The best and earliest evidence for the basic facts of the resurrection are in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. But that early creed, which most historians date to withing 5 years of the crucifixion, does not contain an explicit statement about the empty tomb. The empty tomb is one of the minimal facts in many Christians “minimal facts” cases for the resurrection. Is there a way to argue that the empty tomb is implied by the early creed? Did Paul believe in the empty tomb? Does the concept of resurrection imply an empty tomb?
Here’s an excerpt from the question that was posed to Bill:
First off, you discuss the formula that Paul uses in 1 Cor. 15:3-5, and you claim that it is a very old Christian formula that Paul probably received on his visit to Jerusalem following his conversion. Therefore, you say that this formula can probably be dated back to within five years of Christ’s death. You base your belief that this formula is an old Christian tradition on its “Semitic and non-Pauline characteristics” and on Paul’s claim that this gospel formula is something that he received.
However, in Paul’s epistle to the Galatian (3.11-12, 15-18) he says, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ… But when it pleased God who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood; Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter…”
Paul seems to claim that he didn’t receive the gospel which he preached and specifically outlined in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 from man, but from God in some special revelation. Therefore, how do you reconcile your belief that Paul received and consequently preached the old Christian formula of 1 Cor. 15:3-5 with what Paul says in Galatians 3? In addition, what are the Semitic and non-Pauline characteristics that are exhibited in 1 Cor. 15:3-5?
Lastly, you conclude that Paul’s claim that Christ rose “on the third day” is indicative of a physical resurrection and consequently an empty tomb. You say that colloquial usage of the phrase “on the third day” in the formula and within Christian writings is probably “a time indicator for the events of Easter, including the empty tomb, employing the language of the Old Testament concerning God’s acts of deliverance and victory on the third day, perhaps with texts like Jonah 2. 11 and Hos 6. 2 especially in mind.” However, it seems to me that the dating of the resurrection on the third day could also just as easily have been the result of Christ appearing to the disciples (not even necessarily on the third day) and their remembrance numerous claims that He would rise on the third day (e.g. Matt. 12.39-40; 16.21; 17.22-23; 20.17-19; 27.63, etc.). How do you know that the development of the phrase “on the third day” was not the result of many predictions to His disciples and others that He would rise on the third day? Sorry for the long question. I’ve just been studying your arguments for the resurrection, and these are some questions that I can’t seem to resolve.
And you can click here to read Bill’s response. This is a pretty tough question.
I’m inclined to think that Bill will have an answer because I know lots of atheists scholars have a very high opinion of this early creed.
Further study
The top 10 links to help you along with your learning on this issue and related issues.
- How every Christian can learn to explain the resurrection of Jesus to others
- The earliest source for the minimal facts about the resurrection
- The earliest sources for the empty tomb narrative
- Who were the first witnesses to the empty tomb?
- Did the divinity of Jesus emerge slowly after many years of embellishments?
- What about all those other books that the Church left out the Bible?
- Assessing Bart Ehrman’s case against the resurrection of Jesus
- William Lane Craig debates radical skeptics on the resurrection of Jesus
- Did Christianity copy from Buddhism, Mithraism or the myth of Osiris?
- Quick overview of N.T. Wright’s case for the resurrection
Or you can listen to my favorite debate on the resurrection.
A facebook friend of mine posted his discovery that Christianity started hundreds of years after Jesus. I presume he was referring to the council of Nicea. This is part of my response:
As far as the origin of Christianity, I would not point to the rise of the Catholic church. I look at 1st Corinthians 15. This is a primary source writing within 25 years of the death of Jesus. Paul is quoting doctrine that he learned through oral tradition. This places the birth of Christianity within a few years of the death of Jesus. I’d say about three days after his death.
LikeLike
Written within 25 years but received within 5 years. And that’s according to good atheist scholars like James Crossley.
LikeLike
Thanks, Todd. This is a useful first response to people who claim Christianity was born at the council of Nicea.
LikeLike