Excursus 2: The Early Creedal Traditions

Excursus 2: The Early Creedal Traditions

Excursus 2

The Early Creedal Traditions

One of the most amazing aspects of contemporary critical scholarship is the near unanimity regarding the presence of brief creedal traditions woven into a number of ancient Christian writings and located chiefly within the New Testament Epistles. Scholars agree that these creeds originated largely as oral teachings within the church due to both the development and importance of the oral culture at that time as well as the illiteracy of a vast majority of Jesus’s audiences and those who heard the early church’s messages. As such, there was a serious need to inform particularly these folks who could not read or write as to the nature of Jesus’s message, as well as that of his main followers who became the leaders after his resurrection and ascension.1

Due to the necessity of making these central messages widely available and more easily remembered, memorization facilitated reaching out through broad age and cultural divides. For reasons such as these, the early Christian creedal messages were usually brief and often cadenced. Some of them were sung.2 These brief snippets contained relevant teaching of both a theological as well as a practical nature, including key theological concepts, preaching summaries, or liturgical songs, prayers, formulas, and so forth.3

Perhaps the best known of these creedal traditions is the pre-Pauline statement in 1 Cor 15:3–7, to which Paul added his own biographical comment:

I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Cor 15:3–8 NRSV)

Critical scholars generally agree concerning the location of the best-known, major examples of these traditions located in the New Testament. That is because there are several indications of the principal markers that identify these sources. One such sign is that Paul twice introduces creedal statements by stating that he had delivered (paredōka) to the Corinthians what he had also received (parelabon) himself at an earlier date (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3). As New Testament scholar Marion Soards relates:

Paul’s language concerning receiving and passing on the tradition was technical vocabulary in both Greek schools and Jewish synagogue thought. Ancients understood the reception and the handing on of tradition to imply several important points. First, lines of authority were established and recognized in the transmission of tradition. Authoritative teachers instructed recognized students who in turn became authorities in their own right. Second, the transmission of tradition through selected channels of communication guaranteed the veracity of the tradition that was passed along from one person to another. Thus, in saying I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you, Paul establishes both the authority and reliability of the teaching.4

The significance of Paul’s words here could hardly have been stated better or more clearly. Paul was using the most authoritative teaching practices of his day when passing on good information, as Soards argues. Paul was a Pharisee (Phil 3:4–6) and these scholars taught by passing along key traditions and other crucial data to their students. Josephus was also a Pharisee (Life 2),5 and he reported that his colleagues taught both regarding Moses’s law as well as other traditions from their forefathers (Ant. 10.6). The word that Josephus uses in his own context (paredosan) is what Paul is stating above—both of them were citing and “passing along” tradition.6

Other places in the New Testament Epistles provide additional indications of what have been termed creeds, traditions, formulas, and confessions that are being passed on to the readers.7 In another example from the same book, Paul mentions the “traditions” that he passed down to his audience at Corinth (1 Cor 11:2). Other texts employ different words but speak similarly, such as receiving or holding to the apostles’ traditions (krateite tas paradoseis, as in 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6) or holding to the reliable or believable word (tou pistou logou) and teaching sound doctrine (Titus 1:9). Several times in 1 and 2 Timothy, the audience is told that a particular saying or teaching is reliable, and on each occasion the Greek words are the same (pistos ho logos, similarly Titus 1:9). The Greek is most often followed by a pithy statement regarding the trustworthiness of the teaching (1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9). First Timothy 3:16 and 2 Tim 2:11–13 provide particularly helpful examples of how these creeds appear in their contexts.

Besides the times where formal language is utilized concerning the receiving and passing along of creeds, other traditions are pronounced as being reliable or trustworthy, or readers are commanded to observe these important teachings, all of which indicate the significance of these pronouncements. Many of these early creedal statements read like the stanzas of a hymn, prayer, or other form of liturgy. Increasingly, new translations render them this way too, setting off the passages in verse style. Exceptional examples that are among the most unanimously recognized by critical scholars, seemingly ready-made for theological or liturgical use, are the following texts: Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:6–11; Col 1:15–20; 1 Tim 3:16; and 2 Tim 2:11–13. Still other passages use key words, such as “confess” (Rom 10:9), or as just seen above, mentioning a “faithful saying.”

These examples do not exhaust the identification of creeds or traditions either. Jewish New Testament scholar Pinchas Lapide lists eight signs that point to the specific pre-Pauline nature of the creed in 1 Cor 15:3 and following. Several of the indicators are applicable or adaptable beyond the initial comment of passing on tradition. Other signs include vocabulary, sentence structure, diction unlike that of the author, parallelism of words and phrases, the use of the “divine passive,” and the fourfold phrase “died . . . buried . . . rose . . . appeared.” Similar examples are also apparent in other creeds.8 More specifically, Neufeld emphasizes linguistic evidence like the abundance of relative clauses and participial phrases.9

In terms of this present study, examples of key creeds recognized by critical scholars that mention Jesus’s resurrection appearances include 1 Cor 15:3–7; Luke 24:34, and Paul’s own noncreedal statement in 1 Cor 9:1. Important sermon summaries from a very early date that also address the appearances of Jesus include Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:30–32; 13:30–31; and perhaps Acts 17:31.10

Overall, it might be said that the time was precisely right for a “perfect storm” of conditions for the life of Jesus and the passing on of crucially important truths. When discussing the Gospel topics of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus, very few historical considerations are more important than those of the early creedal traditions, the topic of this chapter.

Criteria for Detecting Creedal Traditions

One important question concerns how creedal traditions are actually recognized and demarcated from the remainder of the text. After all, it is more than just guessing or wishful thinking. Often in the give-and-take of scholarship, liberals and conservatives sometimes express widely separate opinions. But this is one of the most impressive strengths of this area of study since the general views here are often closer. According to some key scholars who address this important issue, most of the relevant criteria are usually held in common.11 Several other particulars could be added to the list here, though they tend to be linguistically specialized enough that we will only cite some of the relevant sources:12

(1) Sometimes the author actually states in a straightforward manner that he is passing along a tradition or more formal material, followed directly afterward by the verse itself that fulfills the conditions such as the ones mentioned here. The writer often states that these creedal traditions are trustworthy or reliable.13 On other occasions, the comment is simply made that the readers should observe the traditions that have already been imparted to them, without an actual text following.14

(2) Apart from actually delivering and passing on a self-contained piece of tradition, these creedal texts themselves are punctuated on other occasions with key terms such as delivered, confessed, or believed.15

(3) A major indication of a creed is what Stauffer calls “textual dislocations,” whereby “the context or the formula or both suffer changes.”16 On these occasions, there may occur some awkwardness in how the quoted text fits together with the author’s own prose, caused by the author being careful to reproduce the exact words of the citation. That awkwardness, sometimes not unlike a modern author trying to fit someone else’s quotation into their own publication, thus becomes a positive factor in indicating what is potentially the accurate citation of an older source. For example, scholars note or suspect a “syntactical break” between 1 Cor 15:5 and 15:6 due to the possibility of Paul having combined two creeds.17

(4) These creeds frequently use repetition, often exhibiting the same or similar wording in each of the duplicated phrases. They may also be rhythmical in nature.18

(5) The lines may be of equal or similar lengths, exhibiting parallelisms or related structural comparisons.19

(6) Many creedal traditions are very brief and pithy snippets with more than the usual amount of meaning contained in a short space.20

(7) A number of words used in some confessions are not used elsewhere in the writings of the particular author who includes the creed, which is a possible indication of the writer’s reliance on an earlier source. Jeremias notes the presence of a number of these non-Pauline terms in 1 Cor 11:23–25, but also argues for very early traditions in the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper in Mark, Luke, and John.21 Regarding 1 Cor 15:3b–5, John Kloppenborg points out, “Vocabularic analysis has shown that the bulk of vv 3–5 is non-Pauline in character and certainly belongs to the tradition.”22 Jerome Murphy-O’Connor agrees with this assessment, commenting that 15:3b–5 “contain[s] a very high proportion of non-Pauline terms.”23 Specific examples are not difficult to locate.24

(8) Among other figures debating some decades ago and remaining a bit of a stalemate down to the present, Jeremias argued in much detail that particular features found especially in 1 Cor 15:3b–5 demonstrated that behind “the initial stage” of this creedal statement was an Aramaic original. Jeremias argues from the presence of seven linguistic minutiae that he thinks dictate this necessity.25 Then he concludes the matter: “There are, if not strict proofs, at any rate signs that the core of the kerygma is a translation of a Semitic original.”26 Nonetheless, it cannot be concluded in every instance that the creed has a 1:1 equivalence as it appears in Paul’s epistle due to the fact that some of the Greek terms do not have exact Hebrew and Aramaic equivalents. Thus, “it is a safe conclusion that the core of the kerygma was not formulated by Paul but comes from the Aramaic-speaking earliest community.”27 As another example, Paul’s use of the Aramaic marana tha in 1 Cor 16:22 plus the uses of this language in the Gospels at key points must be kept in mind as well.28

The chief idea here is that, as Jesus’s native language, key phrases in Aramaic were apparently remembered in vital places in the earliest church teaching. As mentioned, these include Abba or Rabbi being used during key events, like Jesus raising the dead or performing an exorcism, or following an important creedal passage, such as in 1 Cor 15:3.

(9) Foundational, elementary doctrines—most of all, early Christology and the New Testament gospel message—are emphasized in these creedal statements, as argued in the previous two chapters.29 As mentioned already, 1 Cor 15:3–7 is probably the best known of the New Testament creedal passages due to several considerations. One reason is that this text combines simply an abundance of these literary and other elements mentioned above,30 like the explicit mention of passing on tradition using traditional terms, the repeated use of kai hoti, evidence of cadence and parallelism, the presence of more than one “stanza,” the almost excessive presence of non-Pauline terms, plus the central presentation of the gospel data in all its glory, with Paul even providing the initial introductory challenge to his audience to respond with a faith commitment (15:1–2).31

Different Species of Creeds and Their Uses in the Early Church

There were different types of early Christian traditions, and the variations between them and the particular demarcations for their use were not exactly precise. There were also a number of ways that these confessions were utilized in both doctrinal as well as practical settings within early church gatherings. Such overlap explains why creedal traditions may appear in more than one venue, for they were not cordoned off for specialized use only by the apostles or other leaders for only certain situations. As illustrated by the places in which they appear in the text, they were employed variously for the furtherance of the good news being preached and taught. But in spite of all these differences, scholars generally agree on the locations and value of at least the best known of these brief messages.

According to Victor Paul Furnish, different types of creedal traditions may be identified in some detail. He denotes creeds that relate more specifically to liturgical traditions such as “hymns, prayers, benedictions, doxologies, and various eucharistic and baptismal formulas.” Furnish places 1 Cor 11:23–25 in this category. He lists 1 Cor 12:12 and Gal 3:28 as “baptismal formulations.” With many scholars, Furnish thinks that Phil 2:6–11 is a hymn and that 2 Tim 2:11–13 is “a hymn-like affirmation.” These examples of “liturgical traditions celebrate, acclaim, or invoke Jesus as the risen and living Lord, in whom the community of faith has its life and its hope.”32

Another type of creed is the more straightforward tradition, which tended to be “developed in response to a continuing need to define and defend its faith in Christ” since “controversies among Christians of different viewpoints as well as challenges from non-Christians played a role in this development.” In this category, Furnish lists creedal statements such as Rom 1:3–4; 1 Cor 8:6; and 15:3–5 as “particularly clear examples.”33 Liturgical as well as creedal categories are his two chief foci.

Neufeld singles out many activities in the initial church settings that actually involved creedal affirmations, along with the situations where their use was deemed to be most appropriate. He mentions baptisms, confessional or testimonial circumstances (the “personal declaration of faith”), instructing new members, hymns and worship, declaring or preaching truth, missionary endeavors, exorcisms, faithfulness in times of persecution, ethical issues, correcting doctrine or refuting false views along with other polemical interests, declaring belief in doctrine, the use of evidence, or developing Christological themes.34 Such a list clearly indicates the value of these creedal confessions and how far-reaching they were in the early church throughout these capacities.

Cullmann is more specific, carefully delineating and then explaining five well-known situations where creeds were utilized in the early church. Appearing at a time when the study of creedal traditions was still in its infancy, lists such as Cullmann’s provide some structure to this exciting new avenue of research. Cullmann’s five occasions for the use of creeds starts with (1) baptism and catechetical situations. Here he cites Acts 8:36–38 as “one of the most ancient confessions of faith which we know” while also mentioning Eph 4:5 here.35 (2) Worship, liturgy, and preaching involved hymns such as Phil 2:6–11, which Cullmann thought probably had an Aramaic original. (3) Exorcism, which Cullmann refers to as “a less frequent but very ancient use” (Acts 3:6).36 (4) Persecution, indicated by the use of 1 Tim 6:12–16 and Jesus’s good testimony before Pilate, as well as Phil 2:6–11; Rom 10:9; and 1 Cor 12:3 because Caesar and Jesus Christ cannot both be Lord.37 (5) Polemics against heretics, as represented in John 4:2; 1 Cor 8:6; and 15:3–8.38

Similar to the emphasis of the researchers above, virtually all those scholars who have done specialized work in the creedal confessions agree that these early traditions were foundational in the primary roles of apostolic preaching and teaching in the formative years when the church was doing the absolutely crucial work of defining and defending its views and appealing to converts. This gospel calling was their first and foremost goal.

Dodd makes it quite clear that the main purpose of these creedal formulations was to establish and build the ground floor by continually preaching and defending the earliest and most central message, which he thinks is found very plainly in the Acts sermon summaries listed earlier. Further, Dodd thinks that it is more than plain here that the cross currents between the Petrine and Pauline currents in these Acts messages match what is known of the teaching of each of these apostles outside of Acts.

For example, Dodd concludes on this matter, “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.” Then Dodd adds more provocatively: “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.”39 Further, Dodd adds the crucially important comment: “A comparison, then, of the Pauline epistles with the speeches in Acts leads to a fairly clear and certain outline sketch of the preaching of the apostles.”40

On the latter emphasis of comparing the early church messages of the chief apostles, historian Paul Barnett argues similarly by moving meticulously in tracking Jesus’s likely teachings from the gospel message.41 Then he uses the New Testament Epistles separately from the Gospels to move back around to confirm the key themes in both the Gospels and Acts,42 all the while interspersing the rabbinical examples of passing on early traditions.43 Neufeld continually makes similar moves by indicating examples of the apostolic unity in their centermost message of the gospel.44

From this point forward, this excursus will be concerned chiefly with two main topics: (1) How far back did the creedal traditions date? (2) Were these confessions reliable reports chiefly in historical terms? Or could they have been akin to ungrounded accounts that were passed around in the early church while lacking data sufficient to establish them? In the remainder of this chapter, some initial responses are addressed to these questions primarily from the standpoint of the creeds themselves. But in other chapters throughout this volume, these two issues regarding the earliness and reliability of the gospel message are treated in further detail.

How Old Were the Creedal Traditions?

That the creedal confessions were formerly oral statements written down not long afterward helps to explain the process. Two points clearly set forth the parameters succinctly and in more detail. We will be working backwards from Paul’s earliest epistles to the creeds themselves.

Most of the major New Testament creeds appear in the seven recognized Pauline Epistles,45 which indicates that these confessions date at most to no more than twenty-five to thirty years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Even scholars such as atheist New Testament specialist Bart Ehrman call these seven texts the “un-disputed” Pauline Epistles and date them from AD 50 to 60, or at most just thirty years after the cross.46 This is quite typical for scholars across the entire New Testament spectrum. When some of the initial Pauline Epistles are dated earlier, as Luke Timothy Johnson does, then a number of these major creedal statements could have been written down a mere twenty years after the crucifixion (dated by virtually all scholars at either AD 30 or 33), with even the “latest” examples dating just a brief time afterwards.47

Thus, the creeds obviously predated these epistles, sometimes by many years, since they appeared in writing at this time. As pointed out in the previous chapter, it is widely held today by many critical scholars that a number of these traditions were most likely in existence even before Paul’s conversion or a short time later, hence just two to six years after Jesus’s death.48 Perhaps these earlier dates are well within the purview of the apostles’ lives, and one of them (Paul) was the “undisputed” author of a minimum of the seven writings that contain them. These conclusions are mainstream according to the majority of New Testament researchers, including a wide variety of atheists, agnostics, and other skeptics among these numbers. Even these latter scholars could be mistaken about the state of the evidence, since early dates do not by themselves require that these initial reports be reliable. Nevertheless, there are usually good reasons for the ensuing conclusions when even very skeptical researchers holding critical beliefs deem the data to be reliable.

That’s why balanced research proceeds by looking at more than one angle of an issue. The known dating process and its connections with the right people such as Paul along with his other early sources, nonetheless provide some additional building blocks that are helpful for moving on to the second question regarding accuracy. This could provide further hints regarding the potential reliability of the early material.

The early creedal statements that appear in these earlier Pauline writings such as 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians were all written within just twenty-five years or so (and perhaps even closer) after the historical Jesus’s crucifixion. As pointed out earlier, Ehrman holds that many of these creeds, and especially the data and teachings that stand behind them and upon which the traditions were based, were readily available even before Paul’s conversion,49 and they probably emanated from the vicinity of Jerusalem, where these events occurred in the first place. This convergence moves the already very early dates of the information standing behind the creedal traditions to the right place and a far earlier time of just about two to three years after the cross.50 Moreover, the persons from whom Paul received the most crucial pieces of this gospel testimony—whether the creeds themselves or at least the essential gospel information contained within them—were the original eyewitnesses themselves.51 So several independent gospel creedal reports or their gospel content were learned at very early dates, confirmed further by face-to-face meetings on at least two different occasions between Paul and Jesus’s two major disciples plus Jesus’s own brother. The heart of this startling information coalesces at a few absolutely crucial junctions and is seldom questioned by skeptical testimony.52

“Early High Christology” within the Creeds: Redux

In the previous chapter we addressed the recent view among a growing number of New Testament scholars regarding an exceptionally high Christology that emerged very soon after Jesus’s crucifixion. There we concentrated on a few of the chief critical researchers and their theses. Here we will consider how the initial creeds contributed further to these important early Christological considerations. That is where this discussion rejoins that topic.

So far we have centered mostly on the deity, death, and resurrection appearances of Jesus as taught in this earliest period of thought. Richard Bauckham refers to this development as “the scholarly trend known as early high Christology.”53 Do these creedal confessions indicate that the deity of Jesus Christ was clearly accepted and taught even before Paul’s conversion, years earlier than the writing of the earliest New Testament Epistles? If so, this would be a major correction to prominent views in recent decades that have taught that high Christology did not really emerge until later in the first century, perhaps about the time of John’s Gospel.54 It would also be a crucial corrective to the much older and diverse position during the religionsgeschichtliche Schule from the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including the claim that Paul invented the earliest high Christology probably from Hellenistic influences.55

It would be a major shift in New Testament Christological studies if these high views are clearly found in the very earliest years after Jesus’s crucifixion, as indicated by the homologia, creedal positions, Acts sermon summaries, and the very earliest Pauline Epistles, especially when Paul affirms that these teachings did not originate with him. Scholars now generally agree that this doctrine began to emerge immediately after the crucifixion until perhaps another decade afterward.56 This shift in the contemporary landscape continues gaining popularity at present.

Our focus here will be just a brief overview of how Jesus Christ was addressed in between the early homologia and the initial Pauline Epistles just mentioned. Bauckham explains that what he has influentially titled divine identity “appropriately focuses on who God is rather than what divinity is.” He notes that “it becomes clear that, from the earliest post-Easter beginnings of Christology onward, early Christians included Jesus, precisely and unambiguously, within the unique identity of the one God of Israel.” They regarded Jesus as unique without breaking with Jewish monotheism. In this manner, Bauckham explains, “The earliest Christology was already the highest Christology.” As such, this position in the early church “is already a fully divine Christology, maintaining that Jesus Christ is intrinsic to the unique and eternal identity of God.” One way these changes can be observed occurs when Old Testament themes are applied to Jesus, including the attribution of worship and sharing the throne of God.57

Are these high Christological teachings indeed traceable to the earliest church? Or do they only become visible in the latter New Testament writings? In some of the earliest creedal traditions and the Acts sermon summaries, which critical scholars often date to the 30s, Jesus is addressed regularly and often as “Christ.”58 The same title reoccurs frequently in Paul’s earliest epistles.59 Jesus is also called the “Son of God” in both these creeds and sermon summaries,60 as is also the case in the earliest Pauline Epistles.61 Perhaps the loftiest title of all in the early church was that of “Lord.”62 Yet, it was one of the most frequently used of the early Christological titles, being applied to Jesus often in both the earliest creedal confessions as well as in Paul’s earliest epistles.63

Other early confessional indications of high Christology could also be mentioned.64 At least two creedal traditions address ontological comments concerning Jesus’s nature (Phil 2:6; Heb 1:3),65 as intimated by Bauckham.66 Closely aligned to the teachings of preexistence and sharing God’s nature in these passages are the notions that Jesus was exalted and seated at God’s right hand, being worshipped, and forgiving sin, as these themes were often given regularly and freely to Jesus in the homologia and creedal testimony. These concepts are all clearly found quite often and at very early dates in these traditions plus in Paul’s earliest epistles.

The presence of these ideas makes it very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Jesus was exalted and even worshipped even in the very earliest times after the crucifixion. That Paul uses these lofty expressions so easily in his initial epistles without introductions, definitions, or further explanations of his meanings most likely indicates that they were already well-known and well received in these communities. Hurtado employs terms like celebration, reverence, and devotional for the circumstances indicated by this “early Christian worship.” One result is “the singing of Christological songs/hymns” in the earliest church.67

How can all of these ideas and concepts, especially when taken together, not clearly express the truth that the earliest church taught a very high Christology? Perhaps the most accomplished expert on Christology at the close of the twentieth century, Martin Hengel, attests that in his opinion the earliest Christology grew more in the initial two decades of the church until Paul’s earliest epistles than it did over the ensuing seven centuries!68 We saw Bauckham’s conclusion above that “the earliest Christology was already the highest Christology.”69 This seems to be justified.

Are the Creedal Traditions Reliable?

In the previous two chapters we carefully detailed much evidence for the eyewitness quality and early nature of the resurrection appearances respectively. Continuing to argue throughout this present excursus, it should be further evident why critical scholars are generally convinced that many New Testament creedal traditions are exceptionally early.

An illustration of the strength of these affirmations is provided by a brief study of the findings according to the very critical Jesus Seminar. After producing the research results of their study of the relevant historical details regarding the creedal text in 1 Cor 15:3–8, the Seminar concluded: “Most Fellows [their members] think the components of the list reported there were formed before Paul’s conversion, which is usually dated around 33 C.E.”70 That this group agreed that at least the “components” of this creedal affirmation actually predated Paul’s transformation is simply amazing. Accordingly, this pre-Pauline message was clearly not Paul’s, and it lists some of the experiences of the original apostles themselves.

The Jesus Seminar awarded the highest historical rating for Paul’s appearance and the second highest for Peter’s.71 At least Mary Magdalene among the women also experienced an appearance of the risen Jesus, though no color ranking was assigned in her case.72 The remaining “alleged” appearances to both individuals and to groups are also listed.73

To be clear, the Seminar, at least as a group, did not decide that these appearances happened as depicted, at least as described in the Gospels.74 It is often specified that these occurrences did not involve Jesus’s corpse (which, it is claimed, probably decayed normally), that the events could not have been photographed, and that they did not happen on the first Easter Sunday, and so on.75 Perhaps most suggestive is that the appearances to Paul, Peter, and Mary are referred to as a “visionary religious experience,” implying that these events were possibly subjective in nature. However, it is difficult to be sure, and individual Seminar Fellows have occasionally used language that could be shaded differently.76 But with such a large group of researchers, more than one position was probably held.

To be sure, the scholarly opinions of the Jesus Seminar or any other individual or group do not validate the reliability of the creedal traditions or any other historical inquiries. One’s views on a subject do not prove a factual thesis to be either true or false. But as remarked, these conclusions were based on the prior research reported in this volume. When a group’s published presuppositions seem to place it at strong odds with several potential areas that support the creedal traditions, yet that same group’s verdicts also support these traditions in some crucial ways, that might be enough to make researchers step back and ascertain if the underlying data really do warrant these conclusions. Therefore, since the Jesus Seminar found that parts or even all of the creedal statement in 1 Cor 15:3–7 were in existence before Paul’s conversion in the early 30s and hence were pre-Pauline, that alone should at least be crucial and inspire further research. Moreover, when combined with many other skeptical voices, that the Seminar judged that the appearances to Paul, Peter, and Mary Magdalene were either almost certainly reliable or probably reliable is also exceptionally striking. These are vital indications that there may be more information and evidence to study on this subject.

It has been the chief contention in this excursus, along with the more specific minimal facts chapters here, that a study of this nature will indicate that either the creedal traditions themselves or just their “components” (as the Jesus Seminar termed them)77 will indicate a strong foundation for the belief in the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, no matter whether it is the creeds or their previous content, these reports are exceptionally early and are almost certainly traceable to the original eyewitness testimony that lies behind them. This latter conclusion is due especially to Paul and the other apostles whom Paul interviewed in two different trips to Jerusalem, as mentioned in Gal 1:18–2:10, plus Paul’s summary of the apostolic confirmation of the resurrection appearances in 1 Cor 15:11.

On this last subject, Bart Ehrman reminds his readers that even more material than what we have discussed here was available and predated Paul’s conversion. Further, Ehrman thinks it is quite likely that most or even all of the creedal traditions cited by Paul originated in Jerusalem, many of them in the 30s, and that some of this crucial information could have come from the apostolic eyewitnesses that Paul interviewed when he visited Jerusalem not long after his conversion.78

In fact, Paul’s two trips to interview and discuss the nature of the gospel message with the three most influential apostles in the early church is probably the single most essential portion of the issue concerning the reliability of these creedal traditions. Of course Paul knew about his own experience of an appearance of Christ, but when added to the eyewitness reports he received in these discussions of the gospel, involving appearances to both individuals as well as groups of people, these investigations built the foundation as to why the creedal proclamations of the resurrection appearances stand on such solid historical ground. It can be known that these appearances were discussed here and elsewhere because of the 1 Cor 15:3 tradition itself as well as Paul’s comment in 15:11. Paul’s discussions here are what argue so loudly that these early creedal reports were neither fantasy, myth, nor “group speak”—they were traceable to those who actually had the experiences. Further, at least three of these four apostles died for these beliefs according to first-century sources. Items such as these are why Ehrman treats these testimonies so seriously.

The Central Idea

As many commentators have noted, the central overall focus of the majority of creedal traditions is that of Christology.79 Within that focus, there is also widespread critical recognition that the narrower concentration was on the early Christian beliefs in the exaltation, worship, and lordship of Jesus Christ, along with his death and resurrection in particular.80 Neufeld and others have specified that the connotations communicated in these teachings were that the bearers of this truth were the apostolic eyewitnesses themselves.81 Cullmann points out concerning “the very earliest confessions” that “the bulk of them will lead us back into apostolic times.”82 As just seen, Ehrman even thinks that the earlier apostles could well have passed on these creedal traditions to Paul after his conversion.83

It must be remembered once again that there is a major distinction to be kept in mind at this point. While there were similarities, the creedal traditions themselves were not necessarily synonymous with the earliest form of the gospel message. Rather, the homologia was the “agreement or consensus in which the Christian community was united, that core of essential conviction and belief to which Christians subscribed and openly testified. . . . The homologia was the confession of Jesus with specific reference to his person or work.” It was from the beginning the substance of what was declared, expressed, preached, and used in dialogue with unbelievers. It referred chiefly to the content of the confessing rather than to the actual proclamation itself.84 Thus, “the essentials of the gospel which the church proclaimed were closely related to the homologia to which the Christian community adhered.” For Neufeld, the content of the homologia is “‘Jesus is Lord’ and the belief that ‘God raised him from the dead.’”85

That the earliest apostles agreed on this central content in their preaching and teaching on the gospel essentials is apparent on more than one level. For example, no less than four times in the brief creedal tradition(s) in 1 Cor 15:3–7 alone, appearances to the original apostolic witnesses are cited. This includes single appearances to Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, plus group appearances to “the twelve” (tois dōkeka) as well as to “all the apostles” (tois apostolois pasin). Only the appearance to more than 500 persons at one time in 15:6 does not directly refer to or specify an apostolic eyewitness testimony regarding those who were closest to Jesus, although one or more apostles were probably in that crowd. The point here is that one or more apostles could well have been involved in every one of the cited appearances in this text. Then when Paul attaches his own appearance to the end of the list from just a slightly later time, this also concerned another apostolic witness.86

Pertaining further to the appearance of the risen Jesus to over 500 persons at once, it was just mentioned that one or more of the apostles could very plausibly have been present in that group. Moreover, such attendance could also have been the case with the female witnesses to Jesus’s ministry or Jesus’s own family members, just as representatives of these groups were also present in the smaller gathering in Acts 1:12–14. Whatever the conclusion on that point, probably a majority opinion among commentators would be that the statement that most of these 500 witnesses were still alive was most likely meant to enlist them as further available witnesses to that appearance. As New Testament scholar Richard Hays comments, the point was “clearly calculated to provide further evidential support for the resurrection of Jesus; anyone who is disposed to be skeptical will find a formidable gallery of witnesses waiting to testify that they had seen him alive.”87 Again, that Paul attached his own appearance to the list in 1 Cor 15:8 also concerned the support of yet another apostolic witness.

From start to finish, then, this entire creedal statement incorporated the apostolic eyewitnesses along with other firsthand observers of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. From the outset, the notion of the original witnesses to the resurrection appearances of Jesus was at the very center of the emphasis.88

Again, it is no coincidence that immediately after including this apostolic creedal material, appending his own appearance to the end of the list, and then discussing the other apostles in 15:8–10, Paul adds immediately in 15:11 that the others were proclaiming this same message that he was also teaching regarding Jesus’s resurrection appearances. This was absolutely crucial for Paul, in that the apostles were all on the same page.

This specific point of apostolic agreement is in view in 15:11, as indicated both by its following directly the list of resurrection appearances in the earlier report, plus its connection to the subsequent verses (especially 15:14–15), where “we” and “our” refer several times to the other apostles and Paul together as one, being either true or false witnesses depending on whether they had incorrectly preached and taught Jesus’s resurrection. Tying the passage together is the use of the Greek verb kērussō (“proclaimed”) in verses 11, 12, and 14. The apostles stood together in their resurrection proclamation in that they were the primary witnesses (emarturēsamen) of this truth. As Soards sums it up: “Paul reminds the Corinthians that no matter from whom they heard the gospel, the message that they had heard was the one he had briefly reiterated in verses 3–8. . . . This message about God’s work in Jesus Christ united and held together the entire work of the early church.”89

Paul traveled to Jerusalem just five or six years after Jesus’s crucifixion to interview Peter and also James (Gal 1:18–20). Paul returned to the city some fourteen years later to discuss the gospel message he had been preaching to ascertain if the other apostles there agreed with him (2:2).90 Peter, James, and John added nothing to his gospel message (2:6) and confirmed that stance by extending “the right hand of fellowship” to Paul and Barnabas (2:9).

Many critical New Testament scholars have argued that Acts 15:1–35 parallels the account in Gal 2:1–10 and is the same event, though others have questioned whether these passages depict the same occasion.91 Whichever is the best option here, it is worth noting that on the view that these are two depictions of the same occasion, this would provide a second independent source that confirms Paul’s account in Gal 2:1–10. On the view that these were different events, then this would constitute a third major source that similarly approves Paul’s core gospel message by the Jerusalem apostles such as Peter (15:7–11) and James (15:13–21). The conclusion to the matter was that this meeting produced unanimous agreement (genomenois homothumadon)92 between the Jerusalem apostles, Paul, and Barnabas regarding the gospel message (15:25; see also 15:28). That the final outcome was greeted with rejoicing in Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas had been preaching (15:31), was a further indication of this apostolic recognition and agreement.

Therefore, most critical scholars acknowledge that the Jerusalem apostles did indeed agree with Paul regarding the nature of the gospel message, which was the foundation upon which a faith commitment was based. From texts such as 1 Cor 15:11; Gal 1:18–20; 2:1–10; and Acts 15:1–35, as well as other insights, this recognition is warranted. Hengel states that the creedal proclamation in 1 Cor 15:3 and following was the common basis against which the meeting described in Gal 2:1–10 can be understood best: “In terms of content it was the foundation of that ‘gospel’ which Paul proclaimed.” On these vital matters all of the apostles were in agreement.93

A similar sentiment is not difficult to find among major critical researchers. Luke Timothy Johnson points out that there are historical facts here that even “the most critical historian can affirm without hesitation. Can anyone doubt, for example . . . a meeting between Paul and the Jerusalem leadership concerning the legitimacy of the gentile mission?”94 Regarding Paul’s recognition by the other apostles, Howard Clark Kee affirms that “the disciples . . . accepted him [Paul] as being called to apostleship by the risen Christ, just as they had been.”95 Summarizing his comments on Paul’s second trip to Jerusalem, Hans Dieter Betz notes, “The positive result consists of the fact that his gospel and mission were officially acknowledged by the Jerusalem apostles,”96 adding that this resulted in “a recognition of Paul and his gospel as theologically valid.”97 Most other critical scholars across a wide perspectival spectrum attest to this apostolic agreement.98

Of somewhat lesser specific impact but still worth noting is that a number of the early creedal confessions are introduced by authors such as Paul who make comments that what follows is a reliable or trustworthy tradition that ought to be believed, applied, followed, and/or used in opposing those who hold contrary beliefs.99 More generally, the New Testament authors also note regularly the truth, assurance, and solemnity of their teachings.100

It might be easy enough for some to question such comments as just window dressing, the sort of thing that might be said in an apocryphal or nonhistorical writing that seeks to claim apostolic authorship or greater authority for an anonymous author. However, we are not speaking here of writings that are without some provenance or which include questionable genres. For example, several of both types of comments above are drawn from Paul’s “authentic” epistles. Further, a few of the remarks likewise need to be evaluated against the historical contexts that we have just emphasized, since they occur in 1 Cor 15:11–15; Gal 1:18–2:10; and so on. In other words, some statements come from contexts that credibly present historical scenarios, so we should take seriously the encouragement that the material is reliable and ought to be applied. Some critical scholars too often slant conclusions away from more positive historical conclusions. But when the contexts already favor precisely that reliable emphasis, why should some of these remarks be ignored? At the very least, the authors took these traditions to be trustworthy.

Not to develop an overly nearsighted view of these confessional creedal reports, but it is the case that early Christology was at the heart of the New Testament teaching and that the gospel message was the centermost emphasis within that realm. True, other topics were also addressed in the early confessions.101 But beginning with the creedal traditions in the early 30s and moving ahead to the first epistles just twenty to twenty-five years later, this interval is amazingly brief and a number of historical considerations have impressed the majority of critical researchers. Many of these scholarly insights have been addressed in this chapter, and a number of surprising if not truly amazing results have emerged from this creedal research, as many have pointed out. Few recent research trends have turned the direction (and some heads!) in critical circles more than our topic here.102 As historian Paul Barnett sums up a number of these matters rather strikingly, the cumulative result is that “in terms of the historical reference to noted persons in antiquity, this would represent a brevity without parallel.”103

The Significance of the Creedal Traditions

Several key considerations place these creeds in the forefront of discussions regarding both the content and reliability of the earliest Christian teachings, most of all regarding the gospel message and especially the resurrection appearances of Jesus. A few reflections will be mentioned here briefly.

(1) The historical facts indicate that many of the creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries, along with additional factors, emerged quite early and even exceptionally so. A great many details were presented in the previous chapter on minimal fact 3 regarding the early date of this material beginning with the demarcation of the initial layers of tradition. Regarding the exceptionally early date, it should be noted that the most primitive levels of this material presented in that chapter began with the earliest gospel theme of all—the disciples’ experiences expressed in the homologia. This message consisted of the immediate apostolic teaching and preaching of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus and is multiply attested by many early sources.

The next tiers of tradition move in this order: the very earliest creedal traditions that most likely preceded Paul’s conversion or occurred shortly afterwards (what we termed the “pre-Pauline 1 creeds”); Paul’s conversion experience; and his initial trip to Jerusalem to dialogue about the gospel with Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. Each of these layers is dated even by critical scholars as having occurred from immediately after the crucifixion up until Paul’s initial visit to Jerusalem, which is a maximum of only five to six years later!

Other evidence is listed in that chapter as well as above. The majority of these layers predate the writing of Paul’s initial tier of authentic epistles usually dated to AD 50, precisely since the chief traditions appear in those works! This places these core traditions sometime in the initial twenty-five years after Jesus’s crucifixion, just twenty-five years or so later at a maximum, with the majority scholarly view being that much of this material existed within the first five to six years. For some of the earliest facts here, it should be noted carefully, yet again, that it is the original message itself that is the most crucial component here, not necessarily the precise date of the creeds. These earliest tiers are exceptionally early by any standards! As atheist biblical scholar Gerd Lüdemann even declares strongly, “I do insist, however, that the discovery of pre-Pauline confessional formulations is one of the great achievements of recent New Testament scholarship.”104

One indication concerning the weight of these data is provided by the evaluations of perhaps even the majority of atheist commentators, self-identified non-Christian scholars, agnostics, and other skeptical specialists,105 who have still agreed with various positive comments involved in these assessments, especially regarding the early dates. In many or even most of these cases, more ground is conceded by these critical researchers than has been mentioned above, as even a brief survey will indicate.106

Atheist New Testament specialist Bart Ehrman asserts, “The idea that Christians were telling stories of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection . . . before Paul is held by virtually all scholars of the New Testament, and for compelling reasons.” Paul learned of these accounts “soon after he converted in 32–33 CE.”107 Furthermore, agreeing with other fellow skeptics, Ehrman similarly considers it likely that when Paul vi-sited Jerusalem at no more than five to six years after the crucifixion and shared with Peter and James, he “learned all the received traditions that he refers to and even the received traditions that we otherwise suspect are in his writings that he does not name as such.”108 This remarkable summarization sets the stage for the exceptionally early collecting and imparting of the central gospel proclamation from those who witnessed it and knew it best.

Besides the better-known creedal traditions, Ehrman likewise holds that many of these Acts sermon summaries also date back to the early 30s, probably closer to one or two years after the crucifixion.109 John Drane even comments, “The earliest evidence we have for the resurrection almost certainly goes back to the time immediately after the resurrection event is alleged to have taken place. This is the evidence contained in the early sermons in the Acts of the Apostles.”110 A long list of critical scholars who attest to many of these same details is not difficult to assemble.111

(2) So even skeptical scholars acknowledge that the earliest teaching of Jesus’s death and resurrection occurred quite soon after the events themselves. These actual reports can be dated to just the first few years after the events. But in addition to being early, these events were reported from the testimonies of the most authoritative eyewitnesses, namely, Paul, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and John (especially as seen in the critically accepted texts in Gal 1:18–2:10 and 1 Cor 15:11). Regarding Paul’s description in Gal 1:18, Cullmann speaks for many scholars when he remarks, “It is more than likely that [Paul’s] object was to receive tradition from [Cephas].”112 Other early canonical writings have also contributed additional information. On the centermost, cardinal doctrines, these mega-apostles agreed—none of them are ever declared to have broken fellowship with one of the others on any of these doctrines.113

The apostles were almost surely the sources for at least some of the creeds.114 At the very least their teachings focusing on the very same content are found in the major passages of the Pauline and other Epistles. So it is virtually uncontested that the centermost, core information of the gospel facts—at a very minimum the reports of the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus—goes back to the apostles themselves in some form or another. Their teachings are surely manifest in the form of the homologia plus the earliest creedal traditions, then later in the earliest epistles. This will be unpacked further below as well as in the chapters on the individual minimal facts. But the key here is that while these creeds and Acts sermon summaries at least reflect these doctrines, the Epistles state these truths in longer, more detailed exposition, all from immediately after the crucifixion and shortly afterwards.115

Many of the reasons for this scholarly recognition and acceptance were pursued in much detail in our chapter on the disciples’ original experiences of the risen Jesus, where many major and subsidiary arguments were presented. The chief source in these matters is the apostle Paul, and his major contribution was arguably to interview the other key apostolic eyewitnesses—namely, Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and John—pertaining to their own testimony of the death and resurrection appearances of Jesus. The result was Paul’s personal corroboration that each of these apostles were on precisely the same page regarding the central gospel message (1 Cor 15:11–15), as in the passages just listed above. Beyond Paul’s attestation alone, the total count of confirming arguments that favor these sources of information is almost overwhelming in its variety, scope, and overall force.

As just indicated, the chapter on the disciples’ experiences will detail and verify these findings. The overall argument indicates the high likelihood that the traditional texts along with additional sources are variously either apostolic in nature or are sufficiently close to this apostolic testimony to be both reliable and authoritative. In short, the main issue involves the homologia itself, the most central, agreed upon essence or foundation of the earliest church message. As many scholars have noted, the essentials of this early preaching and teaching chiefly accented the dominant characteristics of the earliest Christology. The paramount beliefs and events that were featured above all were the deity, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.116 Here it will only be remarked further that these beliefs and events were at the very center of the homologia, the early creedal traditions,117 plus the Acts sermon summaries.118 This was the earliest gospel taught by the apostles.

The study of the creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries particularly during the past few decades has helped immensely in providing a narrow window that supplies data regarding the early and eyewitness claims made in the early church and chiefly by the apostles themselves. In so doing, an evidential foundation has been further augmented and deepened as a closer path has been cleared back to Jesus himself.

(3) A broader, “big picture” benefit has also been supplied by the creeds and sermon summaries. These usually brief snippets of information help immeasurably in elucidating the beginnings of Christendom, especially in regard to early beliefs but also concerning more practical and pastoral considerations as well. Most provocatively, these sources may be viewed as the answer to the question pertaining to the direction Christian preaching and teaching took in the initial years after the crucifixion and before the writing of the initial New Testament works. In other words, these invaluable nuggets serve as windows into the very earliest church, filling the gap considerably during the first twenty years until the appearance of the first canonical book, which was probably 1 Thessalonians.119 Thus, these creeds served as the initial expressions of Christianity while it was still in its infancy, including not only its theology but also more practical applications such as preaching and teaching.

This window into the very earliest church also brought other vital theological items to light. As will be pursued in more detail later in this chapter and elsewhere throughout this study, one of these foremost teachings is the impetus that many of these better-known creeds teach an early “high Christology.” Far from taking decades for this view to develop and understand, as many theologians have postulated in recent times, these doctrines came to light immediately, as has been asserted by a growing number of the top New Testament theologians today.

Moreover, the creedal texts and sermon summaries also make clear several more practical matters, such as Jesus presenting himself as the actual road to salvation. Theologians across the theological spectrum have acknowledged that central to Jesus’s message was the call to salvation in God’s kingdom, which comes from choosing Jesus and his path. Jesus required that a decision be made for admittance to the kingdom and for participation in the joy and blessing of eternal life. The creedal traditions and sermon summaries were employed along with their immediate contexts to call the readers and listeners to such decision-making and to follow Jesus.120

Jesus additionally called his followers to what is often referred to as radical obedience or the price of total commitment. Intriguingly, however the instructions are actually applied in today’s world, theologians and New Testament scholars across the liberal-conservative spectrum agree that such a call was definitely made by Jesus, inviting participative action from his hearers. This message will also be unpacked later in this study, but as Lüdemann asserts, Jesus “issued a radical call to discipleship.”121 Stephen Neill makes this comparison regarding Jesus’s teachings: “The demands he [Jesus] makes on his followers are more searching than those put forward by any other religious teacher.”122 Even a brief survey of contemporary scholars across a large range of critical territory who agree here will indicate the widespread unanimity regarding the available data and the nature of the New Testament sacrificial call that was required.123

(4) Lastly, the very nature of creedal traditions and sermon summaries is to assert the truth of Christianity, spread the word, and utilize this truth to proclaim the core message that we have mentioned. This is clearly the motive in both the creeds and the sermon summaries themselves, as well as in the commentary based on them.124

Conclusion

So what conclusions do critical scholars generally draw regarding these issues? Earlier we reproduced the surprising statement by atheist New Testament specialist Gerd Lüdemann, who remarked that the pre-Pauline traditional formulations were one of the greatest advancements of recent scholarly reseach.125 Another atheist scholar, Bart Ehrman, actually dates many of the creedal reports and Acts sermon summaries to the early 30s and acknowledges that Paul may have received them directly from those who were apostles before him. He comments that Paul’s visit with Peter and James in Jerusalem “is one of the most likely places where Paul learned all the received traditions. . . . The traditions he inherited, of course, were older than that and so must date to just a couple of years or so after Jesus’s death.”126

German theologian Walter Kasper thinks that a date of AD 30 is certainly possible for the origination of the confession in 1 Cor 15:3–5.127 Dunn dates the creedal portion of this passage to within just months of Jesus’s crucifixion!128 Hurtado agrees with the truth of Jesus’s resurrection appearances as well as the exceptionally early dates for the subsequent proclamation of these events.129

Bauckham states specifically that creedal formula such as the ones in 1 Cor 11:23–26 and 15:3 and following plus several specific Acts sermon summaries were received from the Jerusalem apostles.130 Cullmann holds that the creedal traditions go back at least to the earliest times and may well have been formulated by the apostles themselves.131 Dodd agrees that these traditions were based on the teachings of the apostles.132 Kee goes further in pointing out that Paul’s personal testimony in 1 Cor 9:1 and 15:8, along with texts like 1 Cor 11:23, could be tested in a law court!133

Many researchers would agree with Lüdemann’s remark in that few topics of study during the last few decades have produced more exciting or promising data than that of the creedal traditions. Heading the list of positives to be drawn from such a study are two facts. First, a number of these confessions are clearly very early, even existing from before Paul’s conversion some two or three years after the crucifixion of Jesus until his initial trip to Jerusalem.134 But second, there is plenty of evidence that indicates the apostles themselves were behind these early oral proclamations, as just mentioned. Several researchers have even concluded that the overall tenor of the views above is the consensus New Testament position at the present time. John Kloppenborg asserts that many of these views are “almost universally acknowledged” among critical scholars.135 That combination of early plus eyewitnesses is an exceptionally strong link in establishing the facticity of the resurrection data.136

Along with the other two overall topics regarding the application of the New Testament historical criteria (particularly the multiple attestation of independent sources) to the text as well as the likelihood that the Gospel genre was more or less modeled after Greco-Roman biographies (bioi), these early creedal traditions are the very bedrock of the data that must be pursued as we push on to evidential questions regarding the resurrection appearances of Jesus. Few items in these discussions are better attested or are more crucial in our ongoing studies. For instance, this material provides the final answer to questions regarding why the creedal confessions could not be simply myths, legends, group speak, or the like, for they are grounded in the historical data. No wonder these events are the foundation for the disciples’ transformations, which is to be discussed in the next chapter.

Notes

1 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 10–13, 18 (see chap. 1, n. 25); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, esp. 313–15 in particular, emphasizing nn. 277–89 for several views (see chap. 1, n. 3), such as the 10 percent literacy across the Roman Empire to perhaps only 3 percent literacy in Roman Palestine (n. 277). However, some major specialists such as Richard Horsley and Rainer Riesner provide reasons for somewhat higher estimates among Jews and in the Nazareth of Jesus’s day (nn. 278–80).

2 Of course, by way of analogy, this is still practiced today even with preschoolers in our contemporary culture where orality is not as crucial. Secular examples might be little song lyrics such as “Row, row, row your boat” or “Mary had a little lamb.” A religious example for preschoolers could well be represented by the lyrics, “Jesus loves me, this I know.” Well-known religious verses or prayers might be “God is great, God is good” or “Now I lay me down to sleep.” Not to be missed is that beginning theological truths are present here; Jesus loves us, God is both great and good, God can welcome us into eternity at death, and the Bible is the key book. Practical truths are also apparent, like directing praise to God and thanking God for food.

3 The earliest and most detailed of the scholarly critical texts on the nature of these early traditions actually extend back into the years when Bultmann’s ideas dominated New Testament theology and even well before that. For some of these works, see Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions (see chap. 2, n. 22); cf. also Cullmann’s detailed essay “The Tradition”—combined from Scottish Journal of Theology and the Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses in 1950—published in Cullmann’s volume of essays, Early Church, 55–99 (see chap. 11, n. 14); Dodd, Apostolic Preaching (chap. 2, n. 22); Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions (see chap. 8, n. 70). Also very helpful in this regard is the study from Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts (see chap. 9, n. 12).

4 Marion L. Soards, 1 Corinthians, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 239.

5 Life 2. Translation can be found in Flavius Josephus, Complete Works, trans. William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960).

6 Cf. also Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 269–70 (see chap. 1, n. 25).

7 Though there can be slightly different meanings or emphases in these words, the terms are cited quite similarly and almost interchangeably in the New Testament. J. N. D. Kelly also employs these expressions, though he cautions against using the strictest definitions of these words, in that while the underlying truths were employed and taught in the New Testament, these expressions were in the process of being crystallized in patterns but without being formally hardened yet. See Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3rd ed. (London: Routledge, 2014), 23–24.

8 Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 98–99 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

9 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 12.

10 The additional verses in these texts that simply record that Jesus was “raised” are not included here. According to the majority of critical researchers, what are being termed as the Acts sermon summaries are smaller units within the Acts sermons where scholars hold that the word and sentence structure are more pointedly creedal in nature. Specifically on these snippets from the Acts discourses, see especially Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 17–31; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, particularly 79–80, 165–69, 171, 177. Less applicable to the more specific discussion here but still mentioning subjects that bear on this discussion is Marion L. Soards’s work, Speeches in Acts, such as 188, 200 (see chap. 10, n. 13). One of the few New Testament scholars who takes a more critical stance here is Gerd Lüdemann, yet even he allows for the presence of early traditions and numerous historical facts in a number of these Acts sermons as well as elsewhere throughout Acts. See Lüdemann, Early Christianity according to the Traditions in Acts: A Commentary, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1987), 7–8, 12–14, 31, 35–37, 48–49, 54, 59, 63, 77, 133, 157–58, 165, 186, 192–95, 246, 249–50. Lüdemann also makes a number of positive comments regarding the resurrection appearances (28–30, 46, 48–49, 133), particularly regarding Paul’s encounter on the trip to Damascus (106–16, 239–40, 255–56). For other information that is relevant here as well as in the next chapter, see also Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 6–29; Donald Fairbairn and Ryan M. Reeves, The Story of Creeds and Confessions: Tracing the Development of the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 21–26, particularly 25–26.

11 Some of the major scholars who treat these matters by producing lists of criteria that distinguish these confessional passages from their contexts include Ethelbert Stauffer, New Testament Theology, trans. John Marsh (London: SCM, 1955), 338–39; Markus Barth, Ephesians 1–3, Anchor Bible Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1974), 6–10; Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 6–26, esp. 10–11, 15–16 (see chap. 11, n. 14) along with the author’s excellent bibliography on the subject; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 12, 42–44, 47, 50, 129–30; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 26–31; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 20n1, though Cullmann thinks Stauffer’s approach above is “in rather too rigid a form.”

12 For details in these more specialized areas that require being able to move easily between ancient languages, especially when the result is drawn from portions that are “notoriously rough and ungrammatical, and indeed scarcely translatable,” to specifications within these languages such as the use of syntactical criteria, double accusatives, infinitives that introduce ancient quotations and so on, see Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 19–21, 26–28, quotation on 27; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 58–68, 112–54, 171; Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 11, 15–16; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 12, 42; Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 339; Markus Barth, Ephesians 1–3, 7–8.

13 Such as 1 Cor 11:23–26; 15:3–7; 1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9–10; 2 Tim 2:11–13.

14 Like 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; Titus 1:9; cf. Mark 7:3.

15 These include a major text such as Rom 10:9 (featuring “faith,” “confess,” “believe” all in the same context), as well as 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Pet 1:21; and probably 1 Tim 6:13b.

16 Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 339. Stauffer’s example here is 1 Tim 3:16.

17 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 101 (see chap. 11, n. 37). Reginald H. Fuller comments that “perhaps the majority of German scholars in recent times” have taken this option regarding two lists of appearances. Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 11–13, 27–28 (see chap. 10, n. 23). Bart D. Ehrman also states regarding 1 Cor 15:3–7, “This ancient creed is a neatly balanced, poetical statement, with two halves. In both halves it makes a claim about Christ (he died; he was raised) . . . and then offers an empirical proof: that he died is proved by the fact that he was buried; that he was raised is proved by the fact that he appeared to Cephas (Peter) and then to the twelve (apostles).” Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 249–51, quotation on 249 (see chap. 2, n. 15).

18 Rom 4:25; 5:8; 8:11, 34; 14:8–9; 1 Cor 12:3; 2 Cor 4:14; 1 Thess 1:10; 4:14; Eph 1:20; 1 Tim 2:5–6; Heb 1:3; 1 Pet 2:24; 3:18 are all helpful here. Lapide’s example is the threefold “and that” (kai hoti) structure in 1 Cor 15:3–5, which he identifies as an “Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew way of narration.” See Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 98. Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 14, counts this as a fourfold hoti.

19 Examples pertaining to both features 4 and 5 can be found in 1 Tim 3:16 and 2 Tim 2:11–13. Another major instance of the fifth creedal indication is Phil 2:6–11. The parallelism in 1 Cor 15:3–7 is noted by Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 12; and Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 98, among many others. Pinchas Lapide mentions there being “three individual statements” within the creed (98), while Fuller (27–28) notes two or three lists of witnesses.

20 Barth, Ephesians 1–3, 7, also citing 1 Tim 3:16, to which many other confessions could be added, such as Rom 4:25; 5:8; 1 Cor 12:3; 1 Pet 3:18. The Acts sermon summaries are frequently longer, as are 1 Cor 15:3–7; Phil 2:5–11; Col 1:15–20.

21 See Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 96–104, for a number of these same or similar linguistic items in the text of the Last Supper. Jeremias argues that the three Last Supper Gospel passages in Mark, Luke, and John, plus the pre-Pauline text in 1 Cor 11:23–25, are each independent, and that (like 1 Cor 15:3b–5) there are non-Pauline terms present in Paul’s text (99–100, 104) as well as a potential Semitic substrata in the introduction to the creed in 1 Cor 11:23–25 (101, 104). Jeremias also notes the independent Last Supper tradition in Luke 22:14–20, and additionally comments that the antiquity of Mark 14:22–24 “approaches that of the early kerygma in I Cor. 15.3b–5” (100). This is rather stunning, and these comments potentially shed some exciting research light on the exceptionally early nature of these traditions.

22 Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 351 (see chap. 10, n. 146).

23 Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction,” 582 (see chap. 11, n. 44).

24 There is much data on this point alone, with many researchers providing contributions on the use of various terms or phrases within creedal passages where there is a contrast between the creed itself and the language of the author who cites these texts. Again, the rich tradition in 1 Cor 15:3–7 is usually the chief target. Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 199n1, points out that “the first clear recognition of the non-Pauline words” in this context can be drawn from Reinhold Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit (Leipzig: Germany: Diechert, 1903; repr. Munich: Kaiser, 1966), 63. Many scholars follow the research of Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, cited above, with Fuller noting the following non-Pauline phrases in particular: “for our sins” (huper tōn hamartiōn hēmōn), “he was raised” (egēgertai), “on the third day” (tē hēmerā tē tritē), and “the Twelve” (dōdeka). Concerning the first phrase, “for our sins,” Jeremias explains that sin is used sixty-four times in the Pauline Epistles. Of the six places that sin is used in the plural, none are specifically Pauline (101–2). Beyond Fuller’s summary of Jeremias, another phrase used in this context, “according to the Scriptures,” is never used by Paul at all (102). Further, the term egēgertai appears in Paul only in referring to its use here. Likewise, the phrase tē hēmerā tē trite also appears nowhere else in Paul. For these and other examples from this particular pre-Pauline creed, see Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 102. Other relevant comments are made by Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Empty Tomb and Resurrection according to Mark,” in The Beginning of the Gospel: Problems in Mark in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 123–24; Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 351n1; Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction,” 582n1.

25 Jeremias’s seven key linguistic pointers to an Aramaic original are (1) the parallelisms noted above; (2) the absence of participles other than kai; (3) the independence of this creed from the Old Testament LXX reading, which are all helpful; (4) “the adversative kai at the beginning of the third line”; (5) the use of the number following the noun (“on the third day,” tē hēmerā tē tritē ), which is the “only possible order” in a Semitic language; (6) the use of the Greek term ōphthē is more consistent with the appropriate Hebrew and Aramaic usage; and (7) the Aramaic Kēphāi (Peter) with a passive verb is also a Semitism. See Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 102–3. Dodd has famously argued for Aramaic originals for some of the Acts sermon summaries as well, most notably Acts 10:35–38; see Apostolic Preaching, esp. 19–21, 26–28.

26 Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 102, cf. also 95–96, 103.

27 Jeremias, 103. After discussing the debate, Fuller basically agrees with this last assessment with some slight variation and critique; see Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 10–11. Jeremias’s best-known opponent on these matters was another New Testament scholar, Hans Conzelmann, who besides agreeing that some words in this pre-Pauline tradition, like “according to the Scriptures,” have “no exact Aramaic equivalent” also made the point that “Christ” used as it is here is not impossible in Aramaic but it is “unusual.” Conzelmann concludes that since the present form of this material is Greek, it is better just to deal with the text as it is presently. Conzelmann, First Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, trans. James W. Leitch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 252–54. Philipp Vielhauer also made the last point regarding the difficulty in translating the title “Christ” into an original Semitic form. See Vielhauer, “Ein Weg zur ntl. Christologie,” Evangelische Theologie 25 (1965): 57–58.

28 As in Jesus’s use of abba when referrring to his Father (Mark 14:36), raising Jairus’s daughter from the dead and employing the Aramaic terms Talitha koum (“Little girl, I say to you arise”) in Mark 5:41–42, or with regard to healings that either utilize or imply the Aramaic, as with Jesus’s word Ephphatha (“Be opened”) to the deaf man in Mark 7:34; 8:24; 10:46, and the term Rabbi in Mark 10:51.

29 Neufeld argues quite persuasively that the creeds centered on Christology, particularly on the facts of the gospel message that we have mentioned above in Earliest Christian Confessions, 10–12, 20–21, 42–60, 131–32, 140–46. Dodd argues similarly in Apostolic Preaching, 16–31. Longenecker provides a very helpful summary of the Christological titles “Christ,” “Son of God,” and “Lord” among these early confessions in New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 21–23. Many other scholars across the entire theological range of liberal to conservative views have weighed in, basically agreeing on the outlined message that is repeatedly taught in the factual portion of the New Testament gospel essentials, as presented in the creedal traditions. Some of these researchers include Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 14 (see chap. 1, n. 41); Betz, Galatians, 72 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Segal, “Paul’s Thinking about Resurrection,” 413 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 468–69 (see chap. 2, n. 13); Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 270, 319, 380–81 (see chap. 6, n. 44); Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 359, 365; Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Nazareth, 8–10 (see excursus 1, n. 96); Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 99; Barnabas Lindars, “Jesus Risen: Bodily Resurrection but No Empty Tomb,” Theology 59 (1986): 90–96; Johnson, Living Jesus, 34, 77 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Perkins, “Reconciling the Resurrection,” 202, 204 (see excursus 1, n. 44); Fergus Kerr, “Paul’s Experience: Sighting or Theophany?,” New Blackfriars 58 (1977): 308; Hugo Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 317, 318 (see chap. 10, n. 76); Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 8, 185–86 (see chap. 1, n. 23); Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 44–45 (see excursus 1, n. 94); Gerald O’Collins, “Peter as Easter Witness,” Heythrop Journal 22 (1981): 15–16; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 95–96 (see chap. 1, n. 19); David M. Stanley, “‘To Know Him and the Power of His Resurrection’ (Phil 3:10): The New Testament Witness to the Central Mystery of Faith,” in How Could We Sorrow?, ed. Michael Higgins (Waterloo: University of St. Jerome’s Press, 1989), 317.

30 Regarding this passage in 1 Cor 15:3–7, Lapide lists many “linguistic items” in this passage alone that indicate its ancient pre-Pauline pedigree: (1) the clearly non-Pauline vocabulary, sentence structure, and diction; (2) the parallelism created by three separate statements; (3) the threefold “and that” sequence “that characterizes the Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew way of narration”; (4) “the ‘divine passive’ of ‘being raised’” without specifically mentioning God’s name, a common Jewish practice; (5) the Aramaic “Cephas” instead of “Simon” as Luke states in the “parallel passage” in Luke 24:34; (6) the twofold reference that this message, particularly that Christ died, was buried, and was raised from the dead, occurred “in accordance with the scriptures”; (7) the use of “the Twelve” as a reference to the “closed group” of witnesses to Jesus’s resurrection appearances; (8) the creed providing a statement of the four events that Christ died for sins, was buried, was raised from the dead, and appeared, which is a list that “is repeated almost in all later reports of the resurrection.” See Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 98–99.

31 Many authors have explicated the key features here, including Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 9–49; Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, particularly 98–99; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 223–35; Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence, as unpacked in Craig’s section “The Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor. 15,” 1–49 (see chap. 10, n. 146); Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 251–59; Hays, First Corinthians, 254–55 (see chap. 11, n. 46).

32 Victor Paul Furnish, Jesus according to Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 24, 27, 31–32, 113. Furnish also mentions “testimonial traditions” (27) as well as “ethical formulations” (113).

33 Furnish, 24.

34 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 3, 8, 17, 46n4, 61–68, 82, 88, 99–101, 106–7, 122–24, 127–28.

35 Cullmann supplements these references with specific usages from Ign. Smyrn. 1, Justin Martyr, Apol. 61, and Tertullian, Spect. 4. See Earliest Christian Confessions, 18–21.

36 Also adding Justin, Dial. 30.3, 85.1–2.

37 Here Cullmann illustrates his point that “the same confession was employed on different occasions even in New Testament times” in Earliest Christian Confessions, 33.

38 Likewise adding Ign. Trall. 9; Smyrn. 1; Magn. 11; Eph. 18.2.

39 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, primarily 16–35. The two quotations are taken from 16.

40 Dodd, 31.

41 Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 137–53.

42 Barnett, 91, 95, 133, 164.

43 Barnett, 138–47; cf. Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 7–8, 15–19, 198–99.

44 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 9–12, 23–24, 66–68, 90–91, 97–98, 104–7, 117, 123–26, 135, 137, and particularly 141–44, cf. 20.

45 Virtually without exception, these seven authentic Pauline texts are identified by critical scholars as Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. They are usually dated from the early to the mid-fifties.

46 Ehrman, New Testament, 44, on the date of Paul’s Epistles and 262, 290 for the comments that these seven are “undisputed.”

47 Luke Timothy Johnson dates these epistles of Paul between AD 40 and 60 in Writings of the New Testament, 144 (see chap. 4, n. 51); also Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 1:356–57; 2:1–6, 8–10 (see chap. 4, n. 47).

48 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 22, 27, 92–93, 97, 131–32, 141, 251 (see chap. 2, n. 15), Goulder, “Baseless Fabric,” 48 (see chap. 10, n. 24); Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454 (see chap. 4, n. 84); cf. Allison, The Resurrection of Jesus, 37, 61–62, 86 (see chap. 2, n. 15); Dunn, Jesus Remembered, esp. 855, also 864; Hurtado, How on Earth, 4, 30, cf. 36 (see chap. 9, n. 32); Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475–98, esp. 475 (see chap. 10, n. 47); Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 351; Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction,” 582, 584, 587, 589 (see chap. 11, n. 44); Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–71, esp. 266; Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 210, also 12.

49 Although dating these specific creeds within just months is impossible, there are a fair number of commentators across the critical spectrum who agree with Ehrman that at least the content of these creedal traditions and Acts sermon summaries can be concluded to have existed before Paul’s conversion. Ehrman does report that “compelling reasons” exist as to why “virtually all scholars” hold that these gospel accounts circulated before Paul’s conversion. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 261. Accordingly, that is why we concluded that these very earliest creeds, or at the very least the information contained in them, most likely predated Paul’s conversion. We called them the “pre-Pauline 1” creeds and data. The creeds that may have come after his conversion but still before the first epistle (most likely 1 Thessalonians) are called the “pre-Pauline 2” creeds and data.

50 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, such as 131, 261.

51 Ehrman, 144–46. Ehrman asks regarding Paul’s meetings with Peter, James the brother of Jesus, and John in Galatians 1–2: “Can we get any closer to an eyewitness report than this?” (145), adding, “It is hard to get much closer to the historical Jesus than that” (148). Additional details are included on 150–52.

52 Besides Ehrman, other recent skeptical scholars who are cited in this or the previous chapter who express similar views at various relevant points include Gerd Lüdemann, Michael Goulder, Thomas Sheehan, Robert Funk and the members of the Jesus Seminar, G. A. Wells, A. J. M. Wedderburn, Robert M. Price, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, John A. T. Robinson, John Kloppenborg, J. K. Elliott, John Alsup, Dale Allison, Pinchas Lapide, Geza Vermes, Gregory Riley, Howard Clark Kee, Michael Grant, Jack Kent, and Barnabas Lindars. Cf. similarly a few of the non-Christian Jewish scholarly views expressed in Mishkin Jewish Scholarship on the Resurrection of Jesus (see chap. 8, n. 7).

53 Bauckham, “Foreword,” in Michael F. Bird, Jesus the Eternal Son, ix (see chap. 11, n. 94).

54 For example, see Bird, Jesus the Eternal Son, 8.

55 These views were much more commonly taught over a century ago by Wilhelm Bousset, Otto Pfleiderer, and suggested much less frequently since the death of Rudolf Bultmann in 1976. Since that time, suggestions have been made by comparatively few researchers, such as Geza Vermes in Jesus and the World of Judaism, 55–57 (see chap. 5, n. 11). Compare the major response by David Wenham in Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 2–13, 116–26, 395–97, along with Bird’s several arguments in Jesus the Eternal Son, 11–24, including Bird’s assertions that the arguments by Vermes and a very few other scholars are now passé among scholars (15, 17, 34–35). Oscar Cullmann’s comments from a far earlier time are still quite instructive as well; see Christology of the New Testament, particularly 216, also 311, 320; on the rejections of Bousset’s influential theories in Cullmann’s time, see 205, 208, 213. Dodd remarks rather stunningly regarding Bousset’s ideas that “seldom, I think, has a theory been so widely accepted on more flimsy grounds.” See Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 15.

56 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, esp. 85, also 56, 70.

57 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, ix–x. For some major works that extend this treatment further, including both defenses as well as challenges, see Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, including x–xii, 6, 23–31, 101, 106, 195, 207–9, 211, 216–17, 233–35, 253, 264–68; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, especially chaps. 2–3 (see excursus 1, n. 95); Hurtado, How on Earth, 2–9, 22–30, 36–42, 48–50; Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 56, 65, 70, 76, 85. While Dunn differs at points from Bauckham and Hurtado, his conclusions are still helpful in Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, 16, 104–5, 132–35, 141–51 (see excursus 1, n. 95); cf. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 864. See Bird’s Jesus the Eternal Son, and for an insightful bibliography and discussion, see the notes in 2–3, 17.

58 Rom 1:4; 8:17, 34; Phil 2:11; Eph 1:20; 1 Pet 3:18; Acts 2:31, 36, 38; 3:18, 20; 4:10, 26; 9:22; 10:36; 17:3 (twice).

59 1 Thess 1:1; Gal 1:1, 3; 3:13–14; 1 Cor 15:1, 3; 2 Cor 2:11.

60 Rom 1:3–4 (twice); 8:15–17; 1 Thess 1:9–10; cf. Acts 9:20; 13:33.

61 1 Thess 1:10; Gal 1:16; 4:4, 6; 2 Cor 1:19; Rom 1:9; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32.

62 As Cullmann argues in Christology of the New Testament, esp. 307, also 201, cf. 235 (see chap. 11, n. 14).

63 For the creedal confessions, see Luke 24:34; Rom 1:4; 4:24; 10:9; 1 Cor 11:23, 26; 12:3; 2 Cor 4:5; Phil 2:11; Col 2:6; Acts 2:25, 36; 4:33; 5:33; 10:36. In Paul’s Epistles, see 1 Thess 1:1; Gal 1:3; 1 Cor 16:22 (in Aramaic); 2 Cor 4:5; Phil 1:11.

64 Cf. Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins, 20–23, 79–84.

65 As does a third, apparently noncreedal teaching in Col 2:9.

66 See Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 41–45, in relation to Phil 2:6–11, on the preexistence and equality of nature of Jesus with God. Bauckham several times equates the situation in this text to his notion of divine identity.

67 Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 146–49, 153; cf. also Hurtado, How on Earth, 2–9, 22–30, 36–42, 48–50. A number of these ideas are close to the ones expressed above by Bauckham, as Hurtado also notes on 22n22.

68 Hengel, Son of God, 1–2 (see excursus 1, n. 96).

69 Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, x.

70 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 453–54 (emphasis added).

71 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, 454, 563. First Corinthians 9:1 is also apparently taken as an equally valuable record of the appearance to Paul, beside 1 Cor 15:8 (458).

72 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, 454, 476.

73 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, 452, 479, 488–95.

74 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, where most of the time the word appearance is preferred in the relevant texts (452–54, 458, 460, 478–95), but “visons” or “visionary experience” are sometimes chosen as well (454–55, 458, 460, 478). Quite often, the Seminar uses the terms rather interchangeably in the very same context. Still, the nature of the appearances is difficult to ascertain from these word usages alone since these terms are regularly used of various phenomena.

75 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, esp. 568, also 533.

76 Strangely enough, the Seminar cofounder Robert Funk in his book Honest to Jesus (see chap. 5, n. 7) acknowledges that Paul (35) was among those who experienced “a series of visions” of the resurrected Jesus (40, 266), which became the center of the early gospel beliefs (35, 40, 275). The creedal confession in 1 Cor 15:3–5 was very early and “Pre-Pauline” (38–39). Funk agrees with some other scholars who hold that the earliest accounts of Jesus’s appearances began as nonphysical, luminous visions that were later proclaimed in far more physical terms (259–60). These appearances were originally thought of as “luminous apparitions—a blinding light surrounding an indistinct figure—accompanied by some auditory communication, whether real or imagined” (267, plus 268–71, 273). Of course, Funk’s language could be taken in more than one way. Ironically, Funk compares this position to those of James M. Robinson (269–70), another Jesus Seminar member, and prominent New Testament scholar Reginald H. Fuller (271–72). Funk appears to share many similarities with both of these researchers, and they make an intriguing comparison. In Robinson’s well-known presidential address to the Society of Biblical Literature in 1981—“Jesus from Easter to Valentinus [or to the Apostles’ Creed],” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 5–37—he argued that the early church initially held that Jesus’s appearances involved “a luminous heavenly body,” with the church later favoring the view that the appearances were those of “a gloriously disembodied spirit,” with both views being in contrast to the orthodox notion of the risen Jesus appearing in a fleshly body (20–21). Nonetheless, Robinson seems to have held that none of these positions “can be literally espoused by serious critical thinkers of today” (37). On the other hand, Reginald Fuller in Formation of the Resurrection Narratives likewise thought that the early New Testament view was that Jesus most likely appeared to his followers in “visionary experiences of light” that also involved a message that Fuller termed as “a communication of meaning.” These appearances were disembodied and not objectively measurable but were still quite real (esp. 46–49, also 172, 181). So far then, these three descriptions seem to be close in a number of key aspects. The major difference between Robinson and Fuller, however, is that Robinson rejects these resurrection appearances as actually having occurred according to any of the definitions, while Fuller thinks that Jesus actually appeared in the manner that he describes. Which of these two views comes the closest to Funk’s at these points? Both options could be at least somewhat consistent with Funk’s language, depending on what the individual words mean. This lack of definition and clarity seems like it may be the case with many members of the Jesus Seminar, perhaps even as a whole, almost as if there is a specific desire not to be too precise. It may just be that, in a similar way among their members, views on many sides of this divide may perhaps be present.

77 Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 454.

78 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, examples include 92–93, 131, 144–46, 261.

79 Critical scholars are regularly much agreed on this point. See especially Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 9–11, 20–29, 43–60, 67–68, 131–32; Hurtado, How on Earth, 5, 22–24, 27–28; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 21–24; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 49–50, 63–64; Cullmann, “Tradition,” 64; Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 8, 67–70, 115–16.

80 As carefully spelled out by Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 10, 18, 20–21, 24, 48–49, 58–60, 67, 80, 91; also, Hurtado, How on Earth, 30, 36, 48, 192; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, esp. 22; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 53, 57–58; Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 18, 185–86; Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 308. Ehrman expresses some similar words in How Jesus Became God, 84, 108, also 3 (see chap. 6, n. 173).

81 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 26–27; especially Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 265–66, 307–8, also 30–32, 389; cf. Hurtado, How on Earth, 30, 36; Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 10, 17–18, 46–49, 58; cf. Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16, 18–19, 21, 26, 31; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13, 49–50; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138.

82 Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 16.

83 Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138–40; also Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 261.

84 Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, 20.

85 Neufeld, 24.

86 It could be objected that the uses of the apostles’ names or positions does not require that they were in accord with the gospel teachings. However, immediately after providing this creedal list, Paul specifically stated that these leaders did in fact agree with these teachings (1 Cor 15:11).

87 Hays, First Corinthians, 257.

88 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, chaps. 9–11.

89 Soards, 1 Corinthians, 321.

90 This trip is usually dated to approximately AD 47 or 48; see Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 1:103. John Meier places the event at AD 49 in Marginal Jew, 3:219–20 (see chap. 1, n. 27).

91 For a discussion of some of the pros and cons of this meeting either being the same or a subsequent visit of Paul’s to Jerusalem, see Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1979), 111–12; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 474–81. Craig Keener reports that “a majority of scholars” identify the events in Acts 15:1–35 and Gal 2:1–10 as the same occasion. See Keener, Acts, 361 (see chap. 9, n. 38).

92 The New Revised Standard Version translates the key adverb in Acts 15:25 as “unanimously.”

93 Hengel, Atonement, 38, 69 (see chap. 6, n. 86).

94 Johnson, Real Jesus, 103 (see chap. 5, n. 49).

95 Kee, What Can We Know, 1 (see chap. 4, n. 46).

96 Betz, Galatians, 96.

97 Betz, 100; also 86–89, 95–96.

98 Besides the scholars above, other researchers include Lüdemann with Özen, What Really Happened to Jesus, 14; Ehrman, New Testament, 307–8; Pannenberg, “Response to the Debate,” 132 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2:355 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Stuhlmacher, Jesus of Nazareth, 8; Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:118, also 3:219–20; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 29–30; O’Collins, Interpreting Jesus, 110 (see excursus 1, n. 86); Meyer, “Resurrection as Humanly Intelligible Destiny,” 15 (see excursus 1, n. 85); Witherington, “Resurrection Redux,” 140 (see chap. 1, n. 19); William Lane Craig, “The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus,” New Testament Studies 31 (1985): 39; Harris, Raised Immortal, 9 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 136 (see chap. 5, n. 49); Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 126–27, 142; Kearney, “He Appeared to 500 Brothers,” 283–84 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Samuel, “Making Room in History,” 107 (see chap. 1, n. 19); Anderson, Jesus Christ, 121 (see chap. 8, n. 73).

99 Such as Phil 2:5; 1 Tim 1:15; 3:1; 4:9–10; 2 Tim 2:11–13; Titus 1:9; Heb 2:1–4; 4:14; 12:2; 13:20–21; 1 Pet 1:21; 2:21; 4:1; 1 John 4:2, 14. The use of the term ontōs (“really” or “indeed”) in the creedal comment in Luke 24:34 could also be construed in this manner, as well, perhaps like the use of “verily.”

100 In our present context, see especially 1 Cor 15:11–15, 19; and Gal 1:20. Other broader situations might include Luke 1:1–4; John 19:35; 21:24; 1 Cor 2:13; 14:37–38; 2 Pet 1:16–18; 1 John 1:1–4.

101 Such as Jesus being a descendent of David (Rom 1:3), born of a woman (Gal 4:4), the notion of being a witness (Matt 28:19a; 1 Tim 6:13), creation (Col 1:15–17), Jesus’s return (1 Thess 1:10), and so on.

102 In addition to the study of these creedal confessions, a handful of other developments in recent New Testament studies have similarly contributed to this historical interest. Other such areas would include the application of the historical criteria especially to the Gospels, along with the recognition that the Gospel genre seems most closely to resemble the broad area of Greco-Roman biographies. Though these latter two subjects have also been questioned, the give and take has usually resulted in recent scholars learning not to throw out the baby with the bathwater here, since even stricter applications of these tools can still yield major historical insights. In general, these developments seem to have won the day at least to some extent with the majority of critical scholars. Each of them plays a role in the current, long-standing popularity of the Historical Jesus movement of the last few decades. For example, the Jesus Seminar makes many positive comments regarding the use of the criteria in determining historical portions in the Gospels; see Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of Jesus, 25–26, 32–35, 454, 461–62. The conclusion of Greco-Roman biography (bioi) as the correct Gospel genre also seems to be the majority position today; see Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 276; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 201–4.

103 Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 210.

104 Gerd Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2004), 37n2.

105 Readers must constantly remember throughout this study that, from the beginning, descriptions of scholars as atheists, non-Christians, agnostics, or skeptics are decidedly not to be taken as derogatory labels, but as following the minimal facts method, where the second (though less crucial) criterion is that even such skeptical scholars allow the vast majority of these items here. Hence these descriptions are identifying features that help to develop the ongoing argument.

106 Lüdemann, Resurrection of Jesus, 38 (see chap. 6, n. 173), whose maximum date for the pre-Pauline creed 1 Cor 15:3–7 is three years after the crucifixion; Goulder, “Baseless Fabric,”, 48, who dates the appearance data to two years at the latest, as it was taught to Paul at the time of his conversion; Sheehan, First Coming, 110–12, 118, 135 (see excursus 1, n. 16), who also agrees that the appearance reports go back to no more than two to four years after the crucifixion, when these traditions were taught to Paul; Funk, Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, 24; Jack Kent, The Psychological Origins of the Resurrection Myth (London: Open Gate, 1999), 16–17; Wedderburn, Beyond Resurrection, 111, 274n265 (see chap. 1, n. 42); Gregory J. Riley, Resurrection Reconsidered: Thomas and John in Controversy (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 65; Allison, Resurrecting Jesus, 208, 223–39, 244, 317, 353; Michael Grant, Saint Paul (Glasgow: Collins Sons, 1976), 104; Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, 30, 65 (see chap. 6, n. 54); Conzelmann, First Corinthians, 251, 254; Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament?, 125 (see chap. 1, n. 43); Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 15–16, 92, 95–99, 120–29; Vermes, Resurrection, 2, 5, 9, 111–12, 121–23, 141–49 (see chap. 5, n. 14); Kee, What Can We Know, 1–2; plus other mixed Jewish positions such as those of Martin Goodman (210) along with at least six other views (139, 212) as listed in Mishkin, Jewish Scholarship on the Resurrection of Jesus; cf. other comments in Robert M. Price, Deconstructing Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2000), 55; Borg and Crossan, First Paul, 149 (see excursus 1, n. 19).

107 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 261; also Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138–40.

108 Ehrman, 131.

109 Ehrman repeats these themes often, as in Did Jesus Exist?, esp. 22, 27, 109–13, 140–41, 172, 232, 261–63, cf. 92–93, 97, 130–32, 171, 251, 254; Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138–39, 154–55, 216–18, 225–30.

110 Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 99.

111 In addition to Bart Ehrman and John Drane, other researchers who hold that at least some of the Acts sermon summaries also reflect the earliest Christian preaching and teaching include Lüdemann, Early Christianity, 47–49, 112–15 (see chap. 10, n. 70); Helmut Merklein, “Die Auferweckung Jesu und die Anfänge der Christologie (Messias bzw. Sohn Gottes und Menschensohn),” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 72 (1981): 2; Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” esp. 351, 358–62, 367; J. K. Elliott, “The First Easter,” History Today 29 (1979): 215; John Alsup, The Post-Resurrection Appearance Stories of the Gospel Tradition: A History-of-Tradition Analysis with Text Synopsis, Calwer Theologische Monographien 5 (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1975), 64–65, 81–85; Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 453, 456, 691; Johnson, Living Jesus, 34; Lapide, Resurrection of Jesus, 91; Hengel, Atonement, 34; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 17–31; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, esp. 79–80, 164–65; Francis X. Durrwell, La résurrection de Jésus: Mystère de salut, 10th ed. (Paris: Cerf, 1976), 22; Fuller, Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 44–45; Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 90, 228–31; Brown, New Testament Christology, 112–13 (see chap. 8, n. 17), 164; Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 216–20, 468, 616; Staudinger, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ,” 322; Gerald O’Collins, Interpreting the Resurrection (Mahweh, NJ: Paulist, 1988), 48–52; Rowan Williams, Resurrection: Interpreting the Easter Gospel (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1982), 7–11; Barnabas Lindars, “The Apocalyptic Myth and the Death of Christ,” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 57 (1975): 367–68; Matthew Brook O’Donnell, “Some New Testament Words for Resurrection and the Company They Keep,” in Resurrection, ed. Stanley E. Porter, Michael A. Hayes, and David Tombs (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 138; Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, “The Resurrection of Jesus and Roman Catholic Fundamental Theology,” The Resurrection: An International Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 225–26; J. Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Grempf (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 419–22, 427; Holleman, Resurrection and Parousia, 141 (see excursus 1, n. 93); Goergen, Death and Resurrection of Jesus, 233 (see excursus 1, n. 19);M. Gourges, A la droite de Dieu: Résurrection de Jésus et actualisation du Psaume 110:1 dans le Nouveau Testament (Paris: Gabalda et Cie Editeurs, 1978), especially 169–78.

112 Cullmann, “Tradition,” 65.

113 See Raymond E. Brown, The Churches the Apostles Left Behind (Mahweh, NJ: Paulist, 1984), 64, 86, 146–50. Again, the dispute between Paul and Peter reported in Gal 2:11–14 was over dietary customs and fellowship (especially verses 12, 14), not doctrine, and most of all not over the definition of the gospel content.

114 Bauckham is quite outspoken on this topic. See his volume Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, particularly 30, 264–69, 304–8. From the very early and classical creedal texts, see also Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13, 16, 49–50; Neufeld, Earliest Christian Confessions, particularly 9–17, 24–25, 32–33, 141–43; Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 16–24, 26, 31; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 79–80, 165–71.

115 Regarding the acceptance of this material listed here by critical scholars as the recognized, consensus position held by the majority of researchers today, see especially Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–69, 308; Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 475–98, especially 475–76, cf. also 489, 497–98; Kloppenborg, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 351, including note 11; Murphy-O’Connor, “Tradition and Redaction,” 582, 589; cf. Hays, First Corinthians, esp. 255.

116 Neufeld is especially helpful on this emphasis in Earliest Christian Confessions, particularly 10–17, 20–21, 24–25, 32–33, 140–46. See also Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, 21–23; also, 11, 16, 19, 26, 31; Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13, 16, 49–50, 53, 57–58, 64; Wilcox, Semitisms of Acts, 79–80, 165–69; Hurtado, How on Earth, 30, 36, 192; Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 7–8, 54–58, 67–70. With the majority of scholars, Barnett places the date of 1 Thessalonians at AD 50 in Birth of Christianity, 42, 54, 76, 208.

117 Especially 1 Cor 15:3–7; Luke 24:34; cf. Rom 1:3–4; 4:25; 10:9.

118 Including Acts 2:32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30–32; 10:39–41; 13:29–31; 17:31.

119 For those who think Jesus was crucified in AD 33, this shrinks the gap even a little more. See Barnett, Birth of Christianity, 7–9, 25; also, Barnett, Jesus and the Logic of History, 93n9.

120 Examples of some of the creedal confessions with the contexts and applications include Rom 1:1–5; 4:23–25; 10:9–11; 1 Cor 11:23–32; 15:1–7; Phil 2:6–11; Eph 1:18–21; 1 Tim 3:16; 1 Thess 1:9–10; 1 Pet 3:14–22. Sermon summaries in Acts that include some of these same applications are found in the following texts: Acts 2:37–41; 3:16; 4:1–4, 12; 5:29–32; 10:42–43; 13:38–39; 17:30–31.

121 Gerd Lüdemann, “Closing Response,” in Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdemann, ed. Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000), 159–60.

122 Neill, Christian Faith and Other Faiths, 233 (see chap. 8, n. 102).

123 These as well as similar ideas are shared by the likes of Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1:4–11; Fuller, Foundations of New Testament Christology, 105–6 (see chap. 8, n. 17); Joseph M. Hallman, “The Resurrection of the Human Jesus,” Process Studies 8 (1978): 257; Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Dogmatic Theses on the Doctrine of Revelation,” in Revelation as History, ed. Wolfhart Pannenberg, trans. David Granskou (New York: Macmillan, 1968), 139–45; Raymond E. Brown, Jesus: God and Man: Modern Biblical Reflections (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1967), 96–105; Thomas Torrance, Space, Time and Resurrection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 20; George W. E. Nickelsburg, “The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative,” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 182; Hans Küng, Eternal Life? Life after Death as a Medical, Philosophical, and Theological Problem, trans. Edward Quinn (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 107; William Strawson, Jesus and the Future Life (London: Epworth, 1970), 227–28, cf. 196; Robert H. Smith, Easter Gospels: The Resurrection of Jesus according to the Four Evangelists (Minneapolis: Augsberg, 1983), 49–50, 54; Brian Hebblethwaite, “The Resurrection and the Incarnation,” in The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, ed. Paul Avis (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1993), 169; O’Collins, Easter Jesus, 122–25; Moltmann, Jesus Christ for Today’s World, 47 (see excursus 1, n. 83); Lorenzen, Resurrection and Discipleship, 143, 232–35; Johnson, Living Jesus, 46, 97, 193, 199–200; Pheme Perkins, “The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth,” in Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Recent Research, ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 442; Stephen Neill, The Supremacy of Jesus (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1984), 9; John White, The Magnificent Obsession: The Joy of Christian Commitment, rev. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), esp. chaps. 1 and 7; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 2nd ed., trans. Reginald H. Fuller (New York: Macmillan, 1963), 45–104; Wright, Following Jesus, chaps. 6–7, 11–12 (see chap. 10, n. 118); Craig L. Blomberg, Heart, Soul, and Money: A Christian View of Possessions (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2000), chaps. 4–6; James D. G. Dunn, Jesus’ Call to Discipleship, 4, 7, 12–13, 25, 30–31, 109–14, 121, 126–27 (see excursus 1, n. 34); David Platt, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream (Colorado Springs: Multnomah, 2010), particularly chaps. 6–9 (see chap. 10, n. 118).

124 Rom 1:3–4, Acts 2:22–24; 17:30–31 for a few examples.

125 Lüdemann, Resurrection of Christ, 37n2.

126 Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 145, 261.

127 Kasper, Jesus the Christ, 125 (see excursus 1, n. 12).

128 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 855, 864.

129 Hurtado, How on Earth, 29–30, 36, cf. 192.

130 Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, esp. 266, 307–8.

131 Cullmann, Earliest Christian Confessions, 13, 16, 49–50.

132 Dodd, Apostolic Preaching, particularly 16, 19, 26, 31.

133 Kee, What Can We Know, 1–2.

134 In this chapter (plus the previous one on minimal historical fact 3 on the earliness of the resurrection reports), we have viewed many atheist, agnostic, Jewish, and other skeptical authors who concede that at least some of the New Testament creedal traditions originated in the 30s, likely even before Paul’s conversion, along with related positions, such as placing many of these items at least in the 30s. This recognition can be found in researchers such as Rudolf Bultmann, Gerd Lüdemann, Michael Goulder, Robert Funk and the members of the Jesus Seminar, G. A. Wells, Thomas Sheehan, A. J. M. Wedderburn, Robert M. Price, J. K. Elliott, Jack Kent, John Alsup, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Bart Ehrman, John A. T. Robinson, John Kloppenborg, Dale Allison, Howard Clark Kee, Pinchas Lapide, Geza Vermes, Gregory Riley, Howard Clark Kee, Michael Grant, and Barnabas Lindars. Cf. also the non-Christian Jewish scholarly views that are reported in Mishkin, Jewish Scholarship on the Resurrection of Jesus.

135 Besides Kloppenborg in “Pre-Pauline Formula,” 351, others who make similar comments are Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 264–71; and Ware, “Pre-Pauline Formula,” esp. 475–76, also 489, 497–98; cf. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, 131, 144–46, 261; and Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 138.

136 See the chapter below that moves from the disciples having experiences to these events being actual appearances of the risen Jesus.

↑ Back to top