this passage implies that paul's understanding of the gospel came through a direct revelation from jesus christ, rather than from human teaching. however, it does not mean that there was no knowledge of a flesh-and-blood jesus. we should consider this passage: > 3 for i passed on to you as of first importance what i also receivedthat christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, > 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, > 5 and that he appeared to cephas, then to the twelve. > 6 then he appeared to more than 500 of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. > 7 then he appeared to james, then to all the apostles.  > 8 last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. (1 cor 15:3-8) though it was written in an epistle much later, skeptical historical scholarship dates the formation of this credal statement to... > james d. g. dunn: "this tradition, we can be entirely confident was formulated as tradition within months of jesus' death" > michael goulder: "paul 'received' the tradition -- that is, he was taught it at his conversion -- perhaps two years after jesus' death." > ulrich wilckens: "indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive christianity" > gerd ludemann: "the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of jesus" > paul barnett: "within two or three years of the first easter" > richard burridge/graham gould: "from only a few years after jesus' death" > robert funk and the jesus seminar: within "two or three years at most" > richard hays: "within about three years after jesus was crucified in jerusalem" > alexander wedderburn: "first half of the thirties" its significant because people who did actually have knowledge and fellowship with the flesh-and-blood jesus like peter was also visited by the resurrected christ, before paul.
United States