AD 34–36: Paul's First Trip to Jerusalem
AD 34–36: Paul's First Trip to Jerusalem
Strangely enough the next stage in the process was discovered not by biblical conservatives but by critical scholars. Further, there is near unanimity regarding these conclusions from those who address the issues. Paul asserts more than once that he received traditions from others and passed them on to his hearers. Does he give any indications of where and when he obtained these data?
From everything we know, Paul was a careful scholar. He had been trained well in the Old Testament tradition, referring to himself as an individual who was exceptionally zealous for the Law, as a Pharisee and “a Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil 3:4–6). He had advanced beyond others of his own age and distinguished himself by supporting without question the tradition of Judaism. As such, he violently persecuted early Christians (Gal 1:13–14). Then he testified that he met the risen Jesus, accounting for the total transformation of his life (1 Cor 9:1; 15:8–10; Gal 1:15–16).
Paul attests that immediately after his conversion, he did not consult with anyone. Since he had seen an appearance of Jesus and had been instructed by him to preach to the Gentiles, he did not think it was necessary to check this all out with others. Jesus' authority was greater than that of anyone else. However, three years later he did visit Jerusalem and spent 15 days with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus (Gal 1:15–18).
What happened during this incredible meeting involving these three great Christian leaders? It must have been eventful, to say the least. In the now famous words of Cambridge University New Testament scholar C. H. Dodd, “We may presume that they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.”12
What did they discuss? It might be said that the first rule of literary criticism is to interpret a text in its context. Applying that rule here, the context both immediately before and immediately after Paul's statement concerns the nature of the gospel message. Therefore, critical scholars have long thought that the context makes clear that this subject would form the center of this historic meeting. Besides, what else would Paul and the other two apostles more likely discuss other than the center of their faith? For these reasons it is widely concluded that the gospel constituted the focus of their conversation.
Further, the majority of critical scholars who answer the question think that Paul received the early tradition recorded in 1 Cor 15:3ff. during this visit to Jerusalem and that he received it from Peter and James, who, incidentally, are the only other individuals besides Paul whose names appear in the list of Jesus' resurrection appearances. Based on the usual date for Paul's conversion of between one and three years after Jesus' crucifixion, Paul's reception of this material in Jerusalem would be dated from approximately four to six years later, or from AD 34–36. On many occasions I have documented this critical scholarly conclusion as to when and from whom Paul received this material.13 Bauckham has also recently noted the scholarly consensus on this point.14
Besides the subject matter itself and the three individual names in the list of appearances, another hint regarding this process is found in Gal 1:18. When speaking of his time with Peter and James, Paul used the Greek term historyēsai, which is often defined as gaining knowledge by personal inquiry or investigation.15 So Paul apparently meant us to understand that he was using this quality time with the other two apostles in order to probe their understanding of the gospel message. But even without his telling us this, it makes the most sense of his taking a trip to Jerusalem to speak with the major apostles there. Moreover, the topic was important to Paul, for he paused afterward to tell his reader: “I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie” (Gal 1:20).
We must keep in mind here the vital difference between the formal tradition that Paul passed along to others, which as far as we know was written down for the first time in 1 Cor 15:3ff., and the particular content about which that tradition speaks. Virtually nothing depends on Paul's having received this tradition during precisely this meeting in Jerusalem, even though that is when critical scholars tend to place it. By far the more important matter concerns Paul's knowledge of the gospel content as preached by Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, which comprises the creed. Thus, all we really need to know here is that Paul discussed the gospel particulars with them, and this seems well assured.
In fact, critical scholars are so sure about this last point that Dodd concluded, “The date, therefore, at which Paul received the fundamentals of the gospel cannot well be later than some seven years after the death of Jesus Christ. It may be earlier.” Therefore, “Paul's preaching represents a special stream of Christian tradition which was derived from the main stream at a point very near to its source.” And lest some say that Paul confused this message, Dodd concludes, “Anyone who should maintain that the primitive Christian gospel was fundamentally different from that which we have found in Paul must bear the burden of proof.”16 But we do not have to take C. H. Dodd's word for all this. I have listed dozens of contemporary critical scholars, including skeptics, who espouse the general scenario we have outlined here.17
Thus, the majority of critical scholars think that Paul received his traditional material on the death and resurrection of Jesus from Peter and James the brother of Jesus while he was in Jerusalem, approximately a half dozen years after Jesus' crucifixion. I made the further point that even if one questions the precise time and place of Paul's actual reception of this creedal material, it is exceptionally difficult to avoid the conclusion that these three apostles at least discussed the nature of the gospel content at that time.