Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§18.2 EtResurrexit
e. What of Paul's Testimony?
An important cross-current in all this is indicated by the question whether Paul
knew of the empty tomb tradition. For it is noteworthy that the clearest account
of resurrection tradition outside the Gospels (1 Cor. 15.3-8) testifies only to resurrection
appearances and does not include any account of an empty tomb. Still
more noteworthy is the fact that Paul offers a different conceptualization of the
resurrection body (including that of Jesus — 15.13-16, 20-23) from the physical
restoration conceptualization thus far assumed. The resurrection body is a different
body from that put into the ground at death (15.37-38), a 'spiritual body' in
contrast to the 'soulish body' of earthly existence (15.44-50). 58 Does that mean,
then, that Paul denied the physical restoration understanding of Jesus' resurrection
and thus that he knew nothing of, could dispense with, or even refute any tradition
of the empty tomb?
An affirmative answer is unlikely. The tradition which Paul received at his
conversion spoke not only of Jesus' death but also of his burial: 'what I received
[as already established tradition was] that Christ died for our sins in accordance
with the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he appeared . . .' (15.3-4).
Why the second clause ('that he was buried')? Why not the immediate transition
from death to resurrection, as in other accounts? 59 The most obvious answer is
that the disposal of the body in burial was an important point in the earliest confessional
statements. 60 Which probably reflects the place of the tomb narratives
— burial but also empty tomb — in the earliest traditions of Easter. 61 At this
point the argument can probably go into reverse. For the interesting fact emerges
that Paul retains reference to what happened to Jesus' body, even though in his
conceptualization the resurrection body was (may) not (have been) so tightly cor-
58. See further below, §18.5b and vol. 2.
59. E.g., Acts 3.15; 10.39-40.
60. See above, chapter 17 n. 96. Even if the point of 1 Cor. 15.4 is to confirm the reality
of death (Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection 87), the confirmation was precisely by burying the
body (in a tomb). While Paul himself may have been uninterested in the emptiness (or otherwise)
of Jesus' tomb (Grass, Ostergeschehen 173; Lüdemann, Resurrection 46), it does not at
all follow that the tradition he received was similarly uninterested (K. Lehmann, Auferweckt am
dritten Tag nach der Schrift [QD 38; Freiburg: Herder, 1968] 78-86). On the other hand, Craig's
confidence outstrips the evidence: 'Paul certainly believed that the grave was empty' (Assessing
113).
61. Fitzmyer draws attention to the similar formulation in Acts 13.28-31 — crucified,
laid in a tomb, raised and appeared (Luke 1534); as in Acts 2.29, 'buried' probably implies
'grave/tomb'. As again Luke's two accounts suggest (Luke 23.52-24.7 and Acts 13.28-31), a
reference to burial probably implied a now vacant burial location. The suggestion that the affirmation
of the empty tomb preceded any narrative account of its discovery fails to appreciate
that such affirmation would almost certainly have taken narrative form from the first.
839