It is almost universally acknowledged that 1 Corinthians 15:1-11 contains a pre-Pauline confessional/creedal statement.[footnoteRef:2] Beyond this affirmation, there is little that may be agreed upon by all. Jerome Murphy-OConnor notes that the only two points of complete agreement are that Paul introduces a quotation in v. 3b, andhe is speaking personally from v. 8 on.[footnoteRef:3] On almost every other issue, there is serious debate. Some scholars suggest that the creed ends in verse 5, while others suggest that it extends through verse 7. Famously Joachim Jeremias argued for an Aramaic original form of the creed, while Hans Conzelmann disputed this claim, favoring a Jewish-Hellenistic provenance. The original purpose of the creedal statement as well as the specific details of its content are debated. [2: Against this, David Garland, proposes a minority viewpoint, namely that the material is to be understood as Pauline, in 1 Corinthians (BECNT, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 683.] [3: Jerome Murphy-OConnor, Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15:3-7, CBQ 43 (1984): 582.]

A study which would deal with all of these issues exhaustively would require much more space than the limits of this essay allow. The purpose of this study is to ascertain, as far as is possible, the content of the pre-Pauline material, as well as its limits. It is necessary to establish the bounds of the material, if we are to intelligently discuss the content contained therein. The reverse is also true; ascertaining the content of the preformed material will aid us in determining its extent. While it would be worthwhile to study the linguistic origins of the material, as well as its geographical origin and sitz im leben, these pursuits are best left to another study. In order to achieve the aforementioned goals of our study, we will examine address form critical issues, as well as lexical, syntactical, and source critical issues where relevant. Proceeding in this manner will allow us to conclude that the creed which Paul quotes begins in v. 3b and proceeds through the end of v. 7, with the exception of v. 6b, which will be determined to be a Pauline interpolation into the text. This in turn, will allow us to establish the content of the creed as a recitation of the death, burial, and physical resurrection of Christ (as according to the Scriptures), followed by a traditional list of witnesses to this resurrection.I. The Establishment of Traditional MaterialPaul begins verse 3 by declaring to the Corinthian believers: , (For I handed over to you, at the first, that which also I received). The verbs and designate a passing on of formal tradition. Paul uses the same exact language when describing the tradition he received from the Lord, regarding the Last Supper, which he passed on to the congregation at Corinth (1 Cor 11:23). It is clear that v. 3a is the introduction to traditional material, which Paul begins to recite in v. 3b. The prepositional phrase may be understood either in a temporal sense, or as referring to things of primary importance. Commentators are somewhat divided on which meaning is appropriate here.[footnoteRef:4] Rather than running the risk of affirming one understanding to the exclusion of the other, we would do well to remember that what was first in importance was probably also spoken first.[footnoteRef:5] It is this kerygma of temporal and logical priority that Paul handed over to the Corinthian congregation and now proceeds to recite again. His language not only signifies the importance of the material, but its preformed nature. Paul himself is passing on not just ideas, but the very words he himself received. [4: Arguments for temporal priority are given by Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hermeneia, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 251 and arguments for priority of importance are given by Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 722, and suggested by Anthony C.Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1186.] [5: Garland, 683.]

II. The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Christ (vv. 3b-4)The preformed material starts in v. 3b. It begins with the declaration . To this point it has primarily been assumed, rather than demonstrated that the material is, in fact, pre-Pauline. While it is not the intention of this study to develop exhaustive arguments to this end, some evidence is in order. Joachim Jeremias notes that the phrase is non-Pauline.[footnoteRef:6] The identical use of the phrase in Gal 1:4 may be attributed to the influence of early Christian linguistic usage, rather than Pauline origin.[footnoteRef:7] Similarly, the phrase in vv. 3 and 4, the expression (also note the placement of the ordinal number after the noun; this does not occur elsewhere in Paul), and the term occur nowhere else in the Pauline corpus.[footnoteRef:8] [6: Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Chatham: W. & J. Mackay, 1966), 102.] [7: For similar usage, cf. Rom 7:5, Eph 2:1, Col 1:14] [8: Jeremias, 102.]

Additionally the word here indicates a quotation to follow, but the question is raised whether or not the function of is solely to introduce the content of the creed, or if it functions as part of that confessional statement. If this were the only occurrence of that conjunction in the creedal statement, we might easily affirm its inclusion in the material. As it stands, while is often known to follow forms of as the introduction to confessional statements, there is no known creed in which each member is introduced by .[footnoteRef:9] Despite this data, it seems best to understand the initial occurrence of as part of the original creed, with the subsequent occurrences of as also part of the creed, rather than inserted by Paul for emphasis (contra Murphy-OConnor).[footnoteRef:10] The use of very well might be to emphasize each piece of the creed, but it does not follow that they are Pauline insertions. Rather, the form - -verb, followed three times by --verb (whose implied subject is ) seems to indicate a formulaic construction conducive to liturgical or catechetical use. As we will see, this fourfold link is later repeated in the creed by the connective construction . All of these considerations lead us to conclude that each occurrence of is part of the original creed, rather than Pauline insertions into a hypothetical form of the material which does not contain . [9: Murphy-OConnor, 583.] [10: Murphy-OConnor argues that Paul separates two quotations from the same work in 1 Cor 8:4 with and that this parallels his use in 15:3-5. This is not convincing, as Paul is using in 8:4 to link two apparently discontinuous statements. In 15:3-5, introduces the material and subsequent uses of mark off apparently contiguous pieces of the kerygmatic creed. The usage is not parallel, as Murphy-OConnor would have us believe.]

The statement which is introduced by is . The anarthrous use of the subject is a characteristic of kerygmatic statements in which Jesus is presented as the perfecter of the work of salvation.[footnoteRef:11] The term here seems to function as a name, though, as N.T. Wright points out, because of the early formulation of this creed, there is no chance that this word could have been a proper name without connotation.[footnoteRef:12] While early believers used the term as a personal name, the term, especially in Jewish circles, would have retained its titular sense. The verb which follows the subject is the aorist . This verb serves both to establish the reality of Christs death and to set up mention of the purpose of that death. The two facts established are that Christ died, and that he died . The phrase has already been noted to be non-Pauline. Its function here is to state the purpose for which Christ died. The preposition indicates that Christ died because of our sins; the idea of a substitutionary death is evident in this statement, as Christ died for our sins, not his (though the verse does not flesh out this idea further). In this early statement of faith, a theory of atonement is not elaborated, but as Gordon Fee notes, the early Christian movement was rooted in Judaism, which already had inherent in it the idea of vicarious sacrifice in the atonement itself.[footnoteRef:13] [11: Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 254-5. For a succinct summary of the debate over the provenance of the anarthrous , see William L. Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989), 9-15.] [12: N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 319. Cf. Fee, 723-4.] [13: Fee, 724. Cf. Thiselton, 1191-2.]

While no theory of atonement is made in this verse, it does serve to establish two core elements of the Christian faith, (1) that Christ died, and (2) that he died because of our sins. To this, a third element is added. The verse finishes with the prepositional phrase . This phrase, which appears again in v. 4 is one never seen anywhere else in Paul. It is debatable whether or not the phrase refers simply to Christs death, or whether it encompasses the entire idea of his death for sin. Additionally, there is debate over whether these words indicate a specific referent in the Hebrew Scriptures, or if Christs death is understood as the climax of the entire biblical narrative, encompassing the whole motif of Gods redemptive work, as illustrated in Scripture. The answers to these two questions are not entirely independent of one another. As C.K. Barrett notes, there are a number of key points to remember when considering the phrase . These include (1) the continuity between the crucifixion and Gods redemptive purposes as revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures, which climaxes in the saving work of Christ and (2) understanding the meaning of that salvific death by means of interpretation in OT categories for example, of sacrificeatonementsufferingsthe good times to come.[footnoteRef:14] These statements help us keep in mind that the early Christians understood Christs death to be salvific and in line with the redemptive promises of God as revealed in the entirety of the Old Testament. In other words, Christs death is not understood apart from its redemptive work, and it is to be seen as the culmination of Gods promises made through the Hebrew Scriptures. While the entirety of Scripture is in view with the phrase , this does not preclude an allusion to a specific passage of Scripture, possibly (and probably) the LXX of Isaiah 53.[footnoteRef:15] So, it would seem that the prepositional phrase is meant to encompass the death of Christ for sins, and has as its referent the entire redemptive theme of the Hebrew Scriptures, while probably making a specific allusion to Isaiah 53. [14: C.K. Barret, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Black, 1968, 2nd ed. 1971), 338-9.] [15: So, Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians 255; Fee, 724; Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation, Louisville: Knox, 1997), 256; Thieselton, 1190; Ben Witheringon, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 299.]

The -verb formula begun in v. 3b is picked up again in v. 4, with the addition of the connective conjunction . It reads: . The statement (he was buried) has been understood to reinforce the reality of both the preceding and following verbs.[footnoteRef:16] Whether or not it is meant to confirm either of these truths, it is certainly a statement of fact in and of itself, and serves as an objective event, chronologically seated between the death and resurrection. However, given the succinctness of the creedal material, it seems that the burial of Christ must have been of great importance to warrant inclusion. While it may serve to reinforce the reality of Christs death, it seems that its main purpose was in affirming the resurrection. The discovery of the empty tomb figures prominently in the resurrection narratives of the Gospels. It was this realization which first alerted the followers of Christ that something out of the ordinary had occurred. In the succinct wording of the creed, it is likely that the verb captured the importance that early Christians placed on the tomb, and its position in the resurrection stories.[footnoteRef:17] [16: For the argument that reinforces the reality of Christs death, see Conzelmann 1 Corinthians, 255, and Fee, 725. The opposite view is offered by Wright, 321. For the suggestion that it reinforces both his death and resurrection, See Thiselton, 1192.] [17: Cf. Wright, 321.]

After addressing Jesus burial, v. 4 continues on with a proclamation of the resurrection: . The perfect passive verb (he has been raised) indicates a number of things. First, it affirms the resurrection of Christ. We will address the creeds understanding of the nature of this resurrection in the following section. Second, it implies the agency of God in raising Christ, through the use of the passive voice. The passive here is a divine passive. Finally, the perfect tense contrasts the aorist tense of the previous two verbs. Whereas the aorist tense of and denote a onetime past action, the perfect tense here indicates the ongoing effects of the action. It is not that Christ was raised, but Christ has been raised. The ongoing effects of this resurrection are what Paul unpacks in verses 12-58 of 1 Cor 15. The verb is followed by the prepositional phrases and . The phrase certainly modifies the verb . The origin of this phrase is not entirely clear. The most likely explanation seems to be that this was the day that the tomb was discovered empty and/or the resurrection appearances were first experienced.[footnoteRef:18] [18: Fee, 726; Cf. Thiselton, 1196; Wright, 322. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians suggests the latter explanation, but he rejects the tomb narratives as later material.]

Finally, we must once again address the extent of the qualification . Again, the question is twofold: what material does the phrase modify? And what Scripture provides this attestation? The former determination is difficult to make, as neither the resurrection nor the third day is well attested in the Old Testament. The most probable answer is to see the phrase as modifying all of .[footnoteRef:19] It seems likely that this usage of is parallel to that in v. 3. In other words, the whole thrust of Scripture bears witness to the promises of God, as fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ on the third day. Again, this does not preclude an allusion or quotation from a specific Scripture. In this case, the LXX of Hosea 6:2 is most likely.[footnoteRef:20] It declares that God will raise Israel up on the third day ( ). Again, the phrase should not be seen as limited to Hosea 6:2, but it certainly provides striking parallel language. [19: Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 256; Fee, 727.] [20: Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 256.]

III. The Witnesses (vv. 5-7)After v. 4, the creed shifts into a list of witnesses to the resurrection. Verse 5 declares: . The first major point to be addressed regards the passive verb . Considerable debate surrounds the meaning of this verb and its implications for the nature of the resurrection. In purely linguistic terms, is the third person aorist passive indicative of (I see). While the term is passive, Joseph Fitzmyer points out that this passive use of the verb is a Hebraism preserved in the LXX, which means appear. When used this way, the passive verb takes on the intransitive meaning of appeared. Philo explains this usage in De Abrahamo 17.80.[footnoteRef:21] While we may establish the interchangeability of was seen and appeared as translations of the verb in question, the exact nature of these appearances has not yet been established. If we look at the use of in the LXX, we see a varied range of the word. Of its 85 occurrences, a little over half refer to the appearance of YHWH, the glory of YHWH, or the angel of YHWH appearing to people. Of the 39 other occurrences of the word in the LXX, these include people appearing before YHWH (by presenting themselves in the Temple), objects being seen by people, or the appearance of people in a non-visionary sense.[footnoteRef:22] As varied as the usage of the word is, we must judge the nature of the appearances on other than linguistic grounds. Having affirmed the death and burial of Christ in vv. 3-4, the creed affirms his having been raised in v. 4b. The importance of the burial statement in v. 4 now becomes relevant. If, as I have argued, the burial statement is meant to preserve a succinct account of the tomb material which later appears in the Gospel narratives, then the empty tomb must follow from the resurrection. These considerations, along with the Jewish (whether Aramaic or Greek speaking) provenance of the creed, allow us to conclude that the confessional statement preserved in 1 Cor 15 has in mind a bodily resurrection. This, in turn, leads to the conclusion that Christs appearances after his resurrection were bodily, physical appearances. [21: Fitzmyer, 549.] [22: Wright, 323. Cf. Fee, 728; Fitzmyer, 549; Thiselton, 1198.]

His first appearance, according to v. 5, was to Cephas. While the name Cephas is Pauls usual designation for the disciple Simon Peter (both in Galatians and 1 Corinthians), this is no reason to assume, as some scholars do, that Paul has inserted his own appellation into the creedal material.[footnoteRef:23] Rather, it seems likely that a creed which must have originated within a few short years of the resurrection would preserve the Aramaic name of the disciple. The appearance to Cephas is not actually recorded in the Gospel accounts, but it is alluded to in Lk 24:34. After stating that the risen Christ appeared to Cephas (), v. 5 next notes that he appeared then to the Twelve ( ). There are several comments to be made concerning this phrase. First, we note that the term is a non-Pauline term. He refers to the apostles, but never does Paul refer collectively to the Twelve. In light of this, we may assume that Paul is continuing to recite preformed material here, rather than adding to the list of witnesses to the resurrection.[footnoteRef:24] Next, as a brief comment on the term Twelve, it seems that the term is a collective title for the disciples chosen by Jesus, rather than a term designating how many of them experienced appearances of the risen Christ. As both Matthew and Acts record, Judas killed himself before the resurrection, so it would have been impossible for Christ to appear to him as he did to the other disciples. This is not to conclude that the narratives of Judas suicide are historically inaccurate, or that the creators of the creed were not aware of it; rather the collective term is employed, as the later term, (Eleven), had not come into use. [23: So Fee, 729.] [24: Contra Fitzmyer, 549-50.]

Having concluded that all of v. 5 belongs to pre-Pauline material, we must now ascertain whether or not any parts of vv. 6-7 ought to be included as well. It is often suggested that the creed ended at v. 5 with Pauline additions beginning in verse 6.[footnoteRef:25] In order to determine the validity of including any part of these verses as an original part of the creed, we will examine vv. 6a, 6b, and 7 individually, before examining the section on a broader level. Verse 6a states (then he was seen by [or appeared to] over 500 brothers at once). Nowhere else in the New Testament do we have this attestation of an appearance by Jesus to more than 500 people at once. As for the question of whether or not this verse is Pauline, vocabulary considerations guide us in this determination. This verse preserves two non-Pauline usages. The first is the term , which occurs nowhere else in the Pauline corpus. The second is , which has its only other occurrence in Paul in Rom 6:10, where it has the meaning of once for all rather than at once.[footnoteRef:26] This data alone is not strong enough to substantiate the claim that v. 6a ought to be included as part of the pre-Pauline creedal material, but it may serve as part of a cumulative case argument. [25: So Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 257; Fee, 729; Fitzmyer, 549-50 (though he suggests an ending after 5a); Murphy-OConnor, 585-6. ] [26: Kirk R. MacGregor, 1 Corinthians 15:3b-6a,7 and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, JETS 49 (6/2006): 228.]

Verse 6b is almost universally acknowledged to be a Pauline insertion into the traditional material, with good reason. It reads: , . We may render the translation as follows: from whom the most remain until now, but some have fallen asleep. Pauls intent here is to establish that of the previously mentioned 500 plus witnesses to the resurrection, most of them remain alive to this point, though some have died (the aorist passive of [I sleep] serves here has a euphemism for death). Why is this significant for establishing the extent of the creed? The answer is that Pauls statement that most of them remain until now ( ) is an admission that he is offering his own qualification of the previous statement. It is a clear indicator that we ought not include v. 6b as part of the original creedal material. Beyond this, what most commentators ignore is that it is also an admission that Paul is commenting now on material that was formulated at an earlier time. Hence constitutes Paul's own admission that verse 6a is non-Pauline.[footnoteRef:27] While this is not entirely certain (after all, Paul might be qualifying his own statement, or qualifying other non-creedal information he had provided in v. 6a), it definitely adds to the growing data that suggest 6a ought to be included as original, while 6b ought to be understood as Pauline comment on that material. It seems that Paul inserts v. 6b as an apologetic tool. Many of the more than 500 who all experienced an appearance of the risen Christ at once are still alive and may be appealed to as witnesses of that event.[footnoteRef:28] [27: Ibid.] [28: Wright, 325; Fee, 730-1.]

After a Pauline insertion in v. 6b, we now come to v. 7, the last verse suggested to preserve elements of the pre-Pauline creed. It states: . The terms and appear here, as well as previously in vv. 5-6a. This is usually seen as an argument against the inclusion of the surrounding material as creedal. This will be addressed in the following section. For now, it is important to note that these connectives serve as chronological markers.[footnoteRef:29] The appearance of Christ was first experienced by Cephas, then the Twelve, then more than 500 brethren, then James, and then all the apostles. Rather than simply connecting the pieces of the list of resurrection witnesses, and help to establish the order in which these appearances occurred. The appearance to James must refer to James, the brother of Christ. It does not refer to James the son of Zebedee, or James the son of Alpheus, as they would be included in the Twelve. There is no evidence for this appearance anywhere else in the New Testament, though it is attested in the late, non-canonical text The Gospel of the Hebrews.[footnoteRef:30] The phrase is of particular interest to both of our stated objectives (determining the content of the creed and determining its extent). The earlier use of and subsequent use of here indicates that the term referred to a circle which extended beyond the Twelve. It would not make sense for Paul to affirm the appearance to the Twelve, but refer to them as apostles this time. Additionally, and of more interest, is the indication that v. 7 is part of the pre-Pauline material. By his own admission, the phrase does not include Paul, as he appends his own experience of the risen Christ in v. 8. This is rather shocking, as Paul spends much of the epistle defending his apostolicity. In 1 Cor 9:1 he asks: Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? If verse 7 were a Pauline addition, then he would not have chosen to state that Jesus appeared to all the apostles and then go on to mark out his separate experience. The existence of and Pauls separate account of Christs appearance to him can best be explained by including v. 7 in the pre-Pauline material.[footnoteRef:31] [29: Witherington, 300.] [30: Wright, 325.] [31: McGreggor, 228.]

IV. The Inclusion of vv. 6a, 7 on Formal ConsiderationsTo this point, we have considered the inclusion of vv. 6a, 6b, and 7 individually. Having found good reasons to reject 6b as part of the creedal material while the evidence for 6a and 7 indicates that they might be part of the creed, let us examine whether or not connections to vv. 3-5 and formulaic structures which would indicate the presence of creedal material exist in these verses. As mentioned above, the shift from the use of to and to mark transitions is often seen as evidence that the creedal material ends after v. 5. This suggestion ignores a number of points. First, each occurrence of in the creedal material introduces a new motif. It first introduced the death of Christ, then his burial, then his resurrection, and finally his appearances. The rest of the creedal material (assuming the inclusion of vv. 6a, 7) is concerned with this final motif. We ought not to expect the inclusion of another , because the motif does not change from here on out.[footnoteRef:32] Additionally, the shift away from the use of to the use of does not occur between vv. 5 and 6 but in the middle of verse 5. We have already established that is a non-Pauline term. It would make little sense for the traditional list of resurrection witnesses to begin and end with Cephas, so we ought to regard all of verse 5 as included in the creedal material. If we assume this, then the shift which is supposed to indicate the end of creedal material actually occurs within the middle of it. If we include vv. 6a and 7 as part of the original creed, then a striking pattern emerges, illustrated below: [32: David M. Moffitt, Affirming the "Creed": The Extent of Paul's Citation of an Early Christian Formula in 1 Cor 15,3b-7, ZNW 99 (2008): 53.]

, As previously noted, the use of and occurs after the final use of . As the first use of in v. 5 is logically dependent on the motif introduced in that verse (namely the resurrection appearances), so are all the other occurrences of and logically dependent on it.[footnoteRef:33] Also of particular note is the fact that each of the outer conjunctions ( in both cases) elides its verb, while each of the two inner conjunctions ( in both cases) is followed by the verb .[footnoteRef:34] A clear chiastic structure exists, which is logically dependent upon v.5. [33: Ibid., 54.] [34: Ibid., 55.]

The previous data indicate that one must account for what appears to be highly formulaic wording in what most scholars consider to be Pauline additions to the creedal material. There are a number of ways one may go about this. One might argue that Paul merely drew on the vocabulary and structure present in v. 5 to add to the traditional list of witnesses. However, this does not account for the high level of structure in the latter verses (a structure which is somewhat intruded upon by Pauls insertion in v. 6b), nor does it account for the all the apostles language as distinct from Pauls own account of Christs appearance to him. A second option is to assume that Paul is merging a preformed, longer list of witnesses with the creedal material in vv. 3b-5. This would account for both the high level of structure and the phrase . It would not, however, explain why the and connectives of vv. 6-7 fit so well with the in verse 5. A third option would be the one proposed in this essay, that vv. 6a and 7 are part of the original, pre-Pauline creedal material, while v. 6b is a Pauline insertion.V. ConclusionsHaving spent a considerable amount of time tracing both the extent and the content of the pre-Pauline confessional material present in 1 Cor 15, we are now in a position to make some summarizing remarks. Vocabulary concerns, syntactical considerations, and form critical matters all lead to the same conclusion: the creed embedded in 1 Cor 15 extends from v. 3b to the end of v. 7, with v. 6b removed as a Pauline comment on v. 6a. While this assertion contradicts the findings of many scholars, it seems to best account for the data.Having established the limits of the creed, we may affirm that its content is twofold: (1) it serves as a proclamation of the atoning death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Christ and (2) provides a list of traditional witnesses to the resurrection. This kerygmatic material serves as an early testament to the core of the Christian faith. Formulated, most likely within 2-3 years of Jesus resurrection, it preserves a historical account of the events surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus, not far removed from the time of the actual events. This material serves as a proclamation of the essentials of the faith and a testament to the early formulation of that faith by eyewitnesses to the events in question.

BibliographyBarrett, C.K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Black, 1968, 2nd ed. 1971.Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.________. On the Analysis of the Confessional Formula in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, Int (Jan 1966): 15-25.Craig, William L. Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989.Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB, 32. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians. Interpretation. Louisville: Knox, 1997.Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. Chatham: W. & J. Mackay, 1966.Kloppenborg, John S. Analysis of the pre-Pauline Formula 1 Cor 15:3b-5 in Light of Some Recent Literature, CBQ 40 (Jul 1978): 351-67.Macgregor, Kirk R. 1 Corinthians 15:3b-6a,7 and the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, JETS 49 (Jun 2006): 225-34.Moffitt, David M. Affirming the "Creed": The Extent of Paul's Citation of an Early Christian Formula in 1 Cor 15,3b-7, ZNW 99 (2008): 49-73.Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome. Tradition and Redaction in 1 Cor 15:3-7, CBQ 43 (1984): 582-9.Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.Webber, Randall C. A note on 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, JETS 26 (Sep 1983): 265-9.Witherington, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.Wright, N.T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.1