1 Corinthians 15. The Resurrection of the Dead. This discussion seems not to have been elicited by the church letter, but by information which had reached Paul through another source. Some were denying the doctrine of the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:12). On what grounds they denied it and what view they held of life after death is not said. Probably they held that current in Greek philosophy, that death was a release from the prison-house of the body, that the spirits of the good passed into a state of bliss while their bodies went to corruption. Paul insists that this doctrine cuts away the very basis on which their faith and salvation rest. But his own doctrine is far removed from the crass belief that the body would be simply reanimated. It would be entirely transformed. Neither the principle of continuity between old and new, nor the nature of the resurrection body are clearly explained (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:1-4), but on the latter point especially much is said to define Paul's view, and it was one against which the difficulties urged at Corinth would be less acutely felt.
Although the resurrection of Christ was apparently not denied, Paul restates the evidence for it. He felt that the admission made the position that there was no resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:12) illogical. He is not content, however, with registering the admission and drawing the inference. For logic could be satisfied by denying both, as well as by admitting both, and the doubters might advance to the one as well as retreat to the other. It was therefore advisable to anticipate such a possibility by a summary of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. It is very fortunate that Paul gave this, for we thus have what is probably our earliest documentary statement, of unimpeachable authenticity and carrying back the belief to within a week of the crucifixion. The view that it is an interpolation is refuted by its manifest independence of the Gospel narratives; at any possible date for such an interpolation it would have been made in a harmonistic interest.
It is very important to remember that Paul is summarising information previously given in detail. It is not clear that he meant to give a complete account of the appearances. The omission of the women might be due to ignorance, and this, considering his opportunities for knowledge, would raise a serious question as to their historical character. On the other hand, it might be due simply to his wish to avoid evidence that would carry less weight, and this would harmonise very well with his general attitude to women. It is intrinsically improbable, whatever view be taken of the appearances, that there were no appearances to women. Paul's reference to the third day is entitled to the greatest weight from those who insist that his is our only credible account. It is, however, often regarded as an inference from prophecy. This is favoured by the reference to the Scriptures, and by the fact that Hosea 6:2 might naturally suggest this. It is a serious objection to this view that Hosea 6:2 is never referred to in this connexion either in the NT or in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. It could hardly have failed to be quoted if the early Church had fixed the date of the resurrection by it. Moreover the actual terms of the passage do not very well suit the resurrection of Christ (raise us up). We have no right to deny that the third day was part of the tradition Paul had received, and if so it was probably an original element in the tradition. In that case the appearances must have taken place first in Jerusalem, not in Galilee. We may probably infer from this that the story of the empty grave is historical, since the apostles can hardly have left this point without investigation if they were in Jerusalem at the time. It is true that Paul does not explicitly refer to the empty grave. But apparently he implies it. Otherwise he would not have emphasized the fact of burial, and perhaps he would have drawn no distinction between the resurrection and the appearances. And, since the very point at issue was the resurrection of the body, he cannot have supposed that Christ's body went to corruption in the grave. It is also important to observe how large an element of agreement Paul asserts between himself and the apostles. It is not simply with reference to matters of fact, the death, the burial, the resurrection, but the interpretation of the death as on account of sins, not the bare facts but what made the facts a Gospel.