Before the Gospels

The Creed That Reframes the Resurrection Debate

If you spend any time online engaging with sceptics about the origins of Christianity, you will almost certainly encounter what might be called the “Telephone Game” theory.

The “Telephone Game” idea is simple and initially persuasive. Jesus of Nazareth, so it goes, was a charismatic teacher who was crucified. In the decades that followed, as stories about him spread across the Roman Empire, they were gradually embellished. By the time the Gospels were written, a straightforward execution had evolved into a supernatural resurrection. In this telling, the resurrection is not an original claim, but a legend that grew over time.

It’s a neat explanation. But there is a serious problem with it.

In its familiar form, where the resurrection belief emerges only after a long process of distortion, it is rejected by most critical scholars of the New Testament. And the reason comes down to a few lines in one of the earliest Christian documents we possess: 1 Corinthians 15.

A Creed Hidden in Plain Sight

Around AD 53–55, the Apostle Paul wrote a letter to the church in Corinth. In chapter 15, he includes the following passage:

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time… Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles”.

To a casual reader, this may look like Paul summarising his own beliefs. But most scholars see something much more interesting happening here. Paul is not composing freely, but is quoting or reciting a pre-existing tradition.

There are several reasons we understand this to be the case.

First, the framing. Paul introduces the passage by saying he is “delivering” what he himself “received”. This was standard language in the ancient world for passing on established teaching, not for offering original reflection.

Second, the structure. The passage is tightly organised, with a rhythmic, almost formulaic sequence: died… buried… raised… appeared. This kind of pattern is characteristic of material designed for memorisation and transmission.

Third, some of the phrasing, such as “for our sins” and the specific listing of appearances, does not fit with Paul’s more spontaneous style elsewhere, indicating that he is preserving something earlier.

Taken together, these features have led a very road range of scholars, including leading sceptics, to conclude that this passage is an early Christian creed: a fixed summary of belief that predates Paul’s letter.

How Early Are We Talking?

This is where things become historically significant.

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in the mid-50s AD. But the creed he quotes must be older than the letter itself. In fact, Paul makes clear that he had already taught this material to the Corinthians when he first visited them, around AD 50–51.

So when did he receive it?

In Galatians, Paul describes an earlier visit to Jerusalem, roughly three years after his conversion, where he met Peter (Cephas) and James, the very individuals named in the creed. Many scholars identify this meeting, usually dated to no later than the mid-30s AD, as the most likely occasion on which Paul received this tradition.

In summary, there’s a common understanding that the creed was already in circulation within a short time of the crucifixion, which is typically dated to around AD 33, AD 30 at the earliest.

Even allowing for some uncertainty in the details, the timeline is remarkably compressed. We are not looking at a belief that slowly took shape over generations. We are looking at something that appears very early, in a structured and memorable form, and is tied to named individuals.

What This Does, and Doesn’t, Show

It’s important to be clear about what follows from this.

Historical analysis, on its own, cannot demonstrate that a supernatural event occurred. A sceptic can still propose alternative explanations. But what the early creed does do is significantly narrow the field.

It rules out the familiar “telephone game” model in which the resurrection emerges only after decades of legendary development. The core claim, that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to specific individuals and groups, was already being proclaimed in a stable, recognisable form within a short time of the events in question.

This is not a fringe position. Even prominent sceptical scholars such as Bart Ehrman accept the early nature of this material.

A Sharper Question

The historical record, then, is clear on one crucial point: the resurrection belief did not arise as a late legend, gradually shaped by anonymous communities over decades. It was there from the beginning: early, structured, and associated with identifiable figures.

That does not of course settle the entire debate. But it does radically change its shape.

The question that remains is no longer whether the resurrection belief evolved slowly over time. It is how such a belief arose so quickly, and why it took the specific form that it did.

And once you see that clearly, the easy explanations quickly begin to fall away.