest that this means that we have here a piece of text, separate to quotations from the Old Testament and other documents preceding Christ, formed after Jesus’ death and resurrection but older than the new testament documents themselves.
The basis for the argument is as follows:
- The “What I received I passed on” formula
- The poetic rhythm of the statements suggesting this was intended to be said aloud and memorised.
- Examples of vocabulary unique here and absent in Paul’s other writings.
He goes to argue that this is strong evidence of the facts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection because here we have earlier records showing that people around about the time of Jesus believed in the historicity of the events. This deals with the argument that the accounts we have of Christ are based on a myth or legend.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure that this is the convincing, slam dunk argument that the author seems to think it is. Let me explain why. Of course, it is worth statement at the outset that I write as someone who firmly believes in the historical reliability of the Gospel and the physical death, resurrection an ascension of Jesus. I write as a professing Christian not as a sceptic.
I also am happy to accept the possibility that there are several examples of potential creedal statements, songs and early liturgy being quoted, especially in Paul’s letters. However, whilst the reasoning made certainly opens up the possibility that this is one such example, it is not definitive.
You see, whilst there is unique vocabulary, here, the same arguments have been employed to try and undermine confidence in Paul’s authorship of a number of his letters. We tend to argue, correctly in such cases that variation in style, syntax and vocabulary does not mean that you have a different author, it simply may mean that the author was able to adapt his writing to context and purpose. Similarly, Paul could well have used a poetic structure for rhetorical affect. A particular note of caution here is that the citation cuts off at verse 7 whereas the rhetoric continues into verse 8 where Paul includes himself in the list of witnesses.
Furthermore, whilst Paul states that this is what he has received, this is in effect his gospel and elsewhere he is keen to emphasise that he received the Gospel directly from Jesus himself. It seems strange then for Paul to argue here that he received the content of the Gospel as a creed which would suggest that he had been catechised by others. It is still possible that he uses an existing creedal form of words to communicate the revelation he received but this reduces the weight we should place on “what I received….”
Now, whether or not this was a creed that was circulating, this does not mean that the words are older than the New Testament. You see, whilst there is a tendency among some scholars to view the dating of the Gospels and Epistles as late and in those cases scholars are interested to identify the early source material, including such creedal statements, there isn’t really good reason to take that view and so, nor can we assume that these creeds, if they did exist were early that the Gospels and Epistles. The assumption is that Galatians and James would both have been written before 1 Corinthians and it is possible too that Mark’s Gospel was circulating by the 50s. These creedal statements may predate those also but could have been developed around about the same time.
Furthermore, the structuring of statements around a liturgical formula distances the words from the events. Such statements are less likely to flow off the lips of eyewitnesses and more likely to be developed in church contexts as a way of passing on beliefs to a next generation. So, I’m not convinced that on their own they are necessarily the guide I would go to in order to understand what the earliest believers thought. In fact, I would argue that the Gospel accounts themselves offer the best evidence of what the earliest Christians believed, especially when placed alongside the correspondence circulating from Peter, James, John, Jude and Paul.
The possibility that this is a creedal statement is interesting but remains a hypothesis and potentially unprovable at that. IT is an interesting hypothesis for Biblical scholars. However, I’d be reluctant to base my apologetics on it. Indeed, this may well distract us from the what Paul is seeking to say to us in 1 Corinthians 15.
That’s why I think that as an apologetic exercise it is a little bit ropey but that’s not a major concern for me. The truth of the resurrection isn’t dependent on ropey 21st century apologetics. Even though our efforts may be questionable, the objective historical reliability does not change. And ultimately, our confidence in the truth of the Gospel is not in human reasoning but in God’s revelation to us in Scripture.
Faithroots 