Jesus' Resurrection an Early Belief

Craig Blomberg reports at Primetime Jesus on some new scholarly research that indicates that belief in Jesus' bodily resurrection was a very early belief of the new Christian church contrary to claims by liberal scholars and the Jesus Seminar that this belief emerged quite late and is therefore suspect as fact:

At the "Earnestly Contending" Apologietics conference...Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University...reported on a forthcoming work of Richard Bauckham, prolific New Testament scholar for many years at the University of St. Andrews.  In it, Habermas explained, Bauckham builds on research by evangelical writer Larry Hurtado and atheist historian Gerd Ludemann, both of whom have argued that belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus must have emerged within two or three years of the death of Jesus (whether or not one believes it actually happened).

The argument goes like this.  1 Corinthians 15:3-6 contains, in credal form, a list of the eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.  By including reference to Jesus' crucifixion and burial, Paul makes it clear he is talking about bodily resurrection.  But verses 1-2 describe that this is information that Paul passed on just as he had received it, using verbs that were technical terms for the transmission of oral tradition.  When would Paul have first learned this information?  Almost certainly as one of the very fundamentals of the Christian faith taught him when he first became a follower of the Risen Jesus--perhaps by Ananias who instructed him while he was still temporarily blind, in Damascus, after the Risen Christ appeared to him en route.

But when one compiles the most probable dates of the relevant events, based on Paul's own information in Galatians 1-2, if Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30, the most likely date, then Paul's conversion must have come no more than two years later, in 32.  (See any standard conservative New Testament introduction for how the dates are computed).  But for Paul to have been given an already established creed including resurrection witnesses, known not just in Jerusalem but also in Damascus, some time must have already elapsed for this foundational information to have been crystallized in this form and become widely known in the various locations believers lived and become widely agreed on as the kind of information to be passed on to each new convert.

Ludemann, the atheist, says this means within one to two years from Jesus' death, it was widely agreed on that Christ had been bodily resurrected.  Bauckham, according to Habermas, apparently moves that date back to within about one-half year's time, in order for the necessary time to elapse for this to become widely standardized by the time of Paul's conversion.

Comments

[Jon]

When would Paul have first learned this information? Almost certainly as one of the very fundamentals of the Christian faith taught him when he first became a follower of the Risen Jesus--perhaps by Ananias who instructed him while he was still temporarily blind, in Damascus, after the Risen Christ appeared to him en route.

You can either believe that, or you can believe what Paul says in Galatians chapter 1.

11 I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

This kind of throws a monkey wrench into the whole argument in my view.

[Amy Hall]

Jon, the information referred to was the official creed that was being passed down. Paul already knew Christ was the risen messiah from his encounter with Him, but he didn't receive the creed until he interacted with the church. The gospel was not manmade, but the creed--the liturgical description of the gospel with its particular wording--was.

[Jon]

That's classic midrash, Amy. You're embellishing the text in order to provide harmonization. There's no reason, based upon what is contained in the text, to assume that Paul is suggesting that what he really means in I Cor 15 is that what he received is this cool way of spinning the gospel. He says "Let me pass on what I received" and he goes on to perfectly describe the gospel. Anybody reading that without pre-conceptions would conclude that Paul is saying he received the gospel from the elders and passed that on.

To draw your conclusion we all must start by assuming unitary authorship for everything with no possibility for insertions and rival factions. That's an assumption I'm not going to make. Start with favorable pre-conditions and yes, it's easy to make arguments that sound great. Get away from the pre-conditions and see how it goes. Not too well.

[Jon]

Notice also that my reading is the reading of Blomberg as described in the argument Melinda posted From Blomberg:

Almost certainly as one of the very fundamentals of the Christian faith taught him when he first became a follower of the Risen Jesus--perhaps by Ananias who instructed him while he was still temporarily blind, in Damascus, after the Risen Christ appeared to him en route.

He was taught the very fundamentals of the faith by men. That's what Blomberg assumes, because he's looking at I Cor 15 and this is how it reads. Blomberg has forgotten that this contradicts Galatians 1. My reading is the natural one. The claim that he's really talking about the fact that he only got this cool formula from the Jerusalem apostles, as opposed to getting the fundamentals of the faith from them, is the harmonists attempt to reconcile contradictory passages. Classic midrash.

[Schwan]

It does not seem to follow that because Paul initially received the gospel directly from the risen Jesus, that he received no additional information by men. He recounts his supernatural experience several times. It seems logical that he considers this his first introduction to the gospel. We also know that he spent time speaking with Ananias, and spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. He could then rightly say that the gospel was revealed to him by Jesus Himself, but also that he passes on things that he received from others. I don't see why it is an either/or proposition.

Incidentally, the 1 Cor. passage may have the hallmarks of oral tradition, but it technically never specifies whom he received this information from.

[Patrick Lacaire]

Jon,
it is important to bear in mind the seriousness of oral tradition that Paul is alluding to here. Oral tradition was understood and communicated in the context of community - this was to ensure that the content of that oral tradition was not corrupted.

It may well be that Paul was deferring to that context, rather than prioritizing, in this case any way, his personal experience of the risen Christ.

Though not an exact analogy, when I share the gospel, it is not a personal experience only that I share. I share facts, claims, etc. about sin, salvation. I had a personal encounter with Christ as powerful as those truths, but my proclamation is not my experience as such.

With the Galatians epistle, there is clearly an unspoken question of the authority of Paul ( in the minds of certain hearers) in the background, as he goes on to mention that the "super apostles" added nothing to his gospel." He had no less an authority that Jesus Christ.

Not only so, but the fact that Paul was saved a few years after Christ is important. The gospel he was giving in 1 Cor is the same gospel, but again he seems to be stating it was true long before he believed it.

In any case, I do not know what your "classic midrash" statement to Amy means, when midrash can actually be soundly exegetical.

[Amy Hall]

>>That's classic midrash, Amy. You're embellishing the text in order to provide harmonization. There's no reason, based upon what is contained in the text, to assume that Paul is suggesting that what he really means in I Cor 15 is that what he received is this cool way of spinning the gospel.

I didn't intend to say that. I was only clarifying what "information" Blomberg was referring to in his comment. He was referring to the specific creed, not to the gospel itself when he said:

But verses 1-2 describe that this is information that Paul passed on just as he had received it, using verbs that were technical terms for the transmission of oral tradition. When would Paul have first learned this information?

Blomberg then goes on to say that he could have learned the creed (i.e., the information Blomberg is referring to) from Ananias or later on.

>>He says "Let me pass on what I received" and he goes on to perfectly describe the gospel. Anybody reading that without pre-conceptions would conclude that Paul is saying he received the gospel from the elders and passed that on.

I don't see why. He doesn't say anything about the elders in the passage. I really think you're reaching here. Paul received the gospel from Christ, he went to the elders in Jerusalem to confirm he was teaching what was correct (see here), he continued to pass the gospel onto others. In this passage, he uses the creed to pass on the gospel in a particular form that he received from people. I don't see why his using a creed would mean that he first heard the gospel from men. Just because he's passing this on in this particular form doesn't mean he received it in that particular form the first time.

Blomberg's only argument is that the form he used is an official form of stating the gospel (based on the structure and wording), and that he must have learned from others.

[fletchkel]

Jon,
I checked two sources for the definition of midrash and they are different than the way you seem to understand the definition. Is there some common usage, perhaps slang, that would not show up in a conventional dictionary?

[Jon]

What I mean with the midrash comment is that Amy's reasoning is like that of those that would say that Peter denied Jesus six times in order to make sense of the timeline presented in the various gospels. No text says he denied Christ six times. But then of course it's possible that he did. The picture of events that emerges may harmonize the various gospels, but it tells the story in a way that it has never been told before and in a way that really doesn't sound like what any of the individual gospels say. Why believe this without a prior commitment to inerrancy? No reason to.

Schwan, nobody is denying that Paul can receive additional information. The contradiction is in one place he says he did not get the gospel by human agency. In the other place he says "Let me tell you something that I was given by human agency" and he goes on to describe the gospel. Can the harmonist make up a story that resolves it? Sure. But that doesn't make the harmonist right. Maybe it's just a contradiction.

Did Judas die by hanging himself or by falling headlong onto rocks where his belly split open? Both of course. He apparently hung himself from a tree overhanging a cliff, and the branch broke and he was somehow flipped over as the branch broke and he went down head long. You can believe that if you want, but to construct an argument on this basis and expect it to be persuasive for anybody not already committed to inerrancy is naive.

[Steven Carr]

Jesus ascended into the sky,disappearing into the clouds as the disciples gazed upwards.

Before that, apparently 500+ Christians were gathered together at one time and place.

Why? Were they having a convention?

That is a lot of people to gather together in a movement that Habermas claims was crushed by the crucifixion.

As far as I know, no New Religious Movement has ever produced a formalised creed within 6 months of foundation.

I could be wrong. Is there one?

Of course, the Christian converts Paul was writing to scoffed at the whole idea of their god choosing to raise a corpse, while Paul could not find one single bit of eyewitness testimony to explain to them what a resurrected body was like, although the Gospels claim Paul's Lord and Saviour had taught on that very subject.

[Jon]

fletchkel, I am using the term midrash as described here:

http://witcombe.sbc.edu/eve-women/7evelilith.html

[Steven Carr]

PAUL
But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

BLOMBERG
When would Paul have first learned this information? Almost certainly as one of the very fundamentals of the Christian faith taught him when he first became a follower of the Risen Jesus--perhaps by Ananias who instructed him while he was still temporarily blind, in Damascus, after the Risen Christ appeared to him en route.

CARR
Who should we believe?

Paul , who says he did not consult any man after God revealed his son 'IN' me?

Or Blomberg who says this revelation was external, not internal, and that Paul consulted Ananians?

Of course, Acts says that Paul had to be led by the hand into Damascus.

I wonder how he managed to find his way to Arabia?