Introduction

The integrity of the New Testament text is one of the basic issues of the study of the New Testament. Because we do not have the original writings of any of the New Testament books, we must evaluate the reliability of the copies that have been passed down to us. If a copyist inserted something into the text that was not written by the author of the book, the insertion is known as an interpolation. Detecting interpolations and ensuring that present versions of past texts are as close as possible to the original is known as textual criticism. In this article, I examine the argument that one particular passage in 1 Corinthians is an interpolation.

I.     The Significance of the Passage

1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is an important passage because it is the earliest written account of Jesus' resurrection. Because Paul states that the account of resurrection appearances was passed on to him by others, it is earlier than its usage in 1 Corinthians (which is dated no later than 55 AD).¹ In addition to being very early, the appearance tradition cited in 1 Corinthians refers to people that Paul knew and had talked to personally, such as Paul and James. So not only did Paul inherit an early tradition, he had the opportunity to discuss it with some of the witnesses cited within it. Thus, this passage constitutes the earliest surviving written tradition of Jesus’ resurrection appearances, pre-dating those in the canonical Gospels by decades, and it is attested by someone who had the opportunity to discuss it with at least some its sources.

In order to frame the discussion, I include the passage at issue with some surrounding context:

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

This passage is unanimously attested by all of the manuscript evidence. For that and other reasons, almost all New Testament scholars regard it as genuine. However, the recent compilation The Empty Tomb includes an aging essay by Robert M. Price that argues that 1 Cor. 15:3-11 is an interpolation. In this article, I respond to his arguments.

II.     It is Initially Improbable that 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is an Interpolation

A.     Smearing a Gentleman and a Scholar

Robert Price begins his chapter by arguing that it is not initially improbable that 1 Cor. 15:3-11 is an interpolation. While doing so, Dr. Price unfairly attacks the work of scholars such as Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, who have questioned some purported interpolations in the Pauline corpus suggested by other scholars. He accuses them of claiming that no proposed interpolation “need be taken seriously” absent “definitive manuscript evidence.” According to Dr. Price, Prof. Murphy O’Connor is engaging in nothing more than a “theological apologetic” akin to the “fundamentalists” who argue that the King James Version is the only inspired English version of the Bible.

This misrepresentation of Prof. Murphy-O’Connor’s scholarship is an unfounded, provably false rant. Prof. Murphy-O’Connor is one of the leading experts in Pauline studies in general and the text of the Corinthian correspondence in particular.² Although Dr. Price accuses Prof. Murphy-O’Connor of insisting that only textual evidence can demonstrate the likelihood of an interpolation, I see no evidence of that in the article cited or others that I have read. Indeed, far from insisting on the purity of the Pauline texts, Prof. Murphy-O’Connor concludes that two passages in the Pauline letters are non-Pauline despite their presence in the manuscript traditions.³

As for suggested interpolations that he ultimately finds unpersuasive, Prof. Murphy-O’Connor carefully considers the evidences presented, usually contextual, and responds with contextual arguments of his own. He explicitly states that these are arguments worth considering and cannot simply be dismissed. What Prof. Murphy-O’Connor recognizes, however, is that some commentators overstate the presence of interpolations in the Pauline corpus and often use that supposed likelihood to beef up otherwise unpersuasive arguments for finding interpolations:

The number of interpolations is much less than Walker seems to think, and there is no basis for the assumption that the text of the epistles has been heavily retouched by an editor or editors. Hence, one cannot rely on ‘the general probability of the presence of interpolations in the Pauline writings as they now stand” (p. 99) to give authority to weak arguments. Each case must be judged on its own merits.⁴

Accordingly, although the possibility of an interpolation unattested by the manuscript evidence cannot be dismissed, it must – especially in light of the evidence discussed below – initially be deemed unlikely.

B.     The Importance of the Manuscript Evidence

Dr. Price complains about the purported lack of manuscript evidence relevant to the disputed passage. Dr. Price’s theory, for which he gives few facts, is that the manuscripts “mysteriously vanished” due to orthodox suppression. As most scholars recognize, however, the opposite is true. “Compared to any other letter collection . . . the letters of Paul have survived in an enormous number of manuscripts that provide a large number of variant readings.”⁵

Here are the relevant early manuscripts:

• Papyrus 46. This manuscript dates from the late second century and contains most of Paul’s letters, including 1 Corinthians. It is classified as the Proto-Alexandrian type.
  
  
• Codex Vaticanus (B). This manuscript dates from between 325-350 AD. It contains the whole New Testament, minus the Pastorals and Philemon, as well as the Greek (LXX) Old Testament. It is classified as the Alexandrian type.
  
  
• Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph). This manuscript dates from around 340 AD. It contains the entire New Testament and half of the Old Testament. It is classified as the Alexandrian type.
  
  
• Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C). This manuscript dates from around 350 AD. It contains only part of the Old Testament but most of the New Testament. It is classified as the Alexandrian type.
  
  
• Codex Alexandrinus (A). Dating from about 450 AD, this too is a complete manuscript of the Bible with only minor omissions. It is classified as a mix of the Byzantine and Alexandrian types.
  
  
• Codex Claromontanus (D 06). This manuscript dates from the fifth century in Greek with a corresponding Latin translation. It is of the Western type.
  
  
• 0270. A small fragment of 1 Corinthians which contains 1 Cor. 15:10-15. It dates from as early as the fourth century.

In summary, there is a physical manuscript containing the disputed passage from the late second century, three major manuscripts from the 300s, a fragment from the 300s that contains part of the disputed passage, and two more major manuscripts from the 400s. The majority of the manuscripts are of the Alexandrian type but there is some diversity.

To the uninitiated, this may not seem like much with which to work. But it represents a very early witness (p46) and a diversity of relatively early witnesses to the verses (three Alexandrian, one Western, one Byzantine/Alexandrian, and one unidentified). As manuscript evidence goes, this is an abundance.

Textual critics not working with the New Testament would love to have the same kind of early witnesses that biblical scholars possess. In fact, many of them work with manuscripts written 1,000 years after the autographs were composed! We all marvel that the Dead Sea Scrolls have provided a text that is nearly 800 years closer to the originals than the Masoretic manuscripts, yet many of the Dead Sea manuscripts are still 600 to 800 years removed from the time of original composition!⁶

The manuscript evidence for the New Testament generally and the disputed passage specifically, therefore, is among the best available to students of ancient history.

Finally, Dr. Price understates the utility of textual evidence in detecting interpolations. Scholars not only look for the complete absence of the verse at issue as an indication of interpolation, but may find further evidence of interpolation from indirect textual evidence. This would include “more-or-less insignificant textual variants in the verse immediately preceding and/or following a passage.”⁷ The idea is that an interruption of the text caused by a foreign intrusion will have to be coped with by copyists trying to smooth out the genuine part of the text surrounding the interpolation. Although familiar with this criteria, Dr. Price is unable to point to any such evidence in the text of 1 Corinthians. Another possible indirect indicia of an interpolation is “the failure of an early church writer (particularly one from the third century or before) to refer to a passage at a pace where the subject matter, point of view, and perhaps use of other related passages would appear to call for such a reference.”⁸ Though such an approach may, in my opinion, be problematically subjective, Dr. Price offers no evidence that any of the patristic writers are suggestively silent about 1 Cor. 15:3-11.

All told, the manuscript evidence establishes a strong presumption that 1 Cor. 15:3-11 comes from Paul’s own hand.

C.     The Use of Paul’s Letters in the 2nd Century Counsels Against Interpolations

The widespread use of Paul’s letters by the early Christian writers – beginning in the late first century – counts against the likelihood of extensive interpolations having worked their way into the manuscript tradition without leaving a trace. As Jon Weatherly notes, “these hypotheses require reconstructions of the history of transmission of the Pauline corpus which appear unlikely. I. Broer has argued persuasively that the evidence from 1 Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp indicates that knowledge of the Pauline Epistles in the post-apostolic church was sufficient to rule out the acceptance of large numbers of interpolations.”⁹ In addition to 1 Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, other early writers and writings such as Marcion, 2 Clement, Shepard of Hermas, and the Odes of Solomon, establish the widespread use of Paul’s letters during the second century. Anyone attempting to introduce an interpolation into the traditions would face an uphill battle because so many other churches had their own, uncontaminated manuscripts. As a result, non-Pauline additions to the texts would have quickly been identified as such.

In summary, the manuscript evidence and widespread use of Paul’s letters no later than the early second century suggest that it is initially implausible to suggest that a passage in Paul universally attested in the manuscript tradition is an interpolation. This, of course, is not the end of the inquiry but it does appropriately set the stage.

III.     1 Corinthians 15 v. Galatians 1

A.     Is There an Irreconcilable Conflict Between the Two Passages?

Dr. Price’s main argument is that Paul's reliance on an established tradition in 1 Cor. 15:3-11 is incompatible with his statement in Galatians 1:12 that he did not receive the gospel from men. As I have already cited the relevant passage from 1 Corinthians, here is Galatians 1:6-12:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

It is the last verse that Dr. Price seizes on to insist that Paul would not have passed along a tradition explaining the gospel that he had received from other human beings. In Dr. Price’s own words, “[t]hat Paul should have delivered the following tradition poses little problem; but that he had first been the recipient of it from earlier tridents creates, I judge, a problem insurmountable for Pauline authorship.”¹⁰

Is it true that there is necessarily an irreconcilable conflict between the two passages? Not in the opinion of almost all other scholars, who see the two passages as reconcilable or simply believe that writers are sometimes inconsistent (especially when writing different letters separated by time and occasion). Although some scholars have seen the apparent tension between the two passages, they suggest explanations that reconcile them.

Dr. Price criticizes the explanations offered by various scholars, but his efforts are cursory and dismissive – claiming that the explanations are “not actually visible in the text” and “never outlined in the texts.” His responses are far too abrupt and loaded with his own assumptions to be persuasive. They also come across as insincere, as Dr. Price moves far beyond the text himself and is willing to read into vs. 3-11 a rift in early Christianity between Peter and the Twelve on one hand and James and the Apostles on the other that was only reconciled by a later interpolator. Of course, no such rift is “visible in the text.” Dr. Price also sees a long history of development regarding Jesus' appearance to James and James’ importance to early Christianity. Although no such developments are “actually visible in the text”, Dr. Price justifies these assumptions by appealing to the legendary development surrounding Mohammed’s son-in-law, Ali. Thus, Dr. Price is forced to come up with his own extra-textual explanations to justify his theory and therefore cannot simply dismiss such explanations out of hand.

B.     The Absence of Conflict

As mentioned above, most scholars see no great conflict between Galatians 2 and 1 Cor. 15: 3-11. Dr. Thompson, for example, argues that there is no contradiction between Paul’s reliance on his own revelation experience and his use of preexisting traditions. Paul is not dependent on those traditions for his own knowledge of the gospel but they may profitably be used, especially in the context – like that in Corinth – where his audience would have been impressed by multiple revelations:

Paul insisted that he received his gospel and other revelations from God (Galatians 1:11-12, 15-17; 2:2; 2 Corinthians 12:1-7), but the content of his faith did not differ essentially from the faith of those who were Christians before him. After his conversion he preached the faith he once sought to destroy (Galatians 1:23; cf. Galatians 2:6, 9; 1 Corinthians 15:11). His emphasis on divine revelation in Galatians came in response to those who insisted on requiring Gentile Christian converts to keep Jewish traditions (circumcision, food laws, etc.). Writing to those who esteemed revelations, Paul reminded the Corinthians of the traditions he had passed on to them (1 Corinthians 11:23; 15:3-11). He believed that the Spirit of the risen Lord spoke through Christian traditions, including his own teachings. Paul admonished his readers to hold fast the traditions they had received from him (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6) and he commended his readers for doing so (1 Corinthians 11:2; cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:1; Col. 2:6-7).¹¹

Another scholar, Seyoon Kim, stresses the distinction between the “form” and the “essence” of the gospel and points out that Paul was more likely to draw on the experiences of others as well as his own in 1 Corinthians because he is stressing apostolic unity throughout that letter:

Among the various solutions the best one seems to be the one that starts from making a distinction between the essence and the form (or the formal expression) of the gospel and which sees Paul as referring to the former in Gal. 1.12 and to the latter in 1 Cor. 15:1ff. Basic to the divergent opinions within this approach is the supposition that through the 'revelation of Jesus Christ' on the Damascus road Paul came to realize the truth of the Christian proclamation that the crucified Jesus is the risen and exalted Lord and that proclamation that the crucified Jesus is the risen and exalted Lord and that the tradition of 1 Cor. 15.3ff is a formal expression of this essence of the gospel. Paul says that he received his gospel through a 'revelation of Jesus Christ' on the Damascus road Paul came to realize the truth of the Christian proclamation that he crucified Jesus is the risen and exalted Lord and that the tradition of 1 Cor. 15.3ff. is a formal expression of this essence of the gospel. Paul says that he received the gospel through a 'revelation of Jesus Christ' because he was convinced of the truth of the gospel, namely Christ as God's saving event, not through man's preaching, but only through God's revelation of his Son to him.

For the present purpose it is enough to see the mutually complementary character of Paul's statements in Gal. 1.12 and 1 Cor. 15.1ff . . . in the Galatian passage Paul asserts that he received his gospel not from man but directly 'through a revelation of Jesus Christ' because here he is concerned with the origin and essence of his gospel, while in 1 Cor. 15.1ff. he reproduces the early Christian tradition as the gospel that he preached to the Corinthians because there he is concerned to remind them of the terms in which he actually preached the gospel to them, and to emphasize the resurrection of Christ as being the common preaching of all the apostles (1 Cor. 15.11).¹²

Kim’s distinction between the form and essence of the Gospel finds support in Paul’s choice of words in v. 2. C.K. Barrett translates the phrase, “I ask you to note with what form of words I preached the Gospels to you.”¹³ Young’s Literal Translation is similar, “in what words I proclaimed good news to you.” All other versions have Paul transitioning from speaking of the “gospel” in verse 1 to reminding them of the “message” or “word” he preached to them. So, Paul himself – in passages that Dr. Price does not dispute – is aware of the fact that the “gospel” can be expressed in a particular “message,” “word,” or “form.”

I appreciate the points made by Thompson and Kim and think they are useful in fleshing out the supposed tension between Galatians 2 and 1 Corinthians 15. Ultimately, I do not view the issue as a complicated one because Paul nowhere says in 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 that he is dependent on men for his receipt of the gospel. Rather, he is passing along a summary of the resurrection appearances that the early Christians used as evidence of the resurrection and, therefore, the gospel. Furthermore, it would be foolish to claim that vs. 3-11 were meant to be taken as a statement by Paul that he is dependent on the other witnesses for his own knowledge of the gospel when v. 8 stresses that Paul was an apostle in his own right because he saw the risen Jesus and in v. 11 that he “labored more than all of [the other apostles].”

C.     Galatians 2 Clarified

In Galatians, Paul is defending himself against Judaizers who were likely claiming that their message was superior to Paul's teaching because they represented the Jerusalem Church. In response, Paul had to show his independence and the superiority of the message he preached -- regardless of who preached it. (Gal 1:8: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"). As a result, Paul stressed that he did not receive the gospel from men nor was he taught it by them. Even in Galatians, however, Paul admits that he learned about the gospel from other men. He knew its contents. He knew that the apostles had claimed to have seen Jesus after His resurrection. At the very least, Paul learned these things while he was persecuting Christians. Indeed, it is likely that Paul’s knowledge of these teachings was the reason he engaged in persecution. As noted by George Howard in Paul: Crisis in Galatia, “it can hardly be Paul's purpose to argue this at this time since in the very next two verses he gives away the fact that he did receive something from other men, even before his conversion. In vss. 13-14 he describes himself as a persecutor of the church and this logically implies that he knew (at least in part) and opposed what the church taught . . . ."¹⁴

Additionally, Paul stresses in Galatians that his gospel is the "same" as those he used to persecute. Gal. 1:22-23 ("I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ; but only, they kept hearing, 'He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.'"). So Paul knew about the gospel prior to his conversion experience and taught that gospel as his own thereafter. But, if Paul already knew the content of the gospel before his conversion, how can he say that he did not receive it from men? Because knowing the content of the gospel and knowing the truth of the gospel are two different things. Paul received the truth of the gospel, much of which content he already knew, from Jesus and not from man. As G.E. Ladd states, in Galatians 2, “Paul means to say that his message about Jesus as the exalted Lord came to him by direct revelation on the Damascus road when Christ appeared to him; but this by no means precludes the probability that when Paul visited Jerusalem shortly after his conversion, he met and talked with Peter and James, and learned from them the important facts about Jesus’ life, death, and the resurrection appearances.”¹⁵

Furthermore, Paul tells the Galatians that he specifically went to Jerusalem so he could “get acquainted” with Peter. In fact, Paul tells them that he spent over two weeks with Peter. What did they talk about for such a long visit? As C.H. Dodd famously remarked, “we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.” Yet Dr. Price apparently thinks that their conversation was just as meaningless and that Paul had no interest in Peter’s knowledge of Jesus. Obviously, Paul found value in learning about Jesus from Peter.

Accordingly, it is simply not possible to read Galatians as does Dr. Price. Paul does not claim that he knew nothing about the gospel until his conversion and learned nothing about the gospel thereafter. Indeed, the evidence from Galatians proves that he had learned about matters directly related to the gospel from men, though he received the gospel and learned it to be true from Jesus.

D.     1 Corinthians 15 Clarified

In Corinth, Paul faced a different problem than when he wrote Galatians. He was trying to convince a congregation that overly favored personal revelation to remember the traditions that had been passed on to them. He responded to them by stressing that what he had preached before was based on the common experience of all of the apostles – many revelations rather than one. (1 Cor. 15:8, 11: "and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also . . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed."). This is entirely in keeping with Paul’s focus in 1 Corinthians on the unity of Christians generally and of the Christian leaders specifically.

The theme of unity is central to 1 Corinthians yet completely ignored by Dr. Price. Paul’s focus on unity was an important encouragement for him to refer to a tradition recounting resurrection appearances to different church leaders while he was trying to appeal to different factions in the Corinthian church. It is probably no accident that in addition to referring to the appearance of the risen Jesus to Peter (here called, “Cephas”), Paul refers to Peter three other times in 1 Corinthians. The first two are to stress Christian unity:

Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas,” and "I of Christ." Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius.

So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present or things to come; all things belong to you, and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.

In the third passage, Paul sets Peter up as an example to justify his own actions.

Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? (1:12; 3:22; 9:5).

In sum, Paul stresses unity in 1 Corinthians because there were various factions appealing to their own preferred leader, including Peter. In response to some from Corinth who denied the resurrection, it is to be expected that Paul would appeal to a common tradition that would appeal to all of the factions, rather than only to his own conversion experience.

E.     Paul Had No Aversion to Using Traditions

Dr. Price spends no time looking at Paul’s use of established Church creeds, liturgies, and psalms elsewhere in his letters. Such creeds can be detected by established indicators, such as the four-time repeat of "that' in 1 Cor. 15:3-5, or "received and passed on" as in 1 Cor. 11 and 15, and the atypical vocabulary of well-attested passages, the use of theological approaches otherwise uncommon--such as the suffering servant motif, and the use of rhetorical forms and structures.¹⁶ A review of the use of traditions in Paul’s letters reveals that despite his comment in Galatians 2, he made great use of important traditions and passed them on to his congregation. According to Thompson:

Paul inherited a number of specifically Christian traditions, such as liturgical acclamation and confessions (1 Cor. 12:3; Phil 2:11; Rom. 10:8-9), creedal formulations (1 Cor. 15:3-5; Rom. 1:3-4; 3:24-26; 4:24-25?; 1 Thes. 1:9-10?; 2 Tim. 2:8; cf. Rom. 6:17) and hymns (Phil. 2:6-11; Eph. 5:14; Col. 1:15-20?). Paul's moral teaching or paraenesis (as found in, e.g., Rom. 12:1-15:13; Gal. 5:1-6:10; 1 Thess. 4:1-5:22; Col. 3:1-4:6) contains traditions from several sources, including Cynic and Stoic moralists, Jewish halakah, and dominical teachings, but most likely also reflects early Christian catechetical material. The authority of the Spirit within himself and other Christians (1 Cor. 2:13-13; 14:31, 37) offered yet another source of traditions. Prophecies were tested, apparently by their coherence with fundamental traditions received from Jesus, the OT and the prior witness of the Spirit in the Christian community (1 Thess. 5:20-21; 1 Cor. 14:29).¹⁷

At the very least, this evidence is suggestive. Paul was not reluctant to use established creeds and confessions gained from other sources when establishing churches.

IV.     The 500 Brethren

In addition to arguing that 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is incompatible with Galatians 2, Dr. Price argues that the appearance of Jesus to the 500 recounted in v. 6 is evidence of an interpolation because it is not recounted in any of the Gospels. He asks, “If the claim of 500 witnesses were early tradition, can anyone explain its total absence from the gospel tradition?”¹⁸

For Dr. Price, the answer is obviously, “No.” But this reported appearance has two features that distinguish it from the other appearances reported in the Gospels. The "500 brethren" are not named and the emphasis is on many of them still being alive. Some commentators have observed that the Gospels, written decades later, had less interest in recounting anonymous appearances -- especially when consulting those witnesses was no longer feasible. Additionally, some scholars believe that the emphasis given to particular resurrection appearances in particular Gospels are meant to emphasize the leadership and authority of those leaders. Thus, Peter for example had an ongoing influence on the early church and the resurrection appearance to him was retained in the Gospels. Obviously, this purpose would not be served by referring to the anonymous 500.

Other scholars have associated the appearance to the 500 with the ascension recorded in the first chapter of Acts or believe that it was the source of out which Acts' depiction of Pentecost developed. Still others have placed it in Galilee (thus explaining its absence from Luke).

Another possibility, one which I believe has broad explanatory scope, is that the appearance to the 500 brethren emphasized Jewish Christianity or a Christian sect tied to James. Given the failure of the Gospels to also refer to the appearance to James, such a connection could have explained its absence. Whichever explanation is correct, if any of them, we cannot simply assume that the gospel authors had to recount this appearance at all or in the same way as Paul.

Dr. Price is dismissive of these explanations and concludes that it is “far more natural to suppose” that they are a later development. However, Dr. Price spends little time responding to the alternative explanations; far too little to eliminate them as possibilities. Furthermore, the appearance to the 500 is attested very early in the manuscript tradition by Marcion’s version of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians in the early second century.

All told, Dr. Price has failed to make his case that the presence of the appearance to the 500 necessitates his interpolation theory. But, even if the only explanation for the failure of the Gospels to mention the 500 is interpolation, Dr. Price goes beyond the evidence by arguing that it would prove that verses 3-11 are interpolated. The evidence, if taken as such, only casts doubt on 1 Cor. 15:6. As Dr. Price’s own two-stage interpolation theory suggests, verse 6 can be severed and deemed an interpolation without casting doubt on the rest of the passage.

V.     Early Second Century References to the Disputed Passage Establish its Authenticity

Around 110 AD, a church leader in Antioch named Ignatius wrote to several Christian churches in different cities as he was traveling under guard to be executed in Rome. In his letter to the church in Rome, Ignatius quotes from 1 Cor. 15:8-9. (Romans 9:2). According to French scholar Edouard Massaux, the similarities in Greek and context render the “dependence on 1 Cor. 15:8-9 [] indubitable.”¹⁹ The Oxford Society of Historical Theology concluded that Ignatius’ reference to 1 Cor. 15:8-9 is “highly probable.”²⁰ Albert E. Barnett’s analysis concludes that the disputed passage is a “clear influence” on Ignatius’ Letter to the Romans.²¹ Thus, the striking linguistic and contextual agreements between 1 Cor. 15:8-9 and Ignatius' Rom. 9:2 demonstrate that a significant portion of the disputed passage was quoted very early in the second century.

Given Ignatius’ use of the disputed passage, the only possible time period for the insertion of 1 Cor. 15:3-11 would be between 54 and 110 AD. But the issue is not that simple and the plausible time period for an insertion of the interpolation would have been narrower. Paul had ongoing relationships – as evidenced by his correspondence – with his churches until at least 62 AD, making the purported interpolation less likely during that time period. Additionally, Ignatius assumed a position of leadership in Antioch no later than the 70s AD, making it likely he was familiar with Paul’s letters much earlier than 110 AD. Thus, the plausible window for the interpolation to have been introduced into the manuscript traditions is quite small.²²

But there is another early reference to the disputed passage. Around 130-140 AD, the arch-heretic Marcion cites the entire disputed passage (although he deleted the phrase "he received" from v. 3). Not only is this another early attestation, it is a hostile one. If Marcion had any reason to doubt a passage that so strongly affirmed the humanity and death of Christ, Paul's reliance on a tradition from Jewish Christianity, and a reference to Paul as the “least of all the apostles,” – all of which ran counter to his own version of Christianity – he would have chopped it out as he did so many other verses in Paul’s letters.²³ The passage must have been well attested to escape Marcion's scalpel. Moreover, writing within about 20-30 years of each other in different locations and with different theologies, it is unlikely that Ignatius and Marcion relied on the same manuscript tradition for 1 Corinthians. It is also improbable that Marcion’s version of 1 Corinthians is the source of the “interpolation,” given the hostility with which his version of the New Testament was received.

The very narrow window of time in which the interpolation must have arisen is rendered even more problematic by Dr. Price’s reconstruction, which necessitates a two-step process. Price finds it likely that the original interpolation included the appearances to Cephas, the Twelve, James, and the apostles, “but that subsequently someone, reading the list as evidence for the resurrection, inserted the reference to the 500 brethren.”²⁴ The notion that this occurred, as it must have, in the first century and then found its way into multiple manuscript traditions as diverse as the ones used by Ignatius and Marcion is very unlikely.

In sum, we have seen that the manuscript evidence for the passage’s authenticity is stronger than is found in most ancient writings and that there are compelling secondary references attesting to the authenticity of 1 Cor. 15:3-11.

VI.     Additional Indicia of Authenticity

In addition to overstating his case, Dr. Price also overlooks important indicia of authenticity in the disputed passage.

A.     The Technical Language of the Pharisees

In 1 Corinthians 15:3 is the technical language of the rabbis and Pharisees that signals the passing along of oral tradition. The language is the reference to “delivering” what had been “received.” According to a leading Jewish scholar, Paul “discloses that the doctrines of Christianity were received and passed on--likely to be Greek translations of the two technical terms for the transmission of oral tradition within Pharisaism: kibel and masar."²⁵ Although Dr. Price concedes that 1 Cor. 15:3 employs technical language used by the Pharisees to denote the oral transmission of tradition, he fails to realize a significant implication of this fact.

The question is a straightforward one. Who is more likely to employ such language? A former Pharisee renowned for his education in the ways of the rabbis or a late second-century gentile interpolator? The answer is obvious. A former Pharisee is more likely to employ the technical language of a Pharisee. Given the shortage of rabbi Christian scribes in the late second to early third century, the best explanation of its authorship is that Paul wrote it in the first century.

Rendering Pauline authorship of these rabbinic terms all the more likely is the fact that Paul employs the same language elsewhere in 1 Corinthians when he reminds them of the tradition of the Lord’s Supper that he had previously taught them. (1 Cor. 11:23). Paul also uses similar rabbinic language in Phil 4:9 (“the things you have learned and received”) and Rom. 16:17 (“to the teaching you have learned”). Clearly, the best explanation for the presence of technical Pharisaic language is that its author was trained as a Pharisee.

B.     Variance with the Gospel Accounts

The variance between the Gospel accounts of the resurrection appearances and the resurrection appearances recounted in 1 Cor. 15:3-11 point to authenticity. Later Christian scribes writing after the dissemination of the Gospels would be influenced by the accounts valued in established tradition. At the very least, if written in the late-second or early-third century the disputed passage would show greater familiarity with the gospel resurrection accounts. Additionally, if someone had tried to insert a specious passage into one of Paul's letters well-after the Gospel accounts had been established in Christian tradition, he would have faced an uphill battle getting his version accepted into other manuscript traditions. The more it differed from the canonical Gospels and the already wide-spread original text of 1 Corinthians, the less likely it would be to gain sufficient ground to become the only surviving tradition. Thus, the following differences count against Dr. Price’s interpolation theory:

First, though the empty tomb can be inferred from Paul's statement that Jesus "was buried" and rose bodily, it is not explicitly stated. However, the empty tomb is prominent in all four canonical Gospels.

Second, Paul makes no mention of the women’s role in the resurrection accounts, either the empty tomb or the resurrection appearances to them. Given the limited value of the testimony of women at that time, it is more likely that Paul left them out before the canonical Gospels than after. The women feature prominently in all four Gospels, and Jesus’ resurrection appearance to them features prominently in Luke and John. The stigma against the testimony of women would have been less of a factor after the Gospels had established their part in the tradition but would have been sufficient reason for Paul to overlook their testimony in a passage intended to prove up the resurrection (or its nature) prior to the Gospels.

Third, the disputed passage refers to Jesus' appearance to “the Twelve” whereas all of the Gospels make clear that “the Twelve” numbered eleven by that time because Judas had betrayed Jesus. More to the point, Matthew (28:16), Luke (24:9, 33), and the addition to Mark (16:14) explicitly refer to the disciples at this time as “the eleven.” Furthermore, the story of Judas’ betrayal was widespread, portrayed in all of the Gospels, elaborated on in Acts, and narrated in other apocryphal gospels. Indeed, Judas even had his own gospel (the Gospel of Judas) by the end of the second century. It is difficult to imagine that any Christian writer in the late second or early third century would ignore this universal tradition about the number of disciples present at after Jesus’ resurrection and describe their number as Twelve. It is much more believable that Paul – writing before the Gospels’ references to “the eleven” and before Judas had become as infamous – would refer to the disciples as “the Twelve” than would an interpolator in the late second century.²⁶

C.     Paul’s Use of the First Person Plural in vs. 14-15 Suggests vs. 3-11 Are Authentic

In a debate between Dr. Price and William L. Craig on the resurrection, Dr. Craig raised a point indicating the authenticity of the disputed passage that Dr. Price has not adequately answered. I have not found a transcript of the debate and so rely on Dr. Price’s version of the argument.

In the undisputed verses 14 and 15 of Chapter 15, Paul three times uses the first-person plural to refer to the preaching of the gospel:

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.

1 Cor. 15:13-25. Notice how Paul three times uses the first-person plural (“our,” “we,” and “we”), thus placing special emphasis on the resurrection being preached by multiple witnesses. This fits in very well with the recitation of multiple witnesses to the resurrection that is found in verses 3-11, but not so well if verse 2 skips to verse 12. Verse 2 stresses Paul’s own preaching to the Corinthians: “if you hold fast the word which I preached to you.”

After Dr. Craig made this argument, Dr. Price attempted to respond:

But 1 Corinthians abounds in abrupt, unconscious transitions between "I" (Paul) (4:15) and "we"--purely formal, albeit inconsistent, inclusions of his colleagues Sosthenes (1:1), Apollos (3:6-9), Barnabas (9:5-6), or the apostles generally (1:23; 2:13; 4:9-10). Note the rapid switch in 9:3-4: "My answer to them who examine me is this: Have we not authority to eat and drink?"

Although Dr. Price may have a point about Paul sometimes switching to the first person plural as a reference to his co-laborers, his argument stops short of explaining the usage in vs. 14-15. Paul does refer to “our preaching” just after the disputed passage. If that was the only reference to the first-person plural I would probably be sympathetic to this argument because Paul could well have been referring to his co-laborers. However, Paul goes one to use the first-person plural twice more in ways that better match the disputed passage than the preceding verses 1-3. In verse 15 Paul states that if there is no resurrection “we are found to be false witnesses” and “we testified” against God. Because none of Paul’s colleagues with him in Corinth were witnesses to the resurrection and could not testify to it, Paul must be referring back to the list of witnesses and his statement in verse 11, “Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.” Inclusion of verse 11 and the preceding list of witnesses explain Paul’s use of the first-person plural to refer to preaching, witnessing, and testifying, whereas Dr. Price’s theory accounts only for the use of the first-person plural to refer to preaching.

Conclusion

A review of the evidence demonstrates that the scholarly consensus for authenticity is well taken. Dr. Price’s argument that Galatians 2 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 cannot be reconciled is unpersuasive. His argument that the appearance to the 500 is not found in the Gospels at most calls v. 6 into question, though even that argument is overly subjective. Finally, in addition to the unanimous manuscript evidence there are two early second-century secondary references attesting to the passages authenticity, as well as other indicia of authenticity that Dr. Price simply ignores.

_____________________________________________________

Endnotes

©December 2005 Christopher Price

Questions or comments concerning this article or the use of this article should be directed to Christopher Price.