Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§18.3 Et Resurrexit
Despite uncertainties about the extent of tradition which Paul received, 126 there is
no reason to doubt that this information was communicated to Paul as part of his introductory
catechesis (15.3). 127 He would have needed to be informed of precedents
in order to make sense of what had happened to him. When he says, 'I handed
on (paredöka) to you as of first importance (en prötois) what I also received
(parelabonf (15.3), he assuredly does not imply that the tradition became important
to him only at some subsequent date. More likely he indicates the importance
of the tradition to himself from the start; that was why he made sure to pass it on to
the Corinthians when they first believed (15.1-2). 128 This tradition, we can be entirely
confident, was, formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death
It is disappointing, then, that we have no further record of the appearances
listed by Paul as third, fourth, and fifth, probably in chronological order. 130 The
intriguing question they raise is how lengthy was the period over which these appearances
stretched. The appearance claimed by Paul could have been no earlier
than about eighteen months after Jesus' death. 131 Had there been no appearances
beyond a few weeks after the resurrection — Luke says forty days (Acts 1.3) —
the claim made by Saul/Paul would surely have been regarded with considerable
126. See, e.g., the debates and bibliography cited in my Jesus and the Spirit 98, 385 nn. 6-
7, and the more recent discussion in Craig, Assessing 1-49; Schräge, 1 Korinther 4.19-24. On the
question whether the formula originated in Aramaic, see the review of the discussion in Lehmann,
Auferweckt 87-115; if formulated in Greek, the credal formula must still go back to the Greekspeaking
Hellenists of whom Acts speaks (Acts 6.1; 8.1-3; 9.1-2; 11.19). In any case, there is no
question that the tradition included resurrection appearances, at least those to Peter and the
Twelve: Paul uses the Aramaic Kephas, and 'the twelve' (hoi dödeka) is hapax in Paul; the hoti at
the beginning of v. 5 includes at least these appearances within the tradition received; and it is precisely
for this appearance tradition that Paul introduced his discussion of the resurrection with it.
127. The language of tradition transmission (paradidömi, paralambanö) is unmistakable
(BDAG, paradidömi 3).
128. Hence also the frequent echoes of formulae confessing the resurrection in Paul's
letters (above, n. 4); that Paul considered the resurrection of Jesus crucial for Christian faith as
a whole is clear from 1 Cor. 15.12-19. See also the review of the discussion on 1 Cor 15.3-8 in
Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus 487-90.
129. 'We can assume that all the elements in the tradition [15.3b-5, 6a, 7] are to be dated
to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus' (Lüdemann, Resurrection 38). Contrast
Funk's 'suspicion that the lists and reports were compiled long after the fact' (Honest 267).
130. The sequence of 'then .. . then .. . then (epeita/eita)' which links the second to fifth
appearances could denote simply an ordered account. But usage elsewhere suggests a list set out
in chronological order (BDAG, eita, epeita). And the fact that Paul introduces the final item (the
appearance to himself) with 'last of all (eschaton de pantön)' confirms that he is thinking of a sequence
which spanned a period of time (Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit 101, and those cited on 385-
86 nn. 13-15; Schräge, / Korinther 4.51-52). But the argument of the following paragraph does
not depend on the six appearances listed having followed a strict chronological sequence.
131. On the date of Paul's conversion, see again below, vol. 2.
855