Most scholars agree that 1 Corinthians 15 contains one of the earliest creeds of the church.
Most scholars agree that Paul’s reiteration of the creed is redacted: what was “deposited” Paul obviously did not include Paul’s own conversion experience, and it is highly improbable it included the detail that many of the apostles are “now” dead.
Yet in his book How did Jesus Become God, Dr. Ehrman pinpoints the conclusion of the creed where every scholar I have read would not. Dr. Ehrman thinks the original creed ended with Peter’s “vision” of Jesus, and that the subsequent clauses including James and the twelve up to “all the apostles” was not part of the original creed.
His reason for concluding this is entirely exegetical. the conclusion is based on the syntax of the creed. Dr. Ehrman sees a syntactical imbalance being introduced at verse 5b.
I must object on several grounds.
Firstly, we are dealing with a creed, not poetry. In creeds it is not the “balance” of a composition but the content that matters. Though poetic devices like syntax, alliteration, rhyme might be employed to facilitate the absorption of a creed, such devices do not dictate its content.
Let us imagine the scenario that Dr. Ehrman’s thesis requires. We have Peter, who just freshly had an experience that convinced him that his master was resurrected. Now most scholars (including Dr. Ehrman, I think) agree that the first instances of conviction in Jesus’ resurrection occurred in quick succession; that is, there was not a two year gap between Peter’s profession and the profession of the rest of the apostles. So then, within at least a month (it matters little the precise time frame) of Peter’s profession others start to make the same claim, that they have “seen the Lord”.
What Dr. Ehrman’s reconstruction of the creed in question entails is, well, very hard to accept historically. Here is what some will call a parody of the professor’s reconstruction, but it is not egregiously so:
Peter has an experience that convinces him his master was resurrected.
Peter rushes home and sets his mind to framing a creed. That creed is what we have in 1 Corinthians 15 ending with “and he was seen by Peter”.
Peter then tells the other disciples of his experience, and soon they all begin to claim the same experience…now what? What to do with that creed? Does Peter expand it to include their experiences? Surely that would add strength to it. Afterall, a single witness is pretty weak by any standard, especially 1st c. Jewish standards which require two witnesses. But (according to Dr. Ehrman’s theory) Peter is apparently quite the fastidious poet; he will not have the original syntax of his creed disrupted by these inconvenient and later contributions.
hmmm….
Dr. Ehrman thinks the original creed ended with Peter’s “vision” of Jesus, and that the subsequent clauses including James and the twelve up to “all the apostles” was not part of the original creed.
Connor can you provide a quote? It’s been a while since I read the book but my memory is that Prof Ehrman was saying that Paul’s vision was not part of the original creed. In fact it would seem that the point of Paul’s comments were to validate his own apostolic status by equating his experience with that of the disciples.
What I find interesting about this creed is how it serves to validate the leadership. All the “right” people had a vision of the risen Christ it seems. Was the initial resurrection experience, whatever actually happened, really so neat as that?
There’s the self-selection possibility … the leadership could be those Apostles who felt the experience, and they were the leadership because they were precisely those declaring the resurrection at the outset, and then the direct resurrection experiences of the balance of the main disciples is written in substantially later.
Thank you all for the very appropriate critique. yes, quotes would be helpful:
pgs. 138-139 (harpercollins 2014) “There are very good reasons, in fact, for thinking that the original form of the creed was simply vv. 3-5, to which Paul has added some comments of his own based on what he knew (though Dr. Ehrman writes 3-5 he seems to mean 3-4b, see below). One reason for restricting the original pre pauline creed to just these three verses is that doing so produces a very tightly formulated creedal statement that is brilliantly structured.” Dr. Ehrman lists this as one of “many reasons”, but this is the only reason he provides.
Here is his reconstruction arranged chiastically:
1a Christ died
2a for our sins
3a in accordance with the scriptures
4a and he was buried
1b Christ was raised
2b on the third day
3b in accordance with the scriptures
4b and he appeared to Cephas.
Again, from Dr. Ehrman: “This then was the very ancient pre-Pauline tradition that Paul cites in 1 Corinthians and that he expands, at the end, by giving even more “witnesses” (quotes Dr. Ehrman’s) to the resurrection…”.
hope that helps clarify my proposal.
In his book How Jesus became God Dr. Ehrman argues that the story of Jesus’ burial by a Joseph of Arimathea is a fiction, created later during the (apparently) unbridled sharing of stories. In Dr. Ehrman’s view Jesus was left on the cross to rot or was later thrown into a ditch to be consumed by stray dogs. The story we have of Jesus’ proper burial by a member of the Jewish aristocracy was a much later fiction.
One of Dr. Ehrman’s arguments for this theory is that Joseph of A is not mentioned in our earliest Christian creed, which appears in 1 cor. 15.
Dr. Ehrman thinks that if the story were historical, then the creed would make specific reference to it.
We should, then, have this: And Jesus died on behalf of our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried by Joseph of Arimethea; and that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures; and that he was seen by Peter.
That what we have is: And Jesus died on behalf of our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures…” is, for Dr. Ehrman, highly suspicious.
This to me is an example of a common confusion among historians between the problem of silence and conspicuous silence. Conspicuous silence means that one should expect something to be said but it isn’t. Do we have conspicuous silence here? I argue, no.
First, let us apply Dr. Ehrman’s suspicion to another text, the Apostle’s Creed, where we read of Jesus that he “was crucified, died, and was buried.” The creed does not say, by Joseph of Arimethea. And yet we know that the creed was constructed well beyond the time when the Passion tradition which we have was patent. According to Dr. Ehrman’s reasoning, which is simply the kind of literalism we see employed by fundamentalists except now on the side of a professed agnostic, we would have to argue that the architects of the Apostle’s creed knew nothing of the burial tradition.
And now, let us examine how appropriate Dr. Ehrman’s treatment of the canonical text is. Dr. Ehrman thinks, surely, SURELY, if there was already a story about Jesus’ remains which included a proper burial by a Jewish aristocrat, then surely, SURELY, it would have been included here.
But why? Dr. Ehrman is approaching the text as a 21st c. historian who wants to know things about the past. But that is not the agenda of the architects of this creed. They (or he) is not trying to convince 21st c. agnostic historians. He (or they) are providing for believers a concise creed that conveys the essentials. And the, THE, essential is Jesus’ resurrection. The entire creed is driving towards the list of witnesses of THAT. The death and burial are mere stepping stones to that great narrative peak. If the architects wished to prove that Jesus was dead and buried, then, perhaps, they would have included who buried him and where he was buried. It does not stretch the historical imagination to suppose the architects of the creed felt that that, by comparison, was rather trivial.
I was interested to note that the in the English translation by Bilby of the reconstruction of the Apostolos by Markus Vincent with Mark Bilby, Jack Bull and K. Lance Lotharp, there is no unattested material selected by stylometric analysis, and the attested text is even briefer. According to their work, from ICr15:1-12, there are 4 attested verses in the Apostolos:
{15:1} [Concerning the resurrection of the dead:] Now I make known to you, brothers, the evangelion that I evangelized to you, {3} that Christ died, {4} and he was buried, and he was raised after three days, {12} so we preach, and so you trusted.
While we’re parsing this passage…
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
I require some assistance here from those who are Greek literate.
When Paul says, …that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, does he mean both buried and raised in accordance with the scriptures, or, does he mean that Jesus was buried, and that he was raised according to the scriptures?
See the distinction I’m making? In English this could go either way. Was he buried according to the scriptures? Or just raised according to the scriptures? Does the koine offer a clear distinction or does the grammar assume ‘both’?
If it is making a distinction and Paul is merely stating a factoid when he says Jesus was buried then perhaps we should consider the possibility that this statement is a later interpolation. I know we possess no such variants but if the burial was not in accordance with the scriptures then it kinda breaks the logical flow of the sentence.
But then, how sure are we that this passage began as a formal credo in the first place? Maybe Paul is just narrating the details as he knew them and including himself as also one with authority?
>> Bart is kind of implying that the syntax or structure of the creed might have dictated its content if the relevant content were known, and if it did not, then the missing content expected on the basis of the structure of the creed probably was not known.
I assume Bart’s reasoning is that the parallel to “and seen by Cephas” would be stronger if it had been “and buried by Joseph” or some such.
Each of those corresponding points would be bolstered by a named witness. Joseph saw him dead, Cephas saw him raised.
Robert said
I’m still trying to figure this out this dilemma. With respect to Joseph of Arimathea, Bart is kind of implying that the syntax or structure of the creed might have dictated its content if the relevant content were known, and if it did not, then the missing content expected on the basis of the structure of the creed probably was not known. Notice I’ve employed the grammar of hunch and not Shirley here.
Part of the issue is whether the creed is seen as a spoken creed or as a written creed.
It is presented in 1Cor as a spoken creed … Paul is reminding them of what he taught them when he was there. While parallel construction is more likely to be seen in both than in some random discourse, in the first, part of the point of the parallel construction is mnemonic … remembering the first side of the parallel helps make sure that nothing in the second side of the parallel is left out. But in my view, it’s still different when you are saying it or hearing it said, and if you are reading it (or rereading it while composing), because when written you can look back and forth. So the feeling of a written construction not being entirely well-balanced if one of the parallels is less exact seems to me a stronger selective force than it would be for memorized oral saying.
I wonder whether sometimes we academics (though I am not an academic of biblical studies by any means) forget what it is like for the preponderance of communication to be oral and only a minority to be in written form.
BruceRMcF said
Robert said
I’m still trying to figure this out this dilemma. With respect to Joseph of Arimathea, Bart is kind of implying that the syntax or structure of the creed might have dictated its content if the relevant content were known, and if it did not, then the missing content expected on the basis of the structure of the creed probably was not known. Notice I’ve employed the grammar of hunch and not Shirley here.
Part of the issue is whether the creed is seen as a spoken creed or as a written creed.
It is presented in 1Cor as a spoken creed … Paul is reminding them of what he taught them when he was there. While parallel construction is more likely to be seen in both than in some random discourse, in the first, part of the point of the parallel construction is mnemonic … remembering the first side of the parallel helps make sure that nothing in the second side of the parallel is left out. But in my view, it’s still different when you are saying it or hearing it said, and if you are reading it (or rereading it while composing), because when written you can look back and forth. So the feeling of a written construction not being entirely well-balanced if one of the parallels is less exact seems to me a stronger selective force than it would be for memorized oral saying.
I wonder whether sometimes we academics (though I am not an academic of biblical studies by any means) forget what it is like for the preponderance of communication to be oral and only a minority to be in written form.
I invite you to give concrete examples of how your implied theory might play out.
It is an intellectual principle of mine, if I can’t present the concrete, it’s because I haven’t a clue what I’m talking about, no matter how many paragraphs I might produce.
Porphyry said
>> Bart is kind of implying that the syntax or structure of the creed might have dictated its content if the relevant content were known, and if it did not, then the missing content expected on the basis of the structure of the creed probably was not known.
I assume Bart’s reasoning is that the parallel to “and seen by Cephas” would be stronger if it had been “and buried by Joseph” or some such.
Each of those corresponding points would be bolstered by a named witness. Joseph saw him dead, Cephas saw him raised.
I respond: Dr. Ehrman wants to believe that the gospel tradition of Jesus’ burial is a fiction. He attempts to drag proof of this theory out of texts that violently resist him, and 1 Cor. 15 is a fine example.
The creed in question (1 Cor. 15) is, in immediate context and no doubt original context, about WITNESSES. It is not about providing 21st c. historians clues about what 21stc. historians want to know. It is about what the architects think THEIR audiences will want to know.
And what THEIR audiences want to know is, Who can corroborate Jesus’s resurrection?
Let us suppose the architects of the creed knew and believed the details which have come down to us through the gospels. And let us ask, why, for their, THEIR context, would they feel compelled to include who crucified Jesus and who buried his body, when the the most important point of their testimony was not Jesus’ death and burial (rather mundane events) but Jesus’s new life?
Put another way: why did the creed not mention Joseph of Arimathea? For the same reason it did not mention Pilate, and for the same reason the Apostle’s Creed did not mention either (though Dr. Ehrman will have to admit that the architects of the Apostle’s Creed knew of the gospels and the letters of Paul)…..It wasn’t essential for THEM.
4
Robert said
There are four separate ὅτι-clauses (pronounced hoti and translated into English as “that”)
3… ὅτι Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς
that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures
4 καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη
and that he was buried
καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γραφὰς
and that he is raised in the third day according to the scriptures
5 καὶ ὅτι ὤφθη Κηφᾷ
and that he was seen by Cephas
This last ὅτι-clause is then expanded by a series of εἶτα/ἔπειτα (eita/epeita “then”) conjunctions
εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα· 6 ἔπειτα ὤφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς ἐφάπαξ, ἐξ ὧν οἱ πλείονες μένουσιν ἕως ἄρτι, τινὲς δὲ ἐκοιμήθησαν· 7 ἔπειτα ὤφθη Ἰακώβῳ εἶτα τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσιν
In answer to your first question the separate ὅτι-clauses indicate the burial and resurrection should be considered separately.
Even more important, in my opinion, and this is often missed in translations, the resurrection event is set off by being in the perfect tense. He is raised. While it happened in the past it is an enduring event continuing in the present. For Paul and those who may have crafted this creedal statement before him, Christ is still raised to heaven and he and they are still living in this eschatological third day.
I will get to your other questions soon, I hope.
Perhaps it will help us in the future to get past a lot of unnecessary displays of erudition. I know koine Greek, pretty well. I have translated almost the entire NT, with an eye to variants (I still, to this day, feel wary of Revelation, and have not translated it). I have done numerous “word studies”. All the word studies you have presented, I have done. They are not, to me at least, informative. To me, they come across as a first-year Greek student who is super excited about his/her Greek and thinks that knowing Greek is going to answer numerous questions about the bible.
Let me tell you, it won’t. Knowing Greek actually raises more questions than it answers.
And, presenting a bunch of Greek to someone like me, who already knows it, only makes me think I am dealing with a freshman who just learned his Greek.
Porphyry said
>> Bart is kind of implying that the syntax or structure of the creed might have dictated its content if the relevant content were known, and if it did not, then the missing content expected on the basis of the structure of the creed probably was not known.
I assume Bart’s reasoning is that the parallel to “and seen by Cephas” would be stronger if it had been “and buried by Joseph” or some such.
Each of those corresponding points would be bolstered by a named witness. Joseph saw him dead, Cephas saw him raised.
If the point of the creed were to corroborate every single detail, fine.
but it clearly wasn’t, since Pilate is not mentioned. Every historian acknowledges that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pilate’s authority–and yet the earlies creed doesn’t even care to mention him.
It’s almost as if the earliest creed didn’t really care about anything other than the appearances, and listing as many appearances as possible. Which makes sense.
All theories trying to nitpick the creed and get back to some older, historic layer is bad history.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)