I Corinthians 15:1-11

[Gawen]

I freely admit the lack of direct textual evidence; there are no extant copies of 1 Corinthians. While the presence of such texts, I wager, would strengthen the argument, the lack of them does not nullify it. There simply are no texts at all for the period in which the suspected interpolations occurred. But it is known that interpolations occurred in that time.

Christian apologetics claim Jesus died in 30 CE, that most scholars believe Paul was converted within 3-6 years afterward and "it is likely" Paul received this information from Peter and James (Acts 9:26-29; Gal. 1:18-19). These claims were designed to make the creed seem very early indeed. Many apologists would tell us that the First Epistle to the Corinthian church contains the earliest and most authenticated testimony of the Resurrection itself. I am not so concerned about the "earliest" part since it is ultimately irrelevant; even a legend has to have its inception sometime.

Rather, it is the apologetic claim in I Cor. 15:3-8, that it contains the most authenticated testimony. I can only ask at this point, "authenticated" by what? And what specifically do the apologists and the verse authors think is "authenticated" ? The word "testimony" seems to be used quite loosely here, for even the gospel depictions of the Jesus Passion put no witnesses with Jesus when and where he was supposed to be resurrected – that is, in his very tomb.

A minor dating tangent:
•   It is not known when Jesus died; there is controversy regarding whether he died on a Friday before the Passover, or a Friday that was a Passover, meaning it would be a different year.
•   We do not know when Paul was converted.
•   We do not know who or when Paul obtained this creed from. It is a matter of speculation regarding when Paul received the creed; the earliest Paul could have received it was 40 C.E. - to conform to the chronology required by 2 Cor. 11:32, Gal. 1:17-18 and Acts 9:23-29.
•   Apologists say there is no possible way that such testimony could describe a legend, because it goes right back to the time and place of the event itself. If there was ever a place that a legendary resurrection could not occur it was Jerusalem because the Jews and the Romans were all too eager to squash an heretical political movement and could have easily done so by parading Jesus' body around the city.

It always unsettles me and I see it as rather perverse when apologists tell us that it's impossible for a story to have legendary content while expecting us to believe in supernatural beings, resurrection of the dead, miracles, etc. To make this kind of claim, apologists must assume the historicity of the gospel accounts of Jesus, which are the only documents in the New Testament which place Jesus' life, death and resurrection in a pseudo-historical context.

But if the Jesus story were a legend in the first place – the very premise which apologists try to defeat - then appealing to what might have happened or could have happened to Jesus' body simply begs the question, for it assumes precisely what they are called to prove: namely that the story is not legend. If the story about Jesus is mere legend, we now know why there was no body to crucify and seal in a tomb or parade through the streets of Jerusalem.

As I said elsewhere, Christian scholars and apologists seem to speak for the majority when they maintain that without definitive manuscript evidence, interpolation, not even a suggestion of one in the Pauline Epistles need be taken seriously. Of course, the burden of proof lies with any argument that the corpus, in part or whole contains no interpolations. Bruce's spectacular and scholarly positive proof of no interpolations within the Pauline Corpus consists of "Because I believe it" and "I believe others that believe it"

Not all Christian Scholars think this way. William O. Walker Jr writes, "...the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted by the historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of the second and third centuries...In short, it appears likely that the emerging Catholic leadership in the churches 'standardized' the text of the Pauline corpus in the light of 'orthodox' views and practices, suppressing and even destroying all deviant texts and manuscripts. Thus it is that we have no manuscripts dating from earlier than the third century...and...thus it is that the manuscript evidence can tell us nothing about the state of the Pauline literature prior to the third century..." - "The Burden of Proof in Identifying Interpolations in the Pauline Letters," NTS 33 (1987), 610-618: 615.

Of course, Walker goes on; continuing canon polemics of those who standardized and censored the texts in the first place, right in step with most other apologists. And these apologists seem to think designating a passage as a redaction or interpolation can only be a grudging last resort and an admission of the inability to account for it in any other way. In other words, any solution is preferable to admitting the text in question is an interpolation or redaction.

So what do we need, what is there to go on if there is nothing older than the 3'rd Century? The only evidence left is textual internal evidence; insoluble contradiction or paradoxes, stylistic irregularities, anachronisms, redactional seams/rifts.

Bruce, I wager, would have it rather like this, in the opposite direction; the burden of proof rests on the arguments for redaction/interpolation and the benefit of the doubt should go to the integrity of the text and acquitted if the argument for redaction is not able to overcome doubt. Of course, and I admit, the critical (redactional) argument is probabilistic and not certain. But neither are the apologists certain. At any rate, there are three choices:
•   Certainty of an authentic text,
•   Certainty of an inauthentic text, and
•   Uncertainty (textually agnostic).

Any argument that remains uncertain should render the third verdict.

Apologists cannot see it this way, preferring textual fideism. In this case, this sounds a lot like Bruce's stance. I must add, to be fair, that not all apologists erect their walls as high. Of course, there are them that erect the wall so high, nothing can get over it. Consider inerrantist apologist, Benjamin B. Warfield, who proposed any alleged error in scripture must be shown to have occurred in the original, which, luckily for him, do not exist. But no matter the apologist, the basic strategy is the same, to build armor around the alleged integrity of the text.

Just the facts, ma'am.

What bothers me is that apologists refer to these appearances in 1 Cor. 15 as "facts".  Truthfully, the fact is Paul is reporting he heard about these appearances. It would be like saying "The Defendant's mother heard from unknown persons that the defendant was watching television at the time." I hope you can see how tenuous this is.

What Paul says in 1 Cor. 15: 1 "in which terms we preached to you the gospel" must take into account of what follows it. And what follows is Pauline preaching; Paul, the preacher of his gospel. What is behind the word 'gospel' is only preaching. 15: 2 makes clear the saving message itself. The phrase "unless you believed in vain" means "unless this gospel is false," as verses 14, 17 show.

Concerning proof or evidence:
Baptists (for example) do not sit around scratching their heads trying to explain the facts of how Joseph Smith chanced upon golden plates; they don't believe there were any plates in the first place. In a debate with a Mormon, a Baptist would not grant the "fact" of the golden plates' existence, simply because a witness claimed to have seen them—they demand proof of the plates. Likewise, we must demand proof from Paul. But there isn't any. Call it evidence, if you will, but it is extremely weak evidence at best and just bad evidence overall. Therefore, why grant these appearances as simply having happened because Christians call them "facts"?

What about conflicting accounts? Matthew, Luke and John have different orders of appearance in that females are not included. But some apologists claim Paul didn't include females due to their lack of credibility. But one has to think...he was quoting a creed. Did he modify a creed or did the creed's authors have something against females?
The Gospels do not record an appearance to 500.
The Gospels do not record an appearance to James.
And who are the "apostles"? Are they different than the 500 and/or different than the Twelve?

In any other historical context we would look at the various accounts and question which, if any, were accurate. So why must we assume 1 Cor. 15 is accurate and the others are not - the appearances to Mary Magdalene, the soldiers, was it in Galilee or Jerusalem, how long Jesus stayed on earth, etc.? Because Paul is earlier than the Gospels?

It is also interesting that 1 Cor 15 indicates Jesus died, was buried and rose again on the third day "according to the scriptures." It is equally interesting that there is no self-prediction of said death and resurrection. Apparently, Jesus' statements regarding a post-resurrection body (Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 23:43, Matt. 22:30, Mark 12:25, John 11:24-25) were unknown to the Corinthians. How is it possible, a religion founded on the physical resurrection of its leader, that 20 years later some followers did not know of it or if they knew, did not believe it?

This ends the first part. The above are all, for the most part, generalizations. The nitty gritty is forthcoming.

[bandit4god]

Thanks, Gawen--as shown in previous threads and posts, your content is always meticulously prepared and intellectually formidable.  There are three general archetypes of theists you'll likely encounter when you present such arguments:
- The Intelligent Explorer:  a theist holding to structured, well-researched and intellectually-tested beliefs, though loosely, ever engaging in polite dialogue with the atheist to learn something new
- The Mainstreamer:  a theist who does not necessarily have the intellectual chops to engage meaningfully in rigorous debate, and so makes Pascal's Wager in the God that seems to him/her most probable to exist
- The Blind Follower:  a theist who has never thought about the concept of choice in the matter of theism, following the manner in which he/she was raised

Are you directing your discourse toward any of the above groups in particular, or are you comments instead intended to encourage the fellow atheist?

[Gawen]

Are you directing your discourse toward any of the above groups in particular, or are you comments instead intended to encourage the fellow atheist?

This was done by request of Bruce. To answer your question, however...this is directed to no one in particular. Anyone may read it and make of it what they wish, comment if they wish, whatever they wish to say, if anything.

I'm not done yet. There will be at least three more posts. Next one tomorrow.

[Gawen]

Forgive me my bad manners, Bandit. I belatedly thank you for the compliment at the beginning of your post.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I freely admit the lack of direct textual evidence; there are no extant copies of 1 Corinthians. While the presence of such texts, I wager, would strengthen the argument, the lack of them does not nullify it. There simply are no texts at all for the period in which the suspected interpolations occurred. But it is known that interpolations occurred in that time.

Correct, there are no texts that demonstrate that this section is an interpolation.  So, I'm not sure why you would even postulate such an interpolation.  Why not just accept it as the best evidence that we have (not conclusive, but evidence, nonetheless), and then argue that it doesn't convince you because you reject a priori any talk of resurrections and such? Most of your argument is directed against the credibility of what Paul wrote, not the fact that he wrote it. Again, if the issue is interpolation, you have to give some evidence of that fact.

Rather, it is the apologetic claim in I Cor. 15:3-8, that it contains the most authenticated testimony. I can only ask at this point, "authenticated" by what? And what specifically do the apologists and the verse authors think is "authenticated" ? The word "testimony" seems to be used quite loosely here, for even the gospel depictions of the Jesus Passion put no witnesses with Jesus when and where he was supposed to be resurrected – that is, in his very tomb.

My particular claim is that I Cor. 15:3-8 is simply the best evidence that we have.  It is not conclusive.  But there is nothing better, and there is no contemporary writing that disproves it.  On the issue of testimony, the gospels mention people who saw Jesus die, who saw him buried, and who saw him after his resurrection.  The lack of someone in the tomb at the critical moment is of little import. If there was a death and a burial, then a later appearance of the live body equals resurrection.

But if the Jesus story were a legend in the first place – the very premise which apologists try to defeat - then appealing to what might have happened or could have happened to Jesus' body simply begs the question, for it assumes precisely what they are called to prove: namely that the story is not legend. If the story about Jesus is mere legend, we now know why there was no body to crucify and seal in a tomb or parade through the streets of Jerusalem.

It is certainly possible that the entire Jesus story is a legend. But if that were the case, one would have expected a significant amount of documentary evidence to that fact, given that Paul was apparently not writing in secret.  He was testifying to the resurrection.  If anyone knew that this was a legend, some evidence of that fact would be expected.

As I said elsewhere, Christian scholars and apologists seem to speak for the majority when they maintain that without definitive manuscript evidence, interpolation, not even a suggestion of one in the Pauline Epistles need be taken seriously. Of course, the burden of proof lies with any argument that the corpus, in part or whole contains no interpolations. Bruce's spectacular and scholarly positive proof of no interpolations within the Pauline Corpus consists of "Because I believe it" and "I believe others that believe it"

You mischaracterize my position.  I simply have no reason to believe that this seciton is an interpolation because I have seen nothing that indicates that it is.  If you show me a convincing reason to think it is an interpolation, I'll change my mind.

At any rate, there are three choices:
•   Certainty of an authentic text,
•   Certainty of an inauthentic text, and
•   Uncertainty (textually agnostic).

Any argument that remains uncertain should render the third verdict.

I have no problem with this. I don't think I Cor. 15 is a certainty, so I don't claim to know that it is. I do, however, think and believe that it is authentic, because I have seen no reason to date to conclude otherwise. It's the best evidence that we have of what he actually wrote.  One does not have to deal in absolutes in order to reach a conclusion.  If better evidence comes along (I'm waiting), I'll reconsider.

What about conflicting accounts? Matthew, Luke and John have different orders of appearance in that females are not included. But some apologists claim Paul didn't include females due to their lack of credibility. But one has to think...he was quoting a creed. Did he modify a creed or did the creed's authors have something against females?
The Gospels do not record an appearance to 500.
The Gospels do not record an appearance to James.
And who are the "apostles"? Are they different than the 500 and/or different than the Twelve?

But here you are just arguing against the weight that should be given to the evidence.  This has nothing to do with whether this passage is an interpolation or not. Concerning the different witnesses in Matthew and John (Luke actually does not say that the women witnessed the resurrection first, and Mark doesn't mention any resurrection witnesses at all, once you eliminate the last part of chapter 16, which is a later addition), if a choice were to be made, I would go with Paul's list over Matthew and John, becuase it is earlier and because it appears to sort of an authorized, recognized list of witnesses. Furthermore, the facts behind the writing of Matthew and John are much fuzzier than those behind Paul's epistles.  We don't really know who wrote them or when or to whom they were written, so would indicate that Paul's writings are the most historically credible.

In any other historical context we would look at the various accounts and question which, if any, were accurate. So why must we assume 1 Cor. 15 is accurate and the others are not - the appearances to Mary Magdalene, the soldiers, was it in Galilee or Jerusalem, how long Jesus stayed on earth, etc.? Because Paul is earlier than the Gospels?

That is one reason.

It is also interesting that 1 Cor 15 indicates Jesus died, was buried and rose again on the third day "according to the scriptures." It is equally interesting that there is no self-prediction of said death and resurrection. Apparently, Jesus' statements regarding a post-resurrection body (Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 23:43, Matt. 22:30, Mark 12:25, John 11:24-25) were unknown to the Corinthians. How is it possible, a religion founded on the physical resurrection of its leader, that 20 years later some followers did not know of it or if they knew, did not believe it?

The gospels weren't even written yet, and it is unknown whether the list of Jesus' sayings ("Q"?) were in the possession of the Corinthians, or even of Paul.  It's more likely that they simply didn't know what Jesus had said.  Paul was not one of the 12, so he didn't have the personal knowledge of all Jesus' teachings.  The focus of his gospel preaching was his general knowledge of the crucifixion of Christ, and his personal experience of the resurrection. 

This ends the first part. The above are all, for the most part, generalizations. The nitty gritty is forthcoming.

Thanks.  I appreciate the post and look forward to the nitty gritty.

[Gawen]

Correct, there are no texts that demonstrate that this section is an interpolation.  So, I'm not sure why you would even postulate such an interpolation.  Why not just accept it as the best evidence that we have (not conclusive, but evidence, nonetheless), and then argue that it doesn't convince you because you reject a priori any talk of resurrections and such? Most of your argument is directed against the credibility of what Paul wrote, not the fact that he wrote it. Again, if the issue is interpolation, you have to give some evidence of that fact.

I wasn't done...yet. That's what "The nitty gritty is forthcoming." was supposed to mean. Most of your questions will be answered in forthcoming posts.

[Gawen]

Verse 3, "received/delivered" (paralambanein / paradidonai) is possible technical jargon for the handing down of rabbinical tradition. That Paul should have delivered the following tradition is neither here nor there; but that he had been the recipient of it from some third person creates an ineluctable problem for Pauline authorship. Do not forget the contradiction between the notion of Paul's receiving the gospel he preached from an earlier third person and the cavilation in Gal. 1:1, 11-12 that "I did not receive it from man." If Paul is speaking in either passage, he cannot be speaking in both.

Some apologists reconcile this by saying Paul was already engaged in preaching his gospel for some (three or so) years. From Cephas, Paul received the particular piece of tradition. But I do not think so. These verses are the very terms in which he preaches his gospel. It seems that the writer of 1 Cor. 15:1-2 never thought of a period of Pauline gospel preaching before his permission to do so from those in Jerusalem. Some apologists claim all Paul intends in Galatians is that he received his commission directly from Christ to preach freedom from the Torah to the Gentiles. Of course, apologetics try immensely to quantify that which is not there. What we actually get is: Paul tells us he appeals to "the scriptures".

But is this all Galatians 1:11 denotes? The question is: if Paul had to wait some years to receive the bare essentials of the death and resurrection of Jesus from the Jerusalem leaders, what had he been preaching? In answer to this, apologists say that Paul "probably received it from Peter and James when he visited them in Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18). But Paul does not say this. Paul appeals to "the Scriptures." Paul relies many times and rather heavily on Old Testament citations to shore up his assertions. I find it puzzling that apologists would reference the first chapter of Galatians and not notice what he says just a few verses prior.

Paul makes it explicitly clear: Dear brothers and sisters, I want you to understand that the gospel message I preach is not based on mere human reasoning. I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11-12)
So according to what Paul tells us, he "received" his gospel directly from a resurrected Jesus as a revelation. One wonders why Jesus does not reveal himself directly to everyone rather than revealing himself to one person who then goes around telling everyone else about it. Paul is telling us a contradiction that cannot reconcile with 1 Corinthians 15. Try as they may, apologists give it a good shot and propose that Paul received the bare bones of the kerygma directly from resurrected Jesus (Gal. 1:11) and later received supplementary didache (1 Cor 15:3) from those in Jerusalem. But given the austere and cardinal character of the items in 1 Cor 15, what would be the content of any kerygma which Paul might receive directly from the resurrected Christ?

I have read several attempts of reconciliation, but none are helpful. The verses mean to offer a formulaic faith, once for all, delivered to the saints but it reeks of post-Pauline Paulinism (Catholicism).

In Galatians, Paul deals with his readers who would return to self-reliance by means of an alluded to misleading gospel of works. In 1 Corinthians his readers believe that Christ's resurrection has brought an awareness of a new eschatological life, albeit disguised as an enthusiastically religious acclamation of the flesh. Talk about contradictions and double standards.

To counter the Galatian error, the writer of I Corinthians declares the heavenly - not from men - origin of his message and the personification of it in his own self-acclaimed (what nerve) apostolic existence. This means apostolic ascendancy is not from men...period. He says the same thing in 1 Cor 15:10 and in 4:8-13; men are not worthy unless Christ makes them worthy. Sure, one will find various passages in Paul such as "my gospel" or "our gospel", but 1 Cor 15 is downright tortuous.

But the inconsistencies remain:  
1) Galatians: Paul tells his readers that what he preached was not taught to him by humans.
2) 1 Cor 15: tells his readers that what he preached to them was taught to him by humans through scripture.
a) And, if I Cor. 15:3-8 is part of an earlier creed which Paul has simply imported and woven into his letter, then he is obviously not recounting firsthand knowledge.

Furthermore, the Corinthians went through (at Paul's hand) what Paul himself had gone through: "I delivered to you...what I also received." What we see in 1 Corinthians of Paul corresponds to Acts, the very same version of his calling and apostolate he wished to refute with an oath to God in Gal 1:20. It is strange that believers do not see a discrepancy here.

Still not done Bruce.

[Gawen]

We now diverge into what is known as the "formula" or "creedal formula" as others know it.
1) Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures                                                            
2) He was buried
3) He was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures
4) He appeared after death

There is no real need to discuss these four as they are out of the scope of this investigation (except the "according to scriptures" part. Suffice to say, most scholars agree with the above, but that is where agreement ends.

There is a problem with the "thens" in verses 6-7 which cannot be ignored:
to Cephas
then [he appeared] to the Twelve,
then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time,
most of whom are still alive,
though some have fallen asleep,
then he appeared to James
then [he appeared] to all the apostles.

Some think the "Twelve" as an interpolation to harmonize with the Gospels. Many others think the 500 brethren and of Paul himself as later additions. It is sufficient to note that the two scattered parts or fragments in verse 5 and 7 with their parallel eita/epeita structure represent independent formulae in their own right and later blended into the current formula.

Nothing here is clear.

Paul names two people: Cephas and James. Where do Cephas and James fit in? Are they members of both groups, members of neither group, rivalries from separate camps? Later additions? Apologists typically suppose that Cephas corresponds to the Peter of the gospels (apparently only one person in the entire first century Palestine bore the name Cephas).

He refers to "the twelve" and to "all the apostles", which is nowhere explained in any of Paul's letters. And of course, I would suspect that at least some of Paul's readers would have wondered whom he meant by "the twelve" and "the apostles". Apologists typically respond to these kinds of questions by alleging that Paul's audiences would have known whom he had in mind. That explains that.

There is a persistent and annoying perhaps-ical nature to all this that apologist seem to love to fill. However, the questions naturally arise:
What exactly did Paul teach the congregations he visited on his journeys, and
How can we know what he taught?
If his letters are an indication of what he taught, what do they tell us about "the twelve", "all the apostles", Cephas and James and what relationships they may have enjoyed with each other? Positively nothing. I Cor. 15:3-8 is the only passage in all of Paul's letters where he makes reference to this mysterious "twelve," and it is nowhere near clear that "the twelve" and "the apostles" are the same or different groups. Moreover, if the author is simply repeating a creed here, it is quite possible that the author actually did not know the "twelve", "apostles" and quite plausibly, Cephas, James and the relationship any of them had with each other.

The clauses modifying the appearances to the 500 and to Paul himself ("most of whom are still alive..." and "as to one untimely born") are additions by a later hand, whether Paul's or someone else's because they break the formal structure. The same sort of later embellishments are in the Decalogue's of Exodus 20 and 34. One, however, cannot lose sight as the focus is on notable leaders. The mention of the anonymous 500 screams intrusion and implies the entire list is an apologetic, especially because the reference of most of them are available for corroboration.

What's that? Corroboration? How in the world would any of the Corinthians be able to investigate any of the things he mentions in I Cor. 15:3-8? He does not identify a place where these people reside, so where would they begin? Where would a Corinthian go to seek confirmation on Paul's claims with "the twelve"? Is any one Corinthian encouraged to do so? And what of the anonymous 500 brethren? In both cases, not one name is given, let alone a time, place or setting. So the defense that the Corinthians could have at any time gone out and checked out his claims is dubious and any suggestion that the Corinthians were challenged to check him out, borderlines the ludicrous. If Paul really wanted his readers to check up on his claims, he should have done much more than make the passing references that he gives in I Cor. 15:3-8.

There is also a question of whether an earlier tradition delivered to Paul would include an account of Paul's own resurrection vision, especially if, on the assumption of most apologists, the list/creed was formulated in Jerusalem. When one thinks about it, Paul was not so well venerated in Jerusalem, at least not enough to permit his inclusion in a creedal list. Most scholars conclude that Paul must have added the note himself. How they can be so sure is unknown.

It does appear the list began as a list of credentials for Cephas, the Twelve, James, and other apostles, and someone later inserted the 500 brethren. Therefore, the reference to the 500 and Paul himself would seem to be an added piece of apocrypha. After all, if the claim of 500 witnesses and Paul himself were early tradition, can anyone explain its total absence from the gospel tradition?

Think about it, if such an overwhelming proof of the resurrection happened it would have been widely reported and repeated from the very first day. The 500 addition can only come from a time after the gospel tradition, and the gospel tradition is very late. Some see the 500 vaguely reflected in Acts II, but this is speculation and wishful thinking.

More problematic, Paul gives no details on any of the people he mentions that may have actually seen or witnessed the resurrection. Did they see a resurrected man? How would they know that the man they saw was once dead? If the word "witness" enjoys a very loose meaning for many of today's Christians, why suppose it did not enjoy similar flexibility among the Jewish Christians? Christians today are constantly exclaiming how Jesus is present with them. They obviously do not have a physical person in mind when they make these kinds of declarations, so why suppose the early Christians were speaking about a physical Jesus when they claimed to have "witnessed" him?

The "more than 500 brethren" should be understood as 'an enormous number'. This sort of detail (if one could rightly call it that) denotes the fictional characteristic of a narrative. The appearance to the 500 in Luke 24:36 is no more successful. Hence, the same question: if there were at least 500 present on that occasion, how could the writer have thought this detail unworthy to mention? And if we reckoned he did include it, what writer, with an agenda would have omitted it?

[Gawen]

More on the 500

I have no idea why anyone is conceding these appearances as "facts." As if I have to explain how 500 people saw a physically resurrected Jesus. No...all I have to do is explain how someone claims 500 people saw a physically resurrected Jesus. And the naturalistic explanation that the redactor made it up is far more plausible and probable than Jesus DID actually rise from the dead. The whole point is that the interpolation is Paulinist pseudepigraphy. Of course, one could be busy explaining away the amazing coincidence of how Joseph Smith just happened to stumble on those ancient Golden Plates and then manage to lose them...

Think of it as imagining a person claiming to believe that 70,000 people saw the sun dance in the sky at Fatima in 1917 and that 20 plus years afterward some of the people who witnessed it were still alive. Of course this would not have meant anything more than that person had heard the story and believed it was true. It would not have meant that they had actually talked to any of the witnesses. By the same token, Paul may have heard a story about Jesus appearing to 500, but there is no reason to think that he actually heard it from anyone who was there or knew any of them by name.

On the other hand, it may even be possible Paul elicited knowledge of it by torture when he was busy persecuting the early Church. (Ok, bad joke, but one never knows)

Imagine a witness who came into court but could not say where or when most of the relevant events took place, did not know what the key person said or did, and claimed that what he did know he learned from a ghost that appeared to him. These are the type of "facts" Paul claims and apologists agree. The same kind of "facts" as the empty tomb. If one cannot even show that there was a grassy knoll, how can he show that there was a second gunman?

So Jesus, a resurrected dead person is said to appear to 500 yet some doubted (Mt. 28:17). Is it possible as many as 380 all died or left the belief 'cause by Pentecost there were only 120 left (Acts 1:15)?

Jesus allegedly appeared at the unspecified place in Galilee where he would be most recognized. And some doubted. But a little while later Peter makes a sermon to people who have NOT seen a resurrected body and 3000 people converted! Makes a lot of sense, does it not? A sarcastic question, to be sure, the answer really is...it makes no sense at all.

But apologists can be expected to make the most of Paul's mention that most of the 500 are still alive. But they do not take heed to not read more into Paul's words than what the words actually say. Apologists typically assume that Paul's words confirm that Jesus' death and resurrection were recent. Paul's own treatment has the alluded effect of rubber-stamping Jesus appearances as recent, but not the death, burial, and prompt resurrection, which he merely says occurred 'in accordance with the scriptures'."
How do you spell interpolation?

Next up, the James/Cephas polemic, a little more overall and wrap up. Maybe tomorrow.

[Too Few Lions]

There is a problem with the "thens" in verses 6-7 which cannot be ignored:
to Cephas
then [he appeared] to the Twelve,
then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time,
most of whom are still alive,
though some have fallen asleep,
then he appeared to James
then [he appeared] to all the apostles.

He refers to "the twelve" and to "all the apostles", which is nowhere explained in any of Paul's letters. And of course, I would suspect that at least some of Paul's readers would have wondered whom he meant by "the twelve" and "the apostles". Apologists typically respond to these kinds of questions by alleging that Paul's audiences would have known whom he had in mind. That explains that.

I've puzzled over that part of the passage myself and I do wonder if 'the twelve' aren't the apostles at all, but the signs of the zodiac, which were very important in Hellenistic / Roman religion. Mandaeism is a similar religion to Christianity dating from around the same time, and their religious texts often refer to 'the twelve' when talking about the signs of the zodiac, which they believe are heavenly rulers. It seems to me that any mythically resurrected saviour would want to appear to these twelve constellations to show his authority over the cosmos.

[bandit4god]

But the inconsistencies remain:  
1) Galatians: Paul tells his readers that what he preached was not taught to him by humans.
2) 1 Cor 15: tells his readers that what he preached to them was taught to him by humans.
a) And, if I Cor. 15:3-8 is part of an earlier creed which Paul has simply imported and woven into his letter, then he is obviously not recounting firsthand knowledge.

I may have missed it, but per your #2, where is the antecedent for Paul's "received/delivered" in Verse 3 that suggests human teaching?

[Gawen]

There is a problem with the "thens" in verses 6-7 which cannot be ignored:
to Cephas
then [he appeared] to the Twelve,
then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time,
most of whom are still alive,
though some have fallen asleep,
then he appeared to James
then [he appeared] to all the apostles.

He refers to "the twelve" and to "all the apostles", which is nowhere explained in any of Paul's letters. And of course, I would suspect that at least some of Paul's readers would have wondered whom he meant by "the twelve" and "the apostles". Apologists typically respond to these kinds of questions by alleging that Paul's audiences would have known whom he had in mind. That explains that.

I've puzzled over that part of the passage myself and I do wonder if 'the twelve' aren't the apostles at all, but the signs of the zodiac, which were very important in Hellenistic / Roman religion. Mandaeism is a similar religion to Christianity dating from around the same time, and their religious texts often refer to 'the twelve' when talking about the signs of the zodiac, which they believe are heavenly rulers. It seems to me that any mythically resurrected saviour would want to appear to these twelve constellations to show his authority over the cosmos.

Honestly, who's to know? It's not as if whoever wrote this stuff was forthcoming with gobs of information. That is a good call though...the zodiac. I'll have to look into it.

[Gawen]

What about James the Just? Well, that has problems as well as the gospels differ strongly whether James the Just was a disciple before the resurrection or afterwards. John 7:5, Mark 3:21, 31-35 and Matthew 12:46-50, are clear that he was no friend of Jesus. Luke (Luke 8:19-21 and Acts 1:14), strongly implies that Jesus's entire family were 'Christians' from the very beginning. Luke is somewhat in common with Hebrews and other late pro-James traditions (Gospel of Thomas, logion 12, for example).

There is no conversion of James from unbeliever to believer; only an appearance granted to a disciple. Nowhere do we find Jesus' appearance to James to parallel Pauls: the enemy of Jesus turned to friend. James' resurrection vision is not exceptional, as might be expected if the appearance had turned an enemy into a friend (noted in verse .  The agenda of many apologists seek to assuage the suspicions that Jesus appeared only to believers. At any rate, it is an exegetical ghost. We have an unbelieving James, a believing James, and a vision of the resurrected Jesus to James, but the relationships between the claims is textural gobbledegook. A note of interest: the James story parallels Ali, the son-in-law and nephew of Muhammad.

This is important. The implication then is that the tradition of the 500 is apocryphal and post-Pauline and the appearance to James the Just was an original part of the list, which denotes the entire list as post-Pauline, while the 500 is an even later interpolation.

What about the Cephas (Peter)/James polemic? Some people do not see a problem here, but it seems there is a division; two separate rivalries. I'm in the R. H. Fuller camp for the most part on this one.
1)   If the two independent formulae had been added onto the death and resurrection kerygma of verses 3-5, then we would have to leave that kerygma ending in its original form with "appeared" and that seems implausible because of the symmetry that would exist between the short fragments "that he was buried" and "that he appeared."
2)   The appearance to the 500 is isolated. It does not belong to the Cephas part or to the James. In either position it would destroy the parallelism between the two and then only be explained as an independent tradition or as a Pauline or later insertion.
3)   The evidence would seem to suggest a rivalry between Peter and James (Gal 2.9-10). There is polemic aimed at James (John 7:5; Mark 3:21, 31-35), another pro- polemic aimed at Peter (Matt 16:18-19) and anti-Peter polemics (the denial narratives of all the gospels). And then contrast the above with the mild dark shading of Peter in favor of the Beloved Disciple in John. Despite the evidence, Fuller thinks a rivalry is speculative. I think it quite plausible.
4)   There is no question that the eita/epeita (then) structure of the list implies a temporal sequence; but this may simply be the gratuitous wishful thinking of the redactor imagining Paul taking Luke's normal role as a pilgrim in the Holy Land seeking out remaining living 'saints' willing to reminisce about the great days of old when angels whispered in one's ear and dead men tapped one on the shoulder. Read E. F. F. Bishop, "The Risen Christ and the Five Hundred Brethren for a good understanding.

[Gawen]

In verse 7, many apologist scholars get their undies all bunched up over the meaning of the "all" in "all the apostles". Some think it is a larger group of missionaries as well as the Twelve. Some think "all the apostles" excludes the Twelve, since the Twelve were not regarded as apostles until the second century - when Luke combines the two categories. There would indeed be no polemic....but...

But what if, as others suggest, "all the apostles" means to exclude James and include Peter and the rest of the Twelve? That would plausibly be seen as a polemical counter to "Cephas, then to the Twelve". And that would mean resurrected Jesus appeared to James first, and then to the apostles, including Cephas...not Cephas first, followed by his colleagues. Seen this way, it becomes obvious that the James principle is the later of the two, since its very wording presupposes the Cephas principle.

One must remember that these two groups are not connected until Luke-Acts. Nowhere in earlier New Testament material is this connection made, including Paul, who always keeps the Twelve and the apostles separate. This separation of 'the twelve and the apostles' denotes it happened not only after Luke, but after Paul. Could there still be animosity between the two camps of believers so late (after Paul)? Read apocrypha like the Letter of Peter to James, which subordinates Peter to James.

A diversion to another question: Is the 50's CE to early for the shaping of the tradition? Who is to know the sectarian evolution of it all? Who is to know its factions and the polemics that stem from them? The two lists are integrated or perhaps "meshed" is a better word, and should be apparent. Why is it scholars cannot see the redactor was most likely an early catholic (as seen in Luke) and not during the time of Paul?

Was Paul really an eye witness? I'll ask a question to answer that. If the author of this passage were an eyewitness of the resurrection, why would he try to shore up his claim by appealing to a third-hand list of appearances formulated by others and delivered to him? Had he forgotten the appearance he himself had seen?
Verse 8 is embarrassing. It is a bare assertion that there was an appearance to Paul. Would an eyewitness of the resurrection, who could read and write, have more to say about it once the subject had come up? I certainly think so. Luke certainly thought so, in his tireless ranting of having Paul describe in impressive detail Acts 22.6-11; 26.12-18. The point is that an actual eyewitness would hardly be as tight-lipped as "Paul" is in 1 Cor 15:8.

In particular, 1:10, Paul is fighting against claims for Peter's primacy being circulated in Corinth by Peter's faction. Paul is adamant in asserting his own equality (and Apollos) with Cephas. When he talks of the resurrection in chapter 15, why would he risk everything by introducing a principle that points in the direction to the primacy of Cephas as the first witness of the resurrection? Would it not have been better for Paul to have said nothing? Would it have been safer to appeal to his own memories?
Verse 8, like the whole passage, is no more the work of "eye-witness Paul" than the Gospel of Matthew is the work of Jesus' disciple.

The third-person reference would have been changed to the first person by a Paulinist who set it into the context of verses 3, 9-11. These verses are themselves an interpolation into the argument which once flowed smoothly between verses 2 and 12. They are now a part of an apologia for Paul. The redactionist wished to vindicate Paul's controversial apostolship in the eyes of his fellow proto-catholics.  Luke did the same at about the same time: tying in Paul to the Twelve and James. Verse 10 looks back in history.
Kamoi does not mean "also me," but "even me," because the point is that Jesus condescended to appear to the chief sinner (1 Tim 1:15-16). The Pauline apologist altered the text to kamoi when he changed the third-person reference to a first-person reference, in order to tie it in more securely.

On the whole, there is a lack of continuity between the pericope (verses 3-11) and the rest of the chapter and the most probable solution is that verses 3-11 constitute an interpolation...but why?

The end and wrap up:

Is it possible the redactor could strengthen the chapter as a whole by starting it with a list of evidences for the resurrection? Is it possible that he was not interested in or perhaps even aware of the original function of the list as credentials? It would seem that by the late time this was inserted, it would have been a non issue. That no one disputed the authority of any of the names and they were now all regarded as sainted figures of the past and taken for granted?

So instead, the value of the list is a piece of apologetics for an historical resurrection. And it could very well have been the same person who interpolated the reference of the 500, a clearly apologetic intrusion. In the process, his bomb drop overshot the target by not trimming the extraneous verses 9-10, where they are not unlike John 13:16 where a list of mission instructions are much like Matthew 10 - the same saying occurs in Matt. 10:24 and retained the pointless John 13:20 along with it (Matt. 10:40).

The bent of 1 Corinthians 15: 3-11 is a 'catholicizing' apologetic (later than the Gospels) and the John/Peter polemics are alien to Paul. Ill fitting and linguistic differences appear in the text but they are not pivotal. A case for an interpolation grows stronger if it can be shown its reliance or relatedness to other text (the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle of Peter to James, and Luke-Acts) known to be later in time than the text in question and that can be done. Extra Biblical citations are indecisive; they either do not answer the questions or the genuosity of the citations are open for debate. For example, Marcion and Ambrosiaster lack "what I also received" in verse 3.

The evidence must be left to the individual weighing it. As it stands now, although unverifiable, the above claims are significant plausibility for making sense of the passage as interpolation. And that's how I see it.

At this time, I do not plan to argue the points.

[bandit4god]

At this time, I do not plan to argue the points.

No argument needed, but perhaps you'd indulge me one request for clarification.

But the inconsistencies remain: 
1) Galatians: Paul tells his readers that what he preached was not taught to him by humans.
2) 1 Cor 15: tells his readers that what he preached to them was taught to him by humans.
a) And, if I Cor. 15:3-8 is part of an earlier creed which Paul has simply imported and woven into his letter, then he is obviously not recounting firsthand knowledge.

To what do you refer when you say that 1 Cor 15 establishes Paul's knowledge as having come from humans?

- - -

And parenthetically, I can't help but compare the two below statements--one from your last post and the other from your autosignature--and scratch my head...

As it stands now, although unverifiable, the above claims are significant plausibility for making sense of the passage as interpolation

The essence of the mind is not in what it thinks, but how it thinks. Faith is the surrender of our mind; of reason and our skepticism to put all our trust or faith in someone or something that has no good evidence of itself. That is a sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith is not.