1. First the main point for citing this quote from Mike Licona was to demonstrate the time frame when this formula was passed around, and not to defend it was a creed.
2. However, that being said the question is what is a creed? Creeds were popular ways to pass important information in a memorable format to increase retention. Scholars cite multiple Biblical passages that qualify as creeds. Here is a quote from Dr. JP Moreland in his book Scaling the Secular City: “In fact Paul’s letters contain a number of creeds and hymns (Rom. 1:3-4; 1 Cor. 11:23ff; 15:3-8; Phil. 2:6-11, etc.). Here are three things that can be said about them: First, they are pre-Pauline and very early. They use language which is not characteristically Pauline, they often translate easily back into Aramaic, and they show features of Hebrew poetry and thought-forms. This means they came into existence while the church was heavily Jewish and that they became standard, recognized creeds and hymns well before their incorporation into Paul’s letters. Most scholars date them from 33 to 48 [AD]. Some, like [Martin] Hengel, date many of them in the first decade after the Jesus’ death. Second, the content of these creeds and hymns centers on the death, resurrection, and deity of Christ. They consistently present a portrait of a miraculous and divine Jesus who rose from the dead. Third, they served as hymns of worship in the liturgy of the early assemblies and as didactic expressions for teaching the Christology of the church.”
3. Who passed this formula onto Paul is not cited in the text in question; which is why I said “Some scholars believe he received this information from Peter and James while visiting with them after his conversion.” I agree he could have gotten the information from someone else. The main point is this creed or tradition was passed down to Paul early after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Steve

A creed is simply a specific verbal formulation that has no significance apart from the underlying religious message. I can’t think of any reason to conclude anything about where or when that particular formulation originated. Peter and James might have shared it with Paul, but it could have come to Paul in the initial revelation from God or it could have been a formulation that was developed in one of the churches that Paul founded.

Why would anyone think that Paul is talking about passing on the particular verbal formula rather than talking about passing on the gospel upon which the formula is based?

1. Saul’s conversion and commission (Acts 9:1-19a).
2. For a short amount of time, Saul’s preaching in the synagogues of Damascus immediately following his conversion (Acts 19b-22).
3. His prolonged residence in Arabia (Gal. 1:17).
4. His return to Damascus (Acts 9:23-25). I feel “after many days had gone by” was an expression that refers to somewhere around 3 years. Part of my reasoning is the fact that all of a sudden Paul has disciples (v25) that help him escape. We are not told how much time he invested in raising up disciples. Plus the lowering in the basket to escape was recorded by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11:32-33. It appears in chapter 11 he had already endured multiple hardships including this plot against his life.
5. His first visit to Jerusalem as Christian at least 3 years after his conversion. (Acts 9:26-30; Gal. 1:18-24). He meets with James and Peter.

When Paul is with James and Peter there is a chance they shared the very creed he records in 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4. The idea no man taught him or added to his knowledge of the Gospel means he received this information at his conversion and while he was in Arabia. The Gospel was given to him by direct revelation from Jesus Christ. I can personally relate to this experience, as I had a similar one. No one led me to Christ; I became a follower through reading the Bible and the Holy Spirit convicting me of my sins. I cannot tell you the day or even the month but I somehow knew this: Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for my sins and I needed to bend my knee to Him. No one taught me this, at the time of my conversion; Jesus just communicated Gospel to my heart and mind. Months after I trusted Jesus Christ, I began studying the Bible and other books learning for great scholars from around the world. Just like no one but Jesus taught Paul the Gospel, no one but Jesus taught me the Gospel. However, later both Paul and I learned from others. James and Peter may have revealed the creed that Paul wrote in I Corinthians.

Steve

I really appreciate your statement of faith and concur wholeheartedly. I was looking for a simple answer to the question ‘How does history become validated?

Googled that question and found your site.

I’ve book marked your site for future reading.

Fiamh Dia,

David Crombie

Bottom line, I just don’t share you skepticism of the Biblical writers. What is your evidence the writers of the Bible would intentionally provide embarrassing information to fool people and strengthen their case?

Steve

[Vinny] (1) All other things being equal, I agree that an early date for Acts would explain the fact that it says nothing about the deaths of Peter and Paul. However, I think there are a number of problems with placing a great deal of weight on this argument.
First, I think is the lack of reliable information about the deaths of Peter and Paul. Tradition puts their deaths during Nero’s persecution of Christians during the 60’s A.D., however, these traditions date to sometime in the mid to late 2nd century. Before we can draw any inferences from the lack of reference to the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, we would need historically reliable evidence of how and when they died.

[Steve] First you contend there is not enough historical evidence of how and when Peter and Paul died. I am not sure what you need. I realize whatever I produce it will not be sufficient for your historical standards. Are you as skeptical about the writings of Plato? How about Aristotle? How about Tacitus, Phiny, Suetonius, and other ancient writings? How many blogs have you written attacking historical reliability of any of these writers? How does their manuscript evidence stack up against the writings of the New Testament? Do you feel you hold the Bible at a different standard than other ancient writings? Help me understand your skepticism of the Bible. Maybe I am way off in my assessment of what seems to be a historical bias against the writers of the books of the Bible.

You say there is nothing written about the deaths of Peter and Paul until the mid to late 2nd century. However, Clement of Rome (you said wrote around 95 AD) wrote the following that seems to point to the martyr deaths of Peter and Paul.

FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS chapter 5

“But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.”

I realize you may not like the English translation of this Epistle of Clement. It was done by The Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, Ll.D.,Editors. The Greek word “martyresas” can be translated martyr, witness, or testified. Even if I grant it might be better translated “testified” the context that surrounds the entire quote seems to indicate the martyr death of both Peter and Paul. Clement speaks of the pillars of the church being put to death and who are his two shining examples? Peter and Paul both pillars of the church and said to go to a glorious or holy place, which I think point to their deaths.

Let me return back to your skepticism. I wonder if most historians are strong doubters of all these writings as you are. Do you think the majority of historical scholars really believe Peter and Paul died peacefully, living out their lives in relative obscurity? Do you really think the traditions passed down by the early church were simply legend after legend, in an incredible conspiracy, to build the Christian religion? Do all these ancient writings both from the Bible and early church fathers display a complete ignorance of the true facts; was it all wishful thinking?

[Vinny] Second, none of the first century epistles, including 1st Clement, mention the gospels. If we can infer from Acts’ silence that its author did not know of the deaths of Peter and Paul, cannot we also infer from the epistles’ silence that none of their authors knew of the gospels? Since Clement of Rome supposedly knew both Peter and Paul, it would be reasonable to assume that he knew both Luke and Mark as well. Nevertheless, his letter to the Corinthians written around 95 A.D. does not give any indication that he was aware of any gospels written by the companions of Peter and Paul.

[Steve] What were the genres of the writings? Acts was a historical account of the early church and Clement was a letter to the church at Corinth. These are two vastly different genres, with vastly different objectives. The book of Acts chronicling the major events of the early church, if written after the deaths of both Peter and Paul and the destruction of the temple, has to answer to why these events were left out. However, Clement writing a letter to the church at Corinth, understandably doesn’t mention the Gospels because this was not the purpose of the letter. The Book of John, by all scholars, is said to be written after Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts and yet he doesn’t mention any of those books. Don’t you think he was aware of them? It wasn’t his purpose; neither was it the purpose of Clement to mention the Gospels. He was addressing issues with the church, many of which were moral problems. However, a history book, like Acts, skipping major events is unbelievable! Your argument fails to take into account the different genres or purposes of the books.
I will continue when I get a chance. My problem is we have so many issues over each posting, that I am struggling to keep up. I will do my best over time to answer some of your arguments.

Steve

Unfortunately for this theory, the New Testament never says that James wasn’t convinced about who Jesus was before his death. Apologists merely invent this detail. For all we know, James could have become a believer before the resurrection.

There is also the problem that skeptics convert to Christianity everyday without witnessing appearances of the risen Christ.

Isn’t true that Paul never refers to Peter, James, or anyone else to whom Jesus appeared as Jesus’ disciples and that nothing in Paul’s letters indicates that any of them had been Jesus’ followers during his earthly ministry or that they had been taught by Jesus? Isn’t it also true that Paul’s letters do not indicate when or where Jesus lived or when or where Jesus was crucified?