1. The Debate Regarding Jesus' Resurrection in 1 Cor 15.3–5

Congruent with the traditional understanding of the passage within patristic, medieval and reformation exegesis, many scholars argue that the core kerygma of 1 Cor 15.3–5 was from its inception transmitted as the good news of Jesus' bodily resurrection from the tomb on the third day.Footnote ³ Among recent treatments of the formula, Martin Hengel has offered perhaps the most thorough case for this view.Footnote ⁴ According to Hengel, this kerygmatic summary proclaims ‘a narratable salvation-event in space and time’ which ‘necessarily involved the body of the dead Jesus’.Footnote ⁵ Within this early formula, the confession that Jesus was ‘raised on the third day’ is by definition an affirmation of the revivification of Jesus' crucified body, ‘understood as nothing other than a resurrection from the tomb’.Footnote ⁶ The language and thought of this terse formula, Hengel argues, presupposes a narrative of the kind we see in the synoptics and John, involving an empty tomb, and encounters with a Jesus risen from the tomb in the flesh.Footnote ⁷ Such a conclusion, Hengel maintains, has significant ramifications for our reconstruction of primitive Christianity. Hengel calls attention to Paul's explicit claim that the content of the formula was the common proclamation of all the apostolic eyewitnesses whom he enumerates in 15.5–8, including Peter, James and the Twelve: ‘whether it was I or they, so we proclaim, and so you believed’ (15.11). Paul's rehearsal of this foundational gospel, Hengel argues, far from being consistent with an originally pluriform Christianity, rather suggests a continuity in the proclamation of Jesus' resurrection from the earliest kerygma until the time of the written gospels. On Hengel's reconstruction, this early formula thus provides conclusive evidence for the primitive and apostolic character of the kerygma of Jesus' death, burial and bodily resurrection:

But is there in fact continuity between the narratives of Jesus' death and resurrection in the canonical gospels and the early formula in 1 Cor 15.3–5? The key point of controversy is the understanding of Jesus' resurrection in the confessional formula. To be sure, the resurrection narratives in the synoptics and John, as is widely recognised, portray Jesus as raised to life on the third day in his crucified body, leaving behind him an empty tomb. But as Nikolaus Walter points out, the traditional formula in 1 Cor 15, although proclaiming Jesus' resurrection, does not explicitly mention an empty tomb, elaborate on what it means that Jesus has been ‘raised’ from the dead, or provide specific details regarding what kind of body the risen Lord had.Footnote ⁹ And according to one influential reconstruction, Paul and other early Christ-followers did not understand Jesus' resurrection as an event involving the revival of Jesus' body of flesh and bones. As Rudolf Bultmann famously remarked, ‘The accounts of an empty tomb are legends, of which Paul as yet knew nothing.’Footnote ¹⁰ On this view, belief in the resurrection of Jesus' crucified body from the tomb, such as we see reflected in the gospel accounts, was a later development, unknown to Paul and the earliest Christ-followers.

A classic formulation of this thesis was provided by Hans Grass' study Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte.Footnote ¹¹ In Grass' reconstruction, Paul had ‘freed himself entirely from the vulgar Jewish conception of the restoration to life of the old corporeity’.Footnote ¹² In the resurrection faith of Paul and the earliest apostles, Jesus' fleshly body lay mouldering in the tomb, yet in a new, heavenly body he was now ‘raised’ or exalted to the right hand of God.Footnote ¹³ Mark's legend of the empty tomb first introduced the concept of a resurrection of Jesus' earthly body, later augmented in Matthew, Luke and John by further legendary accounts of Jesus' appearances in the flesh to the disciples.Footnote ¹⁴ More recently, Adela Yarbro Collins has proposed a somewhat different version of this same hypothesis. In Collins' view, as in that of Grass, 1 Cor 15 reveals that ‘for Paul, and presumably for many other early Christians, the resurrection of Jesus did not imply that his tomb was empty’.Footnote ¹⁵ Rather, Paul's conception of Jesus being ‘raised on the third day’ involved the bestowal of a new, heavenly body discontinuous with the earthly, fleshly body.Footnote ¹⁶ As with other early Christ-followers, ‘Paul's understanding of the resurrection of Jesus did not involve the revival of his corpse’.Footnote ¹⁷ At a later period, Mark composed a fictional story about Jesus being ‘raised’ from an empty tomb to express his belief that, after his death and burial, Jesus' body had been immediately translated from the grave to heaven (divested of his flesh along the way).Footnote ¹⁸ Only at a still later stage do we encounter Matthew, Luke, John and Acts transmitting accounts of Jesus, his once-dead body restored to life, walking the earth and meeting with his disciples, reflecting their relatively new belief that ‘Jesus’ resurrection entailed the revival of his earthly body'.Footnote ¹⁹

The historical scenarios offered by Collins and Grass, although differing on a number of points, are agreed that the earliest Christ-followers did not regard Jesus' resurrection as an event involving the revivification of the corpse laid in the tomb. Belief in a resurrection of Jesus' crucified body was a later development, accompanied by legendary accounts of an empty tomb and of the disciples encountering, touching and eating with the risen Jesus. On this reconstruction, in contrast with that of Hengel, belief in the resurrection of Jesus' crucified body from the tomb was neither primitive nor apostolic, but a later conception in discontinuity with the earliest kerygma. From this perspective, the good news summarised in 1 Cor 15.3–5, and the good news narrated by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are different gospels indeed, for they are fundamentally at variance regarding the core of that kerygma: the meaning of the affirmation that Jesus ‘has been raised on the third day’.Footnote ²⁰

Did the apostolic kerygma which Paul recounts in 1 Cor 15.3–5 concur with the later narratives of the synoptics and John in centring this good news on the resurrection of Jesus' crucified body, or did the earliest proclamation envision a resurrection of Jesus which did not involve the revival of the corpse laid in the tomb? Given the long-standing character of the debate, and the sparseness of the textual evidence (the formula preserved in 1 Cor 15.3–5 contains a total of twenty-nine words), one might reasonably question whether there is anything new to be said on the matter. Indeed, the debate appears to have reached a sort of stasis or deadlock. However, I am convinced that, even within this brief formula, a number of important lines of evidence remain untapped. In what follows I wish to offer several new observations relevant to this discussion. Space precludes a full discussion of the formula here; rather, I will focus only on central issues in the debate concerning the nature of Jesus' resurrection within this ancient confession. Arguments within this debate may be conveniently divided into three types: (1) arguments based upon the sequence of verbs within the formula; (2) arguments from Paul's discussion of the resurrection within the larger chapter; and (3) arguments from the formula's description of the resurrection event itself. In sections 2, 3 and 4 of this study I will take up each of these in turn, offering fresh evidence and observations to show that a number of common arguments on both sides of the debate are weak, unpersuasive, or at least incomplete. That will constitute the negative, ground-clearing portion of this study. In section 5, then, I will offer a new proposal regarding the language of this primitive formula, which I believe is of sufficient weight to advance, indeed perhaps even to resolve, the long-standing debate regarding the nature of Jesus' resurrection envisioned in this early confession.

2. Arguments Based upon the Fourfold Sequence of Verbs within the Formula

We begin with arguments relating to the formula's fourfold affirmation of Jesus' death, burial, resurrection and appearances to eyewitnesses. An important argument of those scholars who hold that the resurrection of Jesus is understood within the confessional formula as an event unrelated to Jesus' corpse is the absence of any mention within that fourfold sequence of an empty tomb. In the view of these interpreters, the empty tomb is conspicuous by its absence within the early confession. If an empty tomb had been known from the beginning, it seems unlikely that it would have been omitted from this primitive formula. The fact that the formula speaks only of Jesus' death, burial, resurrection and appearances to the disciples, with no mention whatsoever of an empty tomb, suggests that belief in an empty tomb was a later development.Footnote ²¹ Bultmann's terse apophthegm remains the classic statement of the thesis: of these later legends of an empty tomb ‘Paul as yet knew nothing’.Footnote ²²

However, this argument must be judged unconvincing. Two lines of evidence are of extraordinary importance, although to my knowledge neither has been previously brought to bear on the question. The first involves the source we know as Luke-Acts. This document, although significantly later than the pre-Pauline formula in 1 Cor 15, nevertheless provides relevant evidence. As a result of its distinctive two-part composition, Luke-Acts is unique within ancient Christianity in containing both a narrative of the resurrection (Luke 24), and confessional summaries of this event (within the apostolic speeches in Acts). This permits us to see a striking feature of early Christian traditions regarding the resurrection: whereas the empty tomb has a prominent place within the full resurrection narrative in Luke's gospel (Luke 24.1–12; cf. 24.23–4), it is never mentioned explicitly in the narrative summaries within Acts. These summaries, like the formula in 1 Cor 15.3–5, instead focus exclusively on Jesus' death, his burial, his resurrection and his appearances to the apostles (Acts 13.26–37), or, more narrowly, on his death, resurrection and appearances (10.36–41), or, more narrowly still, on his death and resurrection (2.22–32; 3.13–15; 4.10; 17.31). The empty tomb, although implicit within the confessional summaries in the kerygmatic claim that Jesus' body did not undergo decay (Acts 2.25–31; 13.34–7), is never itself an explicit theme within these summaries. This would suggest that, for the author of Luke-Acts, and most likely also for his readers, the empty tomb had its proper home within narratives of the resurrection event, but was not to be expected within shorter formulae, or even narrative summaries, concerning this event.

This is confirmed by a further striking fact: the phenomenon we see at work in Luke-Acts is consistent with early Christian formulae and creeds as a whole. Despite their great variety, none of the confessional formulae or creedal fragments known to us from the first two centuries contains any reference to the empty tomb. These formulae make explicit mention only of Jesus' death and resurrection or, more rarely, of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.Footnote ²³ This situation remains the same even after the rise of full creeds in the latter half of the second century: all the creedal statements of the ancient church known to us from the latter half of the second century onward focus exclusively on Jesus' death, burial and resurrection (or, less frequently, only on Jesus' death and resurrection), omitting any reference to a vacant tomb.Footnote ²⁴ And yet these creeds had their Sitz im Leben within a theological milieu in which the empty tomb narratives of the canonical gospels were widely known and received as authoritative, and in which the understanding of the future resurrection as a resurrection of the flesh was a theological given (regularly expressed explicitly within these creeds themselves).Footnote ²⁵ This situation (in which the empty tomb is assumed, but not creedally expressed) coheres with our evidence from Luke-Acts, and leads to an important form-critical conclusion: for all ancient Christians for whom we have evidence, reference to the empty tomb was confined to full narratives of the resurrection event (such as we see in the canonical gospels), and was not considered appropriate or expected within confessional formulae regarding that event (such as we see in 1 Cor 15.3–5).

The claim that the empty tomb is conspicuous by its absence in 1 Cor 15.3–5 is thus based on a misapprehension regarding the form and limits of such summaries. As we have seen, no formula, creedal fragment or creed known to us from the ancient church contains any reference to the empty tomb. The absence of the empty tomb from the confessional formula in 1 Cor 15.3–5 thus provides no evidence for an understanding of Jesus' resurrection within that formula which did not involve the body in the tomb.

In contrast to the argument we have just examined, those scholars who contend that the formula proclaims a resurrection of Jesus' crucified body often argue that an empty tomb is necessarily implied within the formula in its fourfold affirmation of Jesus' death, burial, resurrection and appearances. From the perspective of these scholars, the formula's explicit mention of the burial (καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη, 15.4) is especially significant. On this view, the verbal sequence ‘died … buried … raised … appeared’ by itself implies an empty tomb, making explicit reference redundant.Footnote ²⁶ Christopher Bryan states the case with verve:

The strength of this argument is its common-sense basis in the concrete realities of Greek syntax. In the ancient formula the verbs have a single subject: ‘Christ died … he was buried … he has been raised … he appeared’ (15.3–5). Since the subject of the first two verbs is Christ in his crucified body of flesh and bones which died (15.3) and was buried (15.4), the syntax of the formula would seem to demand that it is this same body which was raised on the third day (15.4) and was seen by the disciples (15.5).

However, an objection may be raised to this argument. Although consistency in the nature of a subject within a Greek period can normally be assumed, this is not always the case. Counter-examples can be offered. Two such examples are found in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16.19–31). This parable narrates the death of its two principal characters and (according to the usual interpretation of the parable) their subsequent entrance into a disembodied, interim state awaiting a future bodily resurrection.Footnote ²⁸ In the parable, the poor man dies and is then borne away by the angels to Abraham's bosom (ἐγένετο δὲ ἀποθανεῖν τὸν πτωχὸν καὶ ἀπενεχθῆναι αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀγγέλων εἰς τὸν κόλπον Ἀβραάμ, 16.22). Lazarus is the subject of both infinitives, and yet the first infinitive (ἀποθανεῖν) refers to Lazarus in his embodied state, the second infinitive (ἀπενεχθῆναι) to Lazarus (according to the usual understanding of the parable) in a disembodied state. Perhaps more strikingly still, within the same parable the rich man is the consistent subject of the verbal triad ἀπέθανεν (‘died’), ἐτάφη (‘was buried’) and ὁρᾷ (‘he sees’). And yet the character of the subject does not remain entirely consistent. For the subject of the first two verbs (which are identical to the first two verbs within the fourfold verbal sequence of the pre-Pauline formula) is the rich man in his body of flesh and bones, but the subject of the final verb is (again, according to the most common reading of the parable) the rich man apart from that body in Hades (16.22–3).

A similar example is found near the close of Plato's account of Socrates' final hours in the Phaedo. In a dramatic exclamation point to the previous teaching of Socrates within the dialogue concerning the immortality of the soul, the philosopher objects to Crito's inquiry regarding how he wishes his disciples to bury him:

In his description of his impending execution and its aftermath, Socrates is the subject of all three finite verbs, but the subject of the first verb (πίω) refers to Socrates in his mortal body, while the subject of the verbs which follow (παραμενῶ … οἰχήσομαι) is the soul of Socrates, now freed from the body.

To be sure, in the counter-examples given, contextual factors make the change in the subject evident, and such factors are admittedly lacking in Paul's formula. Another important difference between the formula and the texts cited above is the formula's emphatic placement of the second element within the sequence, the burial, within an independent ὅτι-clause (καὶ ὅτι ἐτάφη, 15.4). Given the weight attached to it by this independent clause, Hans Conzelman's oft-repeated claim that the mention of the burial serves only to confirm the reality of Christ's death seems less likely than J. N. D. Kelly's suggestion that the burial here functions as ‘the necessary prelude to the resurrection’.Footnote ²⁹ One might well agree with Bryan that, on the most plausible reading of 1 Cor 15.3–5, the subject of the verb ἐγήγερται (‘he has been raised’), consistent with the subject of the verbs ἀπέθανεν (‘died’) and ἐτάφη (‘he was buried’), is the crucified body of Christ.

However, in light of the counter-examples given above, it seems to me that the evidence from this verbal sequence alone falls short of being positively conclusive. In the context of the Platonic doctrine of the immortality of the soul, the reader of the Phaedo understands that Socrates' drinking of the hemlock involves his earthly, mortal body, but that his post-mortem journey does not. The reader of Luke's gospel likewise grasps from signals within the passage and shared understandings of the afterlife that, although buried in his fleshly, mortal body, it is the rich man's soul that is in Hades. In the same way, I would suggest, if the formula's affirmation that Jesus has been ‘raised’ signified, within its original context, his elevation to heaven in a celestial body (as Hans Grass and a number of scholars have argued), a sequence involving a burial followed by a resurrection not involving the revivification of the entombed body would be quite conceivable. In other words, it is not the verbal sequence of burial, resurrection and appearances that is ultimately decisive for the nature of the resurrection event envisioned in the formula, but the meaning of the middle term within that sequence – ‘he has been raised’ (καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται, 15.4). Can light be shed on this by Paul's treatment of the future resurrection of the faithful later in the same chapter? We must go on to consider arguments based upon Paul's discussion of the resurrection body in 1 Cor 15.36–58.

3. Arguments from Paul's Description of the Resurrection in 1 Cor 15.36–58

Paul's quotation of the early confession in 1 Cor 15.3–5 functions as part of his larger discussion of resurrection within the chapter. Paul's wider discussion therefore, most interpreters agree, offers relevant evidence regarding the primitive formula. But the interpretation of 1 Cor 15.36–58 is itself contested. Three distinct views may be delineated. (1) A number of scholars argue that Paul's conception of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15 assumes the mainstream ancient Jewish belief in the resurrection of the once-dead body of flesh and bones from the tomb.Footnote ³⁰ (2) Other interpreters, however, argue that Paul's understanding in the chapter represents a modification of the mainstream Jewish viewpoint, envisioning a heavenly or celestial body which excludes participation of the earthly, fleshly body in final salvation.Footnote ³¹ (3) Along similar but somewhat different lines from the second reading, Troels Engberg-Pedersen (building on the earlier work of Dale Martin and Jeffrey R. Asher) has recently argued that Paul's concept of the resurrection, involving a unique fusion of Jewish apocalyptic expectations and Stoic cosmology, envisioned an ethereally material resurrection body composed not of flesh but of the corporeal substance of pneuma, fitting the new pneumatic body to be ‘raised’ or elevated to heavenly habitation.Footnote ³²

What are the implications of these competing readings of 1 Cor 15.36–58 for Paul's conception of Jesus' resurrection proclaimed in the formula? According to the first view, Paul would understand Jesus' resurrection in a straightforward manner as the revivification of his crucified and entombed body. On the second reading, by contrast, Paul would understand the formula's confession that Jesus has been ‘raised’ to refer not to the revival of his corpse, but to an elevation or assumption of some kind into heavenly glory. Engberg-Pedersen's third view is distinctive, for on this reading (in agreement with view 2) Paul would understand the formula's affirmation of Jesus' resurrection to denote his elevation in a celestial body to the heavenly realm, but (in agreement with view 1) in Paul's thinking this event, involving a transformation of the fleshly body into a pneumatic one, would of necessity entail an empty tomb. And yet, on Engberg-Pedersen's reading, Paul's Stoicised conception of resurrection excludes the revival of Jesus' body of flesh and bones, and is strongly at variance with the accounts in the synoptics, John and Acts of the disciples encountering, touching and eating with a Jesus risen from the tomb in the flesh.

What are we to make of these varied proposals regarding Paul's understanding of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15.36–58? An adequate discussion of this contested and complex passage, in an essay devoted to the pre-Pauline formula, is hardly possible. But given its relevance for the interpretation of the formula, I will here briefly sketch certain key but hitherto neglected features of Paul's exposition which I believe will illumine Paul's thought within the chapter. For many interpreters, Paul's series of oppositions between the present and risen body, with their reference to what is sown being x and what is raised being y (15.42–4; cf. 15.52–4), points to a radical discontinuity between the mortal body and the risen body in Paul's thought which precludes the possibility that Paul conceived of resurrection in straightforward bodily terms. However, I would propose that this assumption fails to grasp the actual function of this series of contrasts within the structure of Paul's exposition. Five observations are crucial:

1. Within 15.36–49, which is structured by twelve antithetically paired verbs (that is, six pairs of verbs) denoting death (or the mortal state) and resurrection (or the risen state), the subject of these antithetical verbal pairs is one and the same both for verbs denoting death, and for those denoting resurrection. The subject throughout is the perishable body, which ‘dies’ but ‘is made alive’ again by God (15.36), which is ‘sown’ (σπείρεται) in mortality and death, but ‘raised’ (ἐγείρεται) to imperishable life (15.42–4).Footnote ³³ This basic observation, which is nonetheless commonly ignored by interpreters, has profound exegetical implications. Paul does not describe resurrection as an event in which x (the present body) is sown, but y (a body distinct from the present body) is raised, but in which a single x (the present body) is sown a perishable x, but raised an imperishable x. Paul's sequence of paired verbs in 1 Cor 15.36–49 indicates that in Paul's thought it is precisely that which perishes – the mortal body – that in the resurrection is given new, imperishable life.

2. In 15.50–8, which is structured by seven verbs denoting resurrection or transformation, it is again the present perishable body which is the subject of this resurrection and transformation (15.51, 52, 53–4). In 15.53–4, the subject which clothes itself with imperishability is explicitly ‘this perishable body’ (τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο) and ‘this mortal body’ (τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο); Paul's fourfold repetition of ‘this’ (τοῦτο) emphasises that it is this mortal, perishable body – corruptible human flesh – which is the subject of the transformation. Paul's exposition is illuminating, for unlike the brief formula, in which the single subject of the fourfold verbal sequence is the person of Christ, in 1 Cor 15.36–58 the one subject of Paul's verbs of death and resurrection is explicitly the mortal body. Paul's treatment thus explicitly envisions a resurrection event involving the revivification of the earthly body.

3. In addition to ἐγείρω (15.42–4, 52; cf. 15.12–17, 20, 29, 32, 35), the verb used within the formula for Jesus' resurrection, Paul also employs a variety of additional verbs to denote the resurrection event: ζωοποιέω (‘make alive’, 15.36, 45; cf. 15.22), φορέω (‘be clothed’, 15.49), ἀλλάσσω (‘change’, 15.51, 52) and ἐνδύω (‘clothe’, 15.53, 54). These additional verbs are significant, for they each express, in different ways, not the annihilation or replacement of the fleshly body, but its revival (ζωοποιέω), investiture (φορέω, ἐνδύω) and transformation (ἀλλάσσω). Due to limitations of space, I will focus here only on the last of these, ἀλλάσσω or ‘change’ (15.51, 52). The implications of Paul's language of ‘change’ have not, I would argue, been fully appreciated within the current discussion. For x to change, x must continue to exist. Paul's affirmation that the present body will be ‘changed’ thus of necessity implies its continued existence and enhancement.

Perhaps not surprisingly, it is the philosophically trained Troels Engberg-Pedersen who has grasped most perceptively the problem of reconciling Paul's assertion that the body will be changed with an interpretation of resurrection in Paul in which the body of flesh and bones will cease to exist, being replaced by a body composed either of immaterial ‘spirit’ or of ethereally material pneuma. By way of solution, Engberg-Pedersen proposes that Paul here invokes the specialised Aristotelian concept of substantive change.Footnote ³⁴ This technical philosophical conception involves a unique kind of ‘change’ whereby a subject or substance passes into or out of existence, comes into being or ceases to be, or undergoes a simultaneous process of destruction and generation which produces an entirely new entity.Footnote ³⁵ This conception of ‘substantive change’ contrasts with Aristotle's notion of qualitative change (ἀλλοίωσις). In qualitative change, the substance or essence of an entity remains intact, but the entity changes in its qualities, properties or mode of existence.Footnote ³⁶ Engberg-Pedersen proposes that Paul uses ‘change’ in the specialised sense of substantive change, to denote the ‘passing-away’ of the body composed of flesh and the ‘coming-to-be’ of the body composed of pneuma.Footnote ³⁷ However, the common signification of ‘change’ in antiquity, in agreement with the philosophical concept of qualitative change, implies the continued existence of the substance which is changed. Engberg-Pedersen's claim that Paul uses ‘change’ in a technical sense of Aristotelian philosophy which is contrary to the normal meaning of the term – with no indication that he is doing so – is most improbable, and has the air of an ad hoc expedient.

4. Moreover, the structure of Paul's argument confirms that, in agreement with the common understanding of ‘change’ in antiquity, the change Paul envisions in the resurrection is a qualitative rather than a substantive one. As we saw, the series of contrasts within 15.36–58 between the ante mortem and risen body do not occur in the subject of these periods, but in their predicates (verbs and verbal complements). And the predicate complements which contrast the present and risen body invariably describe a change of quality rather than of substance, in which what was once perishable, dishonoured, weak and mortal is endowed with imperishability, glory, power and immortality (15.42–3, 52–4). Paul's series of oppositions does not describe two different bodies, distinct in substance, but two contrasting modes of existence of the same body, one prior and the other subsequent to the resurrection.

5. One final feature of the passage must be briefly considered. Central to Engberg-Pedersen's proposal is the assumption that the σῶμα πνευματικόν in 15.44–6 refers to a body composed of material spirit or pneuma, distinct from the body of flesh laid in the tomb.Footnote ³⁸ However, this claim reflects a misunderstanding of the actual lexical meaning of the key terms in question. The adjective which Paul here contrasts with πνευματικός is not σάρκινος (cognate with σάρξ), referring to the flesh, but ψυχικός (cognate with ψυχή), referring to the soul. This adjective outside the New Testament is used, without exception, with reference to the properties or activities of the soul (e.g. 4 Macc 1.32; Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 3.10.2; Epictetus, Diatr. 3.7.5–7; Plutarch, Plac. philos. 1.8). Modifying σῶμα as here, with reference to the present body, the adjective describes this body as given life or activity by the soul. It has nothing to do with the body's composition, but denotes the source of the body's life and activity.

The meaning of the paired adjective ψυχικός in 15.44–6 is extremely significant, as it reveals that the exegesis of Engberg-Pedersen involves a fundamental misreading of the passage. For if (as Engberg-Pedersen suggests) σῶμα πνευματικόν in this context describes the composition of the future body, as a body composed solely of pneuma, its correlate σῶμα ψυχικόν would perforce describe the composition of the present body, as a body composed only of soul. Paul would assert the absence of flesh and bones, not only from the risen body, but also from the present mortal body as well! The impossibility that ψυχικός here refers to the body's composition rules out the notion that its correlated adjective πνευματικός refers to the body's composition. Contrasted with ψυχικός, the adjective πνευματικός must similarly refer to the source of the body's life and activity, describing the risen body as given life by the Spirit. The mode of existence described by the adjective πνευματικός is further clarified by the larger context of the letter, in which it is uniformly used with reference to persons or things enlivened, empowered or transformed by the Spirit of God: human beings of flesh and blood (2.15; 3.1; 14.37), palpable manna and water (10.3–4), and a very unethereal rock (10.4). Used with σῶμα in 15.44, the adjective πνευματικός indicates that the risen body will be given life and empowered by God's Spirit.

Both contextual and lexical evidence thus indicate that the phrase σῶμα πνευματικόν in 1 Cor 15.44–6 does not refer to a body composed of material pneuma, but to the fleshly body endowed with imperishable life by the power of the Spirit. Although the expression σῶμα πνευματικόν is unique here in Paul, the concept of the Spirit as the agent of resurrection life is a major theme within Paul's theology (Rom 8.9–11, 23; 2 Cor 5.4–5; Gal 5.25; 6.7–8). Within this theology, the work of the Spirit in those who belong to Christ will culminate in the resurrection, when ‘the one who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who indwells you’ (Rom 8.11).

In sum, the specific way in which Paul shapes his argument, the structure of the syntax in which his thought is given expression, and the lexical meaning of his key terms, are not consistent with the notion that Paul in this chapter envisions a non-fleshly resurrection body composed either of non-material ‘spirit’ or of materially ethereal ‘spirit’ or pneuma, but rather reflect the mainstream Jewish concept of the resurrection of the body of flesh and bones from the tomb, familiar to us from Second Temple Jewish texts (cf. Isa 25.6–9; 26.11–19; Dan 12.2–3; LXX Job 19.25–7; 2 Macc 7; Sib. Or. 4.179–92). The evidence of 1 Cor 15.36–58 thus indicates that Paul would understand Jesus' resurrection as the revivification of his crucified and entombed body.

But what is the significance of Paul's understanding for the conception of Jesus' resurrection within the pre-Pauline formula? Paul's treatment of the resurrection within the wider chapter certainly adds further plausibility to the claim that the formula's confession of Jesus' resurrection denoted an event involving the revival of Jesus' crucified body. However, this evidence in my view falls short of conclusive proof, for Paul's own understanding can hardly constitute decisive evidence for the conception of Jesus' resurrection within a pre-Pauline formula which predates Paul's writing of 1 Corinthians by approximately two decades. Despite claims to the contrary, then, neither the fourfold sequence of verbs within the formula itself, nor Paul's treatment of the resurrection body in 1 Cor 15.36–58, provides conclusive evidence regarding the nature of Jesus' resurrection within this ancient confession. We must go on to consider the central, and most debated, clause of the creed: the formula's affirmation that Christ ‘has been raised’ on the third day.

4. Arguments from the Formula's Description of Jesus' Resurrection

The most contested question within the debate concerning Jesus' resurrection in the pre-Pauline formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5 involves the word which the formula employs to describe this event. A number of scholars hold that the verb ἐγείρω is an elastic one, denoting some form of ascension to heavenly life after death, but not necessarily a revival of the earthly, mortal body. As Marcus Borg puts it, ‘resurrection could involve something happening to a corpse, namely the transformation of a corpse, but it need not’.Footnote ³⁹ Along similar lines, Engberg-Pedersen argues that Paul uses the verb ἐγείρω to denote the ‘passing-away’ of the flesh and bones body, the ‘coming-to-be’ of a body composed of corporeal pneuma, and its ascension to astral immortality.Footnote ⁴⁰ Scholars who take either approach generally interpret the formula's affirmation that Jesus ‘has been raised’ (ἐγήγερται) to mean that Jesus has been taken up into heaven in a celestial form or body discontinuous with the earthly body of flesh and bones. On this understanding of the verb, the formula's confession that Jesus is ‘raised’ is entirely consistent with the crucified body of Jesus either (on Borg's view) mouldering in the grave, or (on Engberg-Pedersen's view) ceasing to exist, being replaced by a body of ethereally material substance. Some such understanding of the verb underlies Adela Collins' claim that in this earliest formula, unlike the synoptics and John, ‘the resurrection of Jesus did not involve the revival of his corpse’.Footnote ⁴¹

Other scholars, however, contend that such approaches reflect a misunderstanding of the function of this language in its ancient Jewish context. On this view, the language of ‘resurrection’ denotes not a general hope of life after death, but a specific hope of the reversal of death through the mortal body's restoration to life, and its transformation to be imperishable. Wolfhart Pannenberg states this case succinctly: ‘Those who want to dispute the empty tomb of Jesus must show that contemporary Jewish witness to belief in the resurrection included some who did not think the resurrection of the dead need have anything at all to do with the body in the tomb.’Footnote ⁴² Given the lack of such evidence, argues Pannenberg, the historian must assume that in the formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5 ‘the empty tomb was a self-evident implication of what was said about the resurrection of Jesus’.Footnote ⁴³

Of the major arguments advanced on both sides of the debate which we have examined, Pannenberg's inference from the function of resurrection language in the Jewish context is in my judgement the one which can be considered conclusive. Pannenberg's argument is not a claim that there was not a diversity of views within ancient Judaism regarding life after death; rather, it concerns the specific belief denoted by the language of ‘resurrection’. To be sure, it is beyond controversy that belief in the restoration to life of the flesh-and-bones body was the general or dominant view held by most first-century Jews.Footnote ⁴⁴ And yet alternative viewpoints also certainly existed (e.g. the Sadducees). Pannenberg's point is that the language of ‘resurrection’, such as we see in the formula, did not function as general terminology for life after death, embracing all these varied perspectives. Rather, Pannenberg argues, this language was specific to the mainstream Jewish belief in the revivification of the entombed body. As Pannenberg observes, the terms which express the resurrection hope within Second Temple Jewish texts, including the verb ἐγείρω, consistently denote the restoration of the mortal body to immortal life (e.g. LXX Dan 12.2–3; Theo Dan 12.2–3; LXX Isa 26.19; LXX Job 19.25–7; 42.17; 2 Macc 7; Sib. Or. 4.179–92). The very few counter-examples which have been adduced are in my judgement not convincing.Footnote ⁴⁵ Moreover, no counter-examples whatsoever have been adduced from Jewish literature to date involving ἐγείρω, the verb used for the resurrection event within the formula. Neither Borg's contention that ἐγείρω may be used without reference to the corpse, nor Engberg-Pedersen's assumption that it may be used without reference to the corpse's revival and reconstitution, seems to be consistent with actual first-century usage. Given the function in Jewish antiquity of resurrection language in general, and of ἐγείρω in particular, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the formula's proclamation that Jesus has been ‘raised’ denotes an event involving the revival of Jesus' entombed body.

However, I am also convinced that an important dimension of the question has yet to receive adequate discussion. In section 5 of this study, I hope to make a fresh contribution to the debate, by offering a more thorough examination of the language of this formula than has been previously provided. I will focus on the term that is at the centre of the debate, and yet that has received surprisingly inadequate attention – the verb used in the formula for the resurrection event itself (καὶ ὅτι ἐγήγερται, 15.4).

5. The Verb ἐγείρω in the Central Affirmation of the Formula

Surprisingly, given its importance in this early formula and its central place in early Christian language for the resurrection, the verb ἐγείρω has received little detailed study.Footnote ⁴⁶ And yet the semantics of this key term offers important additional evidence regarding the nature of Jesus' resurrection in the confessional formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5. Although space precludes a full discussion here, in what follows I will offer the results of a comprehensive analysis of this verb in summary form. The following analysis offers new evidence not previously considered, which I believe is decisive in its force.

Within the New Testament, ἐγείρω is the predominant verbal form used to refer to the resurrection event (whether of Christ or of the faithful).Footnote ⁴⁷ However, the verb was also a common term of everyday ancient life, and its specialised function as resurrection language grew out of that wider usage. And it is that wider non-resurrection usage, to which inadequate attention has been given previously, which provides the key to understanding the meaning of ἐγείρω when used to denote resurrection. Two basic senses of the word may be distinguished. Perhaps the earliest meaning of the verb (sense 1) is awaken, raise from sleep (trans.), or wake up, rise from sleep (intrans.). This meaning is widely attested at all periods.Footnote ⁴⁸ A number of related senses grow out of this first basic meaning of the verb.Footnote ⁴⁹

In a usage (sense 2) which appears first in the fourth century bce but is very common thereafter, ἐγείρω can be used apart from the concept of previous sleep or quietude, to mean raise up, set upright (trans.), or rise up, stand upright (intrans.).Footnote ⁵⁰ This second major sense of the verb (i.e. rising to stand) is in fact closely connected to the first (i.e. waking from sleep). For the verb in this first sense does not mean (as can the English verb waken) to rise from sleep merely in the sense of gaining consciousness, but to rise from the position of sleep.Footnote ⁵¹ In other words, ‘ἐγείρω does not make a distinction between awaken and stand up’.Footnote ⁵² The verb means to rise to a standing position, with the presence or absence of the additional idea of sleep being determined by contextual factors. Our verbal compound get up, in its general denotation of rising to a standing position, with capacity for specific reference to rising from the posture of sleep, is perhaps the nearest English equivalent.

Here we must highlight a feature of the verb's semantic range that has emerged from our study and that is crucial for its use as resurrection language. Although often translated by the English verbs raise or rise, the semantic range of ἐγείρω is quite different. Like ἐγείρω, these English verbs can be used of rising to stand from a reclining position or from the posture of sleep. However, the English verbs also frequently express the wider concept of ascension or elevation. We speak, for instance, of a spark that rises from the flames, of the moon rising into the night sky, or of a balloon that rises into the air. The Greek verb ἐγείρω, however, has a more restricted semantic range, and cannot mean raise or rise in this wider sense of elevation or ascension. Rather, ἐγείρω means to get up or stand up, that is, to rise from a supine to a standing position. Thus the verb is regularly used to denote the raising or rising up of one who has fallen (LXX Exod 23.5; LXX 1 Kings 5.3; LXX Eccles 4.10; Jdt 10.23; Philo, Agr. 122; Mut. 56; Migr. 122; Matt 12.11; Mark 9.27; Acts 9.8; 1 Clem 59.4). It is also used of one kneeling or prostrate being raised back to a standing position (LXX 1 Kings 2.8; LXX 2 Kings 12.17; LXX Ps 112.7; LXX Dan 10.10; Philo, Ebr. 156; Post. 149; Matt 17.7; Luke 11.8; Acts 10.26; Hermas, Vis. 2.1.3; 3.2.4). The verb is used of one lying down, very frequently of one lying sick, who is restored to a standing posture (Matt 8.15; 9.5, 6, 7; Mark 1.31; 2.9, 11, 12; Luke 5.23–4; John 5.8; Acts 3.6–7; James 5.15). The verb is also frequently used of one sitting who rises to stand (LXX Ps 126.2; LXX Isa 14.9; Matt 26.46; Mark 3.3; 10.49; 14.42; Luke 6.8; John 11.29; 13.4; 14.31; Hermas, Vis. 1.4.1). In no instance within ancient Greek literature does ἐγείρω denote the concept of ascension, elevation or assumption. Rather, it denotes the action whereby one who is prone, sitting, prostrate or lying down is restored to a standing position.

The analogical use of ἐγείρω as resurrection language grows out of the semantic map of the verb sketched above. Whether when denoting resurrection the sensory metaphor involves simply the arising of one supine or fallen (sense 2), or involves the additional idea of the arising of one supine in sleep (sense 1), may be debated.Footnote ⁵³ But in either case, the verb's basic semantic meaning of getting up or arising to stand is present. As we have seen, ἐγείρω does not mean to rise in the sense that a balloon rises into the air, but in the sense of arising to stand. In resurrection contexts the verb does not therefore denote that the dead ascend or are assumed somewhere; rather, the verb signifies that the corpse, lying supine in the grave, gets up or arises to stand from the tomb. When used with reference to the dead, therefore, the term refers unambiguously to the reanimation or revivification of the corpse.

An inscription from Rome provides striking additional evidence.Footnote ⁵⁴ The final line of this burial inscription reads ἐντεῦθεν οὐθὶς ἀποθανὼν ἐγ[ε]ίρετ[αι] (‘no one who has died arises from here’). In this inscription, the use of the adverb ἐντεῦθεν (‘from here’) together with ἐγείρω unambiguously indicates the concept of getting up or arising from the tomb.Footnote ⁵⁵ The very frequent addition to the verb of the prepositional phrase ἐκ νεκρῶν likewise suggests an implicit notion in the verb of arising from among the dead or from the grave.Footnote ⁵⁶ So in 1 Cor 15, where the simple Χριστὸς … ἐγήγερται (‘Christ … has been raised’) within the confessional formula in 15.3–4 is more fully expressed in 15.12 as Χριστὸς … ἐκ νεκρῶν ἐγήγερται (‘Christ … has been raised from the dead’).

The semantic range of the verb ἐγείρω, which prior to the present study has not been explored fully, is of crucial significance for the debate regarding the meaning of this verb within the confessional formula of 1 Cor 15.3–5. As we have seen, those scholars who argue that this formula describes an event which did not involve the revival of Jesus' corpse commonly interpret the formula's affirmation that Jesus ‘has been raised’ (ἐγήγερται) to mean that Jesus has been assumed or taken up into heaven in a celestial or ethereally material form or body discontinuous with his earthly, mortal body.Footnote ⁵⁷ So for Joost Holleman, the formula's use of ἐγείρω for the Easter event indicates that ‘Jesus was believed to have been raised into heaven’.Footnote ⁵⁸ The claim of this early confession is thus that ‘God vindicated Jesus by lifting him out of the realm of death and into his heavenly realm; there Jesus received a new and immortal body’.Footnote ⁵⁹ Einar Thomassen similarly argues that for the very earliest Christ-followers Jesus' resurrection involved ‘a spiritual body that rises from the present one as a new and transformed being’.Footnote ⁶⁰ Gerd Lüdemann likewise maintains that, for Paul, the confession that Jesus has been ‘raised’ means that ‘Jesus was exalted from the cross directly to God’.Footnote ⁶¹ Andreas Lindemann puts this view succinctly: in this pre-Pauline formula ‘ἐγήγερται denotes not restoration to life, but exaltation to heaven’.Footnote ⁶²

However, I would propose that, in view of the evidence provided above regarding the verb's semantic range, the assumption that ἐγείρω can mean ‘raise’ in this sense is excluded. Indeed, such an interpretation is profoundly unhistorical, for it is founded upon associations arising from English or other modern language translations, not the actual language of the formula itself. The verb ἐγείρω, when applied to the dead, does not denote ascension or elevation, but restoration from a recumbent to a standing posture. The very semantics of this ancient Greek verb involves the concept of the mortal body's restoration to life. Of course, within early Christian proclamation of Jesus' resurrection, the verb denoted much more than the mere reanimation of Jesus' corpse, including also the idea of transformation, from weakness and mortality to glory, power and imperishability (cf. Rom 6.9–10; 2 Cor 13.4; Phil 3.21). ‘Christ, having been raised from the dead, never dies again; death no longer has power over him’ (Rom 6.9). But, as our study of the semantics of ἐγείρω has shown, the subject of this glorious transformation is understood within the formula as Jesus' crucified body, which in being ‘raised’ does not ascend to heaven, but gets up from the tomb.

The findings here also have significant implications for Paul's treatment of the resurrection in the latter part of the chapter (15.36–58), where he employs the verb ἐγείρω five times (15.42–4, 52; cf. 15.12–17, 20, 29, 32, 35). We saw persuasive evidence in section 3 above that Paul's treatment is not consistent with a conception of resurrection involving a celestial or ethereally material body, but reflects the mainstream ancient Jewish belief in the revivification (and transformation to imperishability) of the mortal body laid in the tomb. Paul's specific use within this passage of the verb ἐγείρω to denote the resurrection event, in light of our findings here regarding this key verb, confirms our earlier analysis. Moreover, these findings reveal that the interpretation of resurrection in this passage as the ascension and astral immortality of a body composed of material pneuma, which is central to the analyses of Engberg-Pedersen, Martin and Asher, is founded upon a misapprehension. For this interpretation depends upon the assumption that Paul in 1 Cor 15.36–58 uses the verb ἐγείρω to denote elevation or ascension to the celestial sphere. Martin, for example, assumes that ἐγείρω in Paul denotes an event in which the faithful ‘rise from the earth to a new luminous home in the heavens’.Footnote ⁶³ Asher takes for granted that ‘the act of raising (which is the verb typically used by Paul to describe the resurrection) alludes to the act of lifting the body upward from the earth’.Footnote ⁶⁴ Engberg-Pedersen similarly assumes that Paul uses ἐγείρω to denote an event in which believers ‘will be raised to obtain the status of – precisely – stars in heaven’.Footnote ⁶⁵ But this study has shown that this understanding of ἐγείρω, on which the interpretation of resurrection in 1 Cor 15 as the ascension of an ethereally material body into heaven is premised, is mistaken. In light of the evidence provided here, Engberg-Pedersen's reading of Paul's treatment of the resurrection in this chapter (as well as that of Asher and Martin) is no longer tenable.

Our findings here also serve to illumine the phenomenon observed by Pannenberg and others, that ἐγείρω in Second Temple Jewish texts consistently functions to denote the revivification of the once-dead body laid in the tomb. As has been shown, this uniform function of ἐγείρω in resurrection contexts is a necessary outgrowth of the verb's semantic range sketched above. In light of the evidence presented, it is clear that the early formula in 1 Cor 15.3–5 affirms that Jesus arose on the third day in his crucified body, leaving behind an empty tomb.