Price is, by his own admission, aware that in identifying our passage as an interpolation, he is running against the grain of the incredible majority of scholarship on the subject. We will not be using this particularly as a bludgeon, but it is rather a warning sign of what out to follow. If Price wishes for his position to be accepted, then we should expect at least 2-3 times more (or better) arguments than what has been offered for the consensus position. This, we are not given; and further, it is significant that we are presented first with a self-justifying semblance of explanation, supported with a subtle insult to the opposition, before we begin; to wit:

Recent articles have tried to establish ground rules for scholarly theorizing that would rule out arguments such as mine from the start. Two of these prescriptions against heretics are Frederik W. Wisse, "Textual Limits to Redactional Theory in the Pauline Corpus" and Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Interpolations in 1 Corinthians." These scholars seem to speak for the majority when they maintain that, short of definitive manuscript evidence, no suggestion of an interpolation in the Pauline Epistles need to be taken seriously. The texts as they stand are to be judged "innocent until proven guilty," which in the nature of the case, can never happen. Otherwise, if we had to take seriously interpolation or redaction theories based on internal evidence alone, "the result [would be] a state of uncertainty and diversity of scholarly opinion. Historians and interpreters [in such a case] can no longer be sure whether a text or parts of it represent the views of the author or someone else."

All mumbling about "prescriptions against heretics" aside, let us make these points: We may recall that these scholars, and the majority, are doing nothing more than has been done to all ancient documents: Allowing the benefit of the doubt to the text, rather than assigning precedence to the opinion of the critic. Abrogation of benefit of the doubt is popular in some circles of critical history, but in such cases the criticisms themselves are assumed to be immune to criticism, and we generally end up looking down the deep well of analysis and seeing the face of the critical historian in the reflection. The dictum of Aristotle, that texts are "innocent until proven guilty," remains the course that is fairest and least fraught with peril.

But Price, ever vigilant to the standards of critical history as he sees them, will have none of this. To him, the consensus is a biased one, and he stands against it like a reed in a hurricane, just so:

I see in such warnings essentially a theological apologetic on behalf of a new textus receptus, an apologetic not unlike that offered by fundamentalists on behalf of the Byzantine text underlying the King James Version. Just as the dogmatic theology of the latter group was predicated on particular readings in the Byzantine/King James text and thus required its originality and integrity, so does the "Biblical Theology" of today's Magisterium of consensus scholarship require the apostolic originality of today's Nestle-Aland/UBS text. Herein, perhaps, lies the deeper reason for the tenacious unwillingness of such scholars to consider seriously the possibility of extensive or significant interpolations (or, indeed, any at all).

Now of course, if Price wishes to adopt a more or less perpetual uncertainty regarding the NT text, then that's his own business; as long as he consistently applies his schema to all ancient documents, then I have no complaint. But even then we are in no sense obliged to accept his point of view, as he would certainly admit; and that he sees the need to supplement his assertions ad hominem is as telling as any words that we may offer here in rebuttal. Here again, though, Price reveals his paranoid character, always seeing a "uncritical and religious bias" in every position that wants to argue from the hard data of history (generally, again, his fringe position). Such conspiratorial views are amusing (and of clinical interest to the psychologist, of course), but as such require so much more argument than Price ever seems to offer. In this case what possible data or evidence could he advance to support such a accusation against "consensus scholarship"?! His fear of an "evangelical" or "conservative" behind every contrary position seems a bit odd, to say the least, and it certainly doesn't bespeak the "objective" scholarship that he would wish us to impute to him.

Even so, we ought to be offered some superior arguments to encourage us to overturn scholarly consensus on the issue; and to be fair, Price can pull up a bit of support for his position - but he does not use his source fairly:

William O. Walker Jr., has suggested that, contrary to those opinions just reviewd (sic), "in dealing with any particular letter in the corpus, the burden of proof rests with any argument that the corpus or, indeed any particular letter within the corpus... contains no interpolations." Among the reasons advanced by Walker is the fact that

the surviving text of the Pauline letters is the text promoted by the historical winners in the theological and ecclesiastical struggles of the second and third centuries... In short, it appears likely that the emerging Catholic leadership in the churches 'standardized' the text of the Pauline corpus in the light of 'orthodox' view and practices, suppressing and even destroying all deviant texts and manuscripts. Thus it is that we have no manuscripts dating from earlier than the third century; thus it is that all of the extant manuscripts are remarkably similar in most of their significant features; and thus it is that the manuscript evidence can tell us nothing about the state of the Pauline literature prior to the third century.

Without getting into too much detail, two observations to make:

First, Walker's arguments are not really that solid. The assumptions he makes are more or less the same as Ehrman's (see here): That there must have been interpolations in the Pauline texts, simply because - well, there must have been! It is simply assumed based on later evidence that there must have been interpolations earlier; or, it is assumed that the early church must have altered the texts, simply because it is determined that there were possible motives for them to make alterations. (Also, it is worthy to note that this alleged conspiracy on the early church is not even practically possible; the ability to reach all over the world and snuff out deviant manuscripts simply did NOT exist! The existence of vast amounts of "heretical" and non-canonical material is proof alone of that reality. And it seems also to fly in the face of the textual data as well: if they had such assumed control over the Pauline material, why couldn't they do the same with the Gospel materials?) But this is a side issue; more important for our purposes is:

Price is not really using Walker's material correctly. Note that Walker is simply dealing with the issue of the mere existence of interpolations in individual letters or the Pauline corpus itself - as a WHOLE. In regards to individual interpolations such as Price suggests, Walker actually agrees with the consensus [Walk.BPIP, 610]:

The burden of proof clearly lies with any argument that a particular passage is an interpolation. Indeed, I would insist, at this point, upon a rigorous application of such criteria as appear applicable (e.g., the passage must be demonstrably non-Pauline in language, style, ideas, and/or implied historical milieu; and the case for interpolation is greatly strengthened if textual and/or contextual evidence can be adduced). Individual passages in otherwise authentically Pauline letters are themselves to be regarded as authentically Pauline unless convincing arguments to the contrary are advanced.

And so, Walker himself would agree: The arguments would have to be pretty good to regard any INDIVIDUAL epistolary passage as an interpolation. Apart from the interesting question as to whether Price has misunderstood or intentionally misused Walker, the more incisive question is, does Price meet the demand as required? Quite simply, he does not; and he must inevitably resort to unsupported and outrageous speculations and arguments to make his case. Let's look at the first of these:

Wisse seems to think it unremarkable that all textual evidence before the third century has mysteriously vanished. But according to Walker, the absence of the crucial textual evidence is no mystery at all. It was a silence created expressly to speak eloquently the apologetics of Wisse and his brethren.

This is the first step in Price's argument: The suggestion of conspiracy. Why is there no textual evidence of the supposed interpolation? Why, because all of the unaltered texts were destroyed, that's why! Needless to say, this rather smacks of convenience, and is in itself a form of dogmatic faith; it is far more natural to suggest (as even Walker allows) that the older manuscripts disappeared for the same reasons that most ancient manuscripts from all ancient works have disappeared: Barring unusual incidences of preservation (viz. the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi texts), manuscripts just don't last that long. There is no reason to suggest conspiracy on the basis of lack of manuscripts. Nor is there any reason (other than skeptical faith) to suppose that it just so happens that all manuscripts that would support our point of view did not survive. Ancient heretics knew well enough how to hide and preserve texts (as Nag Hammadi shows). If there is evidence lacking, it is far more likely that it is because the evidence simply never existed, or that it died out because it was so lacking in matters of adherence to truth - unless we can give two or three times more good reasons to suggest otherwise.

But is this what Price offers us? Again, no: Instead, we are offered speculation upon speculation, to wit:

Today's apologists for the new Textus Receptus are simply continuing the canon polemics of those who standardized / censored the texts in the first place. But, as Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza says in a different context, we must learn to read the silences and hear the echoes of the silenced voices.

The presumption, of course, is that these alleged "silenced voices" actually existed (rather than being figments of skeptical imagination), and moreover, that they had equal or better claim to being right than the so-called "winners" in the theological war! But this, too, is not shown to be so through hard evidence; it is merely assumed for the sake of Price's argument, that the passage in question could be an interpolation. And that being the case, with no specifics offered, we have very little that we can actually say in reply.

To be fair, however, Price will be engaging a few specific arguments regarding the passage in question. We will get to those momentarily; but first, some minor housekeeping:

One of the favorite harmonizations used by scholars is the convenient notion that when Paul sounds suddenly and suspiciously Gnostic, for example, it is still Paul, but he is using the terminology of his opponents against them. This would seem to be an odd, muddying strategy. But it was no strategy of the apostle Paul, only of our apologists.

Again, without a specific example, we really cannot comment; but this is an "odd, muddying strategy" only in the mind of Mr. Price. Even today it is a common rhetorical or satirical practice to adopt the language of one's opponents. Of course, today we have the advantage (not enjoyed by Paul) of using quotation marks to make the effect quite clear. At any rate, Price provides us nothing in the way of backup sufficient to overthrow the consensus in this matter. (We may note briefly, however, that the passages in which Gnostic ideas are "suspected" by some, are not cast in those forms, but occur in patterns of refutation. Paul uses their vocabulary, but not their ideas! It is a gross overstatement to say that Paul "sounds gnostic" because he argues against their position or vocabulary, or because the Gnostics "appropriate" Pauline vocabulary. For example, the "fullness" of Christ in Philippians is taken over by the Gnostics with an altogether different meaning, and it is otherwise evident that later Gnostic texts, including those found at Nag Hammadi, are only superficially Christianized. For more on the alleged Gnostic Paul, see here.)

We follow with more of the usual complaints about harmonization familiar to Price (Including, in a prior paragraph, yet another appeal to Lindsell's "Peter's denial times six" scenario - one detects rather an obsession with this example in Price's work!); criticism of C. S. Lewis' comments on historical-critical reconstructions (see here); and then:

And so with Wisse: "since the burden of proof rests on the arguments for redactional interference, the benefit of the doubt rightfully should go to the integrity of the text. If the case of the prosecution is not able to overcome serious doubts, then the text deserves to be acquitted." Again, "This lack of certainty is sometimes obscured by scholars who wishfully refer to certain redactional theories as if they were facts." And yet Wisse seems willing to consider harmonizations as facts, as if they themselves were not just as debatable as the interpolation hypotheses he despises. Because the critical argument is merely probabilistic and not certain, notwithstanding the similar vulnerability of his own preferred reconstructions (for that is what every harmonization is), Wisse feels as entitled as Lewis did simply to assume the case is closed."

The whole judicial verdict analogy is inappropriate to Wisse's argument anyway. In the one case, we have two choices, to put a man in jail or not. In the other, we have three choices: certainty of an authentic text, certainty of an inauthentic text, and uncertainty. A suggestive argument that nonetheless remains inconclusive should cause us to return the third verdict, but Wisse will not consider it. The logical implication would seem to be textual agnosticism, but Wisse prefers textual fideism instead.

Comments here:

• Again, Wisse is suggesting nothing more than has been generally suggested in all fields of textual criticism, for all ancient documents. It is not as though the NT gets special treatment!
• Note here Price's justification for his own "reading between the lines" - the others already do it by means of harmonization; why can't I do it too? The reason that Price's methods lack the legitimacy of the other scholars' techniques is simple: Whereas the others wish to maintain the integrity and sense of the text, in line with what it does say, Price et al. wish to violate the sense of the text, in order to pull from it what it does NOT say - simply for the sake of their own questionable historical-critical constructs. The issue is not fideism, but integrity, and benefit of the doubt. We are ignorant of the total situation behind the document; the writer of the document was not, and our ignorance should equal benefit of the doubt for the writer. We simply have no grounds for imposing our views upon the text, and it is simply "rude" and ill-mannered to do so.
• Finally, re the legal analogy: Actually, we can put the man in jail, release him, OR send the matter back for further evidence and/or another trial! But in regards to the texts, the matter is not so much certainty as it is certitude - we have NO REASON, for the overwhelming majority of passages, to suppose that the text should be any different than what we have now. Of course, it is possible that 1 Corinthians was originally a treatise on sandal repair; in that respect, if we wish to engage wild speculation, there is plenty of room for uncertainty! Nevertheless, the evidence gives us certitude that the text is correct - and why, other than skeptical faith, should we resort to the nebulous paranoia of textual uncertainty? (It is also instructive to note the rather naïve epistemology of Price here: He groups all sorts of beliefs together - compelling, justified, unjustified, fideist - into ONE bucket! And then he contrasts this with some theoretical or apodictic certainty - quite an irrelevant contrast in the field of historical and textual studies! The sane approach to this issue is obvious to any researcher: one examines the data and determines whether one is "justified to assent," "compelled to assent," "justified to suspend judgment," or "compelled to suspend judgment." These are the categories the historian and textual researcher are confronted with, and ones that can be decided on and defended in public discourse. When one begins with the "standard" historical approach to classical literature ["innocent until proven guilty"--in a very loose sense of "proven" of course], one needs some real data to move from one belief to another. And so far, data from Price has not been forthcoming!)

Price in his polemic has tagged his own method as "genuine criticism" - but I daresay that genuine criticism knows of no such paranoid uncertainty as is suggested for any other text in existence. We may rightly suspect that Price's criteria of uncertainty is no more than a result of his own dogmatic faith - and this, indeed, is borne out by the very weakness of his arguments for 1 Cor. 15:3-11 as a post-Pauline interpolation. To these arguments, we now turn.

A key point in Price's argument revolves around the use of the word "gospel" by Paul in two separate places: 1 Corinthians and Galatians. Price writes of the discontinuity he perceives:

The phrase "in which terms we preached to you the gospel" in 1 Cor. 15:1 must be remembered in what follows. The list of appearances is not simply some interesting or important lore Paul passed down somewhere along the line during his association with the Corinthians. This is ostensiby (sic) the Pauline gospel itself, the Pauline preaching in Corinth. "Behind the word 'gospel' in St. Paul we cannot assume a formula, but only the very preaching of salvation" (Dibelius).

Again, v. 2 makes clear that what follows is not just a helpful piece of apologetics but rather the saving message itself. The phrases "if you hold it fast" and "unless you believed in vain" are not antithetical parallels. Rather, the latter means "unless this gospel is false," as the subsequent argument (vv. 14, 17) shows.

All of this seems a bit overstated. Obviously Paul's preaching to the Corinthians consisted of more than just reciting the passage in question to them; he would hardly have accomplished anything otherwise. The message would certainly have needed more depth. But Price's point is rather more complex than this:

The pair of words in verse 3a, "received / delivered" ( / ) is, as has often been pointed out, technical language for the handing on of rabbinical tradition. That Paul should have delivered the following tradition poses little problem; but that he had first been the recipient of it from earlier tradents creates, I judge, a problem insurmountable for Pauline authorship. Let us not seek to avoid facing the force of the contradiction between the notion of Paul's receiving the gospel he preached from earlier tradents and the protestation in Gal. 1:1, 11-12 that "I did not receive it from man." If the historical Paul is speaking in either passage, he is not speaking in both.

But it is again, rather an overstatement. Price is rather eager to establish discord for his own purposes, so he must insist here (as he has elsewhere) upon a "cardboard cutout" view of history and personality: So it is that Paul never changes in his use of terminology, even over several years of growth and development; so it is that, when Paul says "gospel" in one letter, then whatever he delineates as being in the "gospel" in that letter, by golly, is the ONLY thing it could possibly mean; and nothing more than that! Thus he writes of the passage in 1 Corinthians:

These verses are presented as the very terms in which he preaches the gospel. The writer of 1 Cor. 15:1-2ff never had a thought of a period of Pauline gospel preaching prior to instruction by his predecessors.

Price is a most privileged person to be privy to the thoughts of the writer of this passage! At any rate, the cardboard has been cut rather definitively: The "very terms" in which he preached the gospel? Again, is it to be supposed that Paul simply went up to the door of the synagogue in Corinth, rang the bell, and when it opened stood there repeating the words of 1 Cor. 15:3-11 over and over like some sort of pullstring toy? It is manifestly obvious that Paul must have preached a broader gospel than that; even filling in details about who Peter was, and so on, would not be sufficient. The message must have a meaning, and that meaning is found, among other places, in the letter to the Galatians.

But even beyond that, even looking at Galatians alone, it is obvious that Paul did have some kind of received information available to him which would form a component of his gospel. Howard [How.PCG, 34] makes this observation regarding the idea that Paul is saying in Galatians that he has only received information by revelation:

But it can hardly be Paul's purpose to argue this at this time since in the very next two verses he gives away the fact that he did receive something from other men, even before his conversion. In vss. 13-14 he describes himself as a persecutor of the church and this logically implies that he knew (at least in part) and opposed what the church taught....

Clearly, then, Paul here is being rhetorical and polemical. In fact, the conventions of Greco-Roman rhetoric provide us with a precise parallel: Paul's use of the word "gospel" - here and elsewhere - reflects what is called a "rhetorical shorthand," a technique which allowed Paul "to allude to the gospel and incorporate it into particular argumentative contexts without reciting the whole all over again each time." [Jerv.GospP, 65] Paul has already preached "the gospel" and expects his readers to know what he means by it, and make all the usual associations, even if he does not make them explicitly. Advice given by the rhetorician Qunitillian reads [ibid., 60]:

If you wish to speak briefly, include the whole idea in a single word, and that the shortest that is appropriate to the idea.

And another rhetorician, Demetrius, added:

...it is a mark of superior skill to compass much thought in a little space, just as seeds contain potentianllly entire trees.

This technique is much the same as that of a politician, in separate speeches, saying in one that he received the party "platform" on one issue from other members of his party; but on another issue, says that the "platform" he subscribes to is from the ideological leader of the party. In each case, we have a bit of broad terminology (platform/gospel) which is able to encompass a wide variety of ideological concepts. There is simply no reason to do as Price does, and reject this solution as an illicit harmonization, and the social context of rhetorical technique supports our explanation. (There MIGHT be some reason to do so, if the actual CONTENT of what Paul offers in each case is somehow contradictory, but this is also not supported in the texts.) Price's dismissal of such solutions as requiring a "super-exegetical trellis" is no more than rhetoric and exaggeration: The solution is not in the least outrageous, and takes no great leap of interpretation to make. Only Price's stubborn adherence to a "cardboard cutout" view of history (to say nothing of his complete ignorance of ancient compositional techniques) makes the interpretation questionable.

We come next to the matter of the formula itself - and in particular, the cited five hundred witnesses to the resurrected Jesus. Price takes some time to look at various opinions concerning the structure of the formula: That is, how it might have been put together, based on various linguistic and grammatical features. In terms of our presentation, there is nothing that needs addressing. It is only when we arrive here that things begin getting hot:

Since the focus of the tradition seems to be on notable leaders of the community, the sudden mention of the 500 anonymous brethren seems to be an intrusion. Beyond this, though, the reference to the 500, most still available for questioning, raises another major problem: what was the intended function of the list?

Price then briefly surveys some views of the matter, ultimately arriving at this acceptance:

It is therefore not unlikely that the list began as a list of credentials for Cephas, the Twelve, James, and the other apostles, but that subsequently someone, reading the list as evidence for the resurrection, inserted the reference to the 500 brethren.

Now here is our view: It was certainly a list of people who had seen the Lord, although what other option Price sees for "reading" it, other than as a list of those who saw Jesus resurrected, I cannot fathom - as a list of credentials, there would have to be something AUTHENTICATING those credentials! We disagree, of course, that the 500 reference was an interpolation; we shall get to that next. I would only add here that in context, Paul has appealed to this listing as a precursor to his teaching following on the resurrection body: i.e., these people saw the resurrected body of Jesus, so they know that it is something more than a ghost, it is material and real; thus Paul is not DIRECTLY using the list as an apologetic for the resurrection (as in all likelihood it was normally used) but as a verifier for his argument to follow concerning the resurrection body - i.e., we should know what a resurrection body is like, and be considered more authoritative on that matter than the people who say there is no resurrection - because we've seen a resurrection body!

But now to the matter of the 500 reference as an interpolation. Does Price offer any textual, linguistic, or other hard evidence for this assertion? Not at all: Rather, his objection centers upon one very strained (and several times repeated) complaint:

I judge the very notion of a resurrection appearance to 500 at one time to be a late piece of apocrypha, reminiscent of the extravagances of the Acts of Pilate. If the claim of 500 witnesses were early tradition, can anyone explain its total absence from the gospel tradition?

He then takes up, and attempts to answer, several explanations. The first, by Allen, he addresses thusly:

His answer is, "The Gospel narratives of the Resurrection are governed by another set of needs and meet another situation than those of the first kerygma." But this is unsatisfactory on his own accounting, since all the apologetical and liturgical motives Allen sees at play in the gospels may be paralleled in the various functions suggested by scholars for the 1 Corinthians 15 list itself.

This I find most unsatisfactory: Are we not to be shown how these apologetical and liturgical motives can be directly applied to the 1 Corinthians passage? Simply making a vague appeal to "various functions suggested by scholars" tells us nothing. Regrettably, as Price here fails to offer specifics, there is nothing that I can offer in answer, other than pointing out that within the context of 1 Corinthians, it is fairly obvious what purpose the list serves (see above), and the motives of the Gospel writers are not the same (see below).

On to possible explanation #2 -

Again, "If we suppose, as we well may, that this incident [the appearance to the 500] is to be located in Galilee, it is not difficult to imagine why it was not taken up into the mainstream of tradition." But clearly the whole point of 1 Cor 15:11, and at least the clear implication of verses 5-7, is that the quoted creed is the mainstream of the tradition.

Here I will only partially agree, inasmuch as I do not think that geography had anything to do with why the 500 appearance is not directly mentioned in the Gospels; but I disagree inasmuch as there is no indication that all the details of the chapter are the "mainstream of the tradition" (e.g. the "birth" of Paul).

And finally, to suggested explanation #3 -

Barrett, on the other hand, counsels that "it may be better to recognize that the Pauline list and the gospel narratives of resurrection appearances cannot be harmonized into a neat chronological sequence." But Barrett's agnosticism itself functions as a harmonization. It implies there is a great cloud of unknown circumstance: if we knew more we might be able to see where it all fits in. But in fact we know enough. It must at least be clear that if such an overwhelmingly potent proof of the resurrection had ever occurred it would have been widely repeated from the first. Surely no selection of resurrection appearances would have left it out. The story of the apparition to the 500 can only stem from a time posterior to the composition of the gospel tradition, and this latter, in comparison with Paul, is very late.

Here is the central error made by Price, and it is twofold:

1) The presumption that "we know enough" - a very bold and dogmatic thing to say about any matter of ancient history, especially in matters contrary to the scholarly consensus! The NT text is less than two fingers in thickness, covering a time period of some 70 years, and recounting individual incidences involving thousands of people over thousands of miles! How does Price dare to make such an outrageous assertion, especially when making an assertion directly counter to what evidence we DO have? And more specifically:

2) The presumption that "surely no selection of resurrection appearances would have left it out." Why? By what criteria does Price, in the here and now, presume that his own definition of what is most important is and ought to be shared by others? Not only has Price cut the cardboard here; he has cut it into the shape of his own body! Paul was not required to mention ANY appearance or set of appearances, no matter how important the person was to whom Jesus appeared.

We will have more to say specifically regarding this below, and suggest some other explanations for the omission of the 500 from the Gospel texts. Before that, though, we may appropriately ask if some episode in the Gospels might indeed be identified with this appearance. Price, I daresay, rightly rejects the Pentecost story, Luke 24:36, and John 20:19-23 as possibilities. Craig's suggestion of Matt. 28 [Craig.ANTE, 56-62] seems more tenable. But obviously, there is no place in the Gospels where the number 500 is mentioned, so we can also agree that any suggestion is purely speculative.

On the other hand, this is NOT sufficient reason to suggest that the 500 brethren reference is a late interpolation. Price's suggestion that it is a detail by its very nature that suggests a fictitious source is hardly worthy of comment; thus would he exclude any possibility of a large, numbered group seeing Jesus! (His quote from Ludemann, re: not taking the number literally, for "Who could have counted?" is itself little more than insulting; Jesus' followers certainly would have had to be numbered within the ministry periodically for quite practical purposes, such as buying food or sharing resources, and it is not as though ancient people were too ignorant to count that high! [What of the estimates of the feedings of 5,000 and 4,000, and the accounting of the 120 at Pentecost?] If this is our tack, then estimates of large numbers of people in, for example, Josephus, need to be subjected to the same criticism! And note, of course, that even the number offered by Paul is an estimate: "more than" 500.)

Beyond that, I would like to make several suggestions regarding why this appearance is not recorded in the Gospels as such.

1) The purpose of the Gospels. As noted in this article, the Gospels were written as ancient biographies. Their purpose is NOT directly apologetic, nor with the exception of John are they to any extent missionary documents - and John based his reports upon his OWN authority and eyewitness as an Apostle.

And what of their intended audience? The Gospels were written for people who ALREADY believed in the resurrection, and did not need something like the 500 to convince them. (Indeed, one of the 500 may have been among the missionaries that first spoke to them!) Rather, as biographies, the Gospels focussed upon that which was most substantial (see below) and would be most revealing of the subject's character. The more substantiative appearances would reveal more about Jesus than would an appearance to a crowd, which would have been more likely a "lower-quality" experience (see below), and this is sufficient reason why the appearance to the 500 is not mentioned (as such, if it is) in the Gospels. But there are a few other items to be considered as well:

2) The lack of need for many witnesses. Price's statements reflect an incredulity that anyone could let pass an incident with so many witnesses. But keep in mind that within the Jewish cultural context, two witnesses were sufficient for establishing the truth of testimony. Hence, Matthew would see no need for recounting this number; nor would John. Add to this another factor:

3) Quality appearances vs. quantity appearances. When the Gospels of Luke and John take their focus, they present us with resurrection appearances that feature Jesus as the most "real." The appearance to the 500, on the contrary, was very likely of lesser "quality" - we have no suggestion from Paul that it was a "sit down and eat" or "touch me and see" type of appearance - indeed, such type would be unlikely for this mass gathering, and the greater majority of these people would have seen Jesus this one and only time. The 500 reference had apologetic value for those impressed by numbers alone; but the "higher quality" appearances were much more valuable, for they had greater qualitative power to counter doubters and could be used to dismiss incipient docetic/Gnostic leanings. From those perspectives, the 500 could be dismissed by asking, "Are you SURE that was Jesus you saw? Did you touch Him?" etc. Indeed, the fact that the 500 reference had to be surrounded by references to "quality" appearances in 1 Corinthians suggests this much. As Allen [Alle.LK, 351] puts it:

The later generation was separated from the Resurrection by a time interval in which criticism had developed, so that it was necessary to tell the story in such a way as to meet known objections.

One final factor I would like to put forward, to tie it all together. There is a very simple sociological reason why the reference to the 500 is not found in the Gospels, and it leads easily into the other factors above - and that is:

4) The lesser lifespan of humans in the first century. Allen asks a very poignant question: Were all 500 of these people dead? Was that why we see no account of the number in the Gospels? The answer is, in all probability, most (if not all!) were dead by the time the Gospels were published in their final form. The average citizen of the Roman Empire was lucky to live to be 35. Malina and Rohrbaugh (Social-Science Commentary) note that a third of all live births were dead by age 6; by the teen years 60% would be dead, by the mid-20s 75%, by the forties 90%, with only 3% surviving into their 60s. Our Galileean witnesses, in a "healthier" rural environment, MAY have lived longer on the average. But note that Paul has placed special emphasis on the fact that "many" of the 500 were still alive - although "some" had died. The value of these witnesses was in that they were alive and could be consulted. (This constraint would NOT apply to the other members of the list [Peter, the apostles, James] because of their authority as pillars and founders in the church. Their authority, especially in light of their more substantial "appearance experience," would be expected to "carry over" even after their deaths - as it even does to some extent today.)

Now for reference, let's consider the relative ages of these witnesses according to the events and writings of concern:

a) The appearance itself - 30 AD. Start here with people of all ages; we will use increments of ten for convenience: 20, 30, 40, perhaps some as high as 50.

b) Paul's mission to Corinth. - 50 AD. Note that Paul is REMINDING the Corinthians of a formula used when he presented the Gospel - so that he gave this to them when he first saw them. 50 is the usual date assigned to this mission.

c) 1 Corinthians - 55 AD. This is the usual date assigned to this letter. And finally:

d) The Gospels. - 62 AD. We will use our proposed date for Luke's Gospel (see tekton Ch. 4). Dating the Gospels later will not alter our proposition here, and in fact would serve to strengthen it. (Earlier dates for the Gospels would pose a unique problem for this idea, but it would pose even more problems for critics!)

And so, here are the relative ages of that grouping of 500:

Rez appearance (30 AD) - 20, 30, 40, 50

Visit to Corinth (50 AD) - 40, 50, 60, 70

1 Corinthians (55 AD) - 45, 55, 65, 75

Luke (62 AD) - 52, 62, 72, 82

It is easy to see the implications of this. Considering the lesser lifespan of the time, even allowing that the 500 may have lived longer under their social conditions, a great majority would be dead by the times of the composition of the Gospels -- by the figures above, perhaps 3% of the original 500 were around, a total of 15 people! Even in Paul's day the reference was apparently becoming anachronistic, for he needed to add the qualifier about how many were left alive. And this is the key point: These witnesses, especially in light of what was probably the less-substantiative nature of their experience, were of no value dead, for they were not around to be questioned.

And thus we can tie into our reasoning above. As these witnesses dwindled, it would be natural, indeed appropriate, to focus upon the appearances of a more tangible, authoritative (read: apostolic) nature. The new generation of believers, who had either been infants or not even alive in 30 AD, would require something more than just, "I saw Him as part of a crowd." They would require encounters with a stronger "flavor" to them, accounts where the persons in question had seen Jesus more than just once. Therefore, owing to any one of these factors or any combination thereof, it is no surprise to find that this "sheer numbers" reference has been subjugated to more concrete encounters in the Gospels.

Thus, Price's single objection in this matter fails. Once again, by not taking his arguments into account within their total context, he has missed the point.

But now to another appearance on Price's list to cross off: that to James, the brother of Jesus. Here again, Price relies on one of his favorite tactics, reading his own ideas into the texts. To begin:

As is well known, the gospel evidence differs strikingly over the question of whether James the Just was a disciple of his famous brother before the latter's resurrection. John (7:5) and Mark (3:21, 31-35), followed by Matthew (12:46-50), are clear that he was no friend of the ministry of Jesus. Luke, on the other hand (Luke 8:19-21; Acts 1:14), rejects this earlier tradition and instead strongly implies that the whole Holy Family were doers of Jesus' word from the beginning.

From here Price cites late documents as evidence: The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews. These are easily dismissed as worthless, the pretensions of he and his Jesus Seminar colleagues regarding the early date of GThom notwithstanding. But what of those references in Luke and Acts that supposedly contain "striking differences"?

The cite from Acts 1:14 is from a time AFTER the ascension - and therefore, by the normal scheme, also AFTER the appearance to James! How Price can cite this as evidence of the "Holy Family" being part of the "doing" crowd from the beginning is beyond me. And the reference from Luke is equally incredible:

Luke 8:19-21 Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you." He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice."

This is an obvious parallel to the incident in Mark/Matt where Jesus' mother and brothers came to claim Him because they thought He was out of His mind. It is quite likely that Luke found the implication of insanity distasteful, and so removed it. But even considering this by itself, where on earth does Price see a "strong implication" that Mary, James, et al. were "doers of Jesus' word" from the beginning??? Perhaps he is twisting the last sentence to mean, "My mother and brothers ARE (among) those who hear God's word," etc. - but this is not at all a justifiable reading of the text. As it stands, the account has the same implication of, "here are those who follow God's Word, my true mother and brothers" as the accounts in Mark and Matthew. Furthermore, Jesus' mother and brothers are notably ABSENT from the listing of Jesus' supporters in Luke 8:1-3! Bottom line: Price's interpretation is naught but an exaggerated and tortuous act of eisegesis.

But this is not the end of the misreading and misappropriating. We continue, with the usual intermixture of wild assertion and Pravda commentary:

For this tradition there is no thought of any conversion of James from unbeliever to believer. The resurrection appearance vouchsafed him is simply of a piece with the others: an appearance granted to a disciple. Indeed nowhere in the tradition of early Christianity do we find the appearance of an enemy of Christ to turn him into a friend. This notion, which serves the agenda of modern apologists seeking to disarm the suspicions of those who point out that Jesus appeared only to believers, is quite commong (sic) among critical scholars as well. Nevertheless, it is an exegetical phantom. Nowhere is this connection made in the texts.

First, notice once again that Price is going against consensus, both conservative and "critical" alike, without major evidence to overturn the standard!

Second, re no tradition of turning an enemy of Christ into a friend, appearing only to friends - have we forgotten the Apostle Paul here?** Have we forgotten the utter disbelief of the disciples at hearing news of the resurrection? But even if not, why should this restriction be placed upon the list in 1 Corinthians? Paul is explaining the nature of the resurrection body, not offering biographical information about James! Simply because Paul does not stop to explain James' change from "enemy" to "friend" does not mean that it did not happen. And indeed, that it did happen is the logical deduction, as Price admits:

True, we have an unbelieving James, a believing James, and an apparition of the Risen Christ to James...

However:

...but the relationship between these textual phenomena is other than is usually surmised.

This is quite a significant assertion to make! Is there any hard evidence given for interpreting the relationship any other way than the quite clearly natural and logical one? Amazingly, here is Price's suggestion:

If James were not "turned around" by an appearance of the Risen Jesus, how else can we account for his assumption of an early leadership role in the Church? The answer is not far to seek. He was the eldest brother of King Messiah. Once honored for this accident of birth, he did not see fit to decline it. One might well remain aloof to a movement in which one's brother was the leader yet soon warm to it once the leadership role were offered to oneself.

What an amazing assertion! Price here takes the desperate expedient of equating James with an unprincipled modern televangelist who is "in it for the money" or power-hungry! This was a person who DIED for his beliefs at the hands of the religious establishment; there is not a shred of evidence for Price's supposition, either in secular history (cf. Josephus) or in the text of the NT (which is rather significant, in light of the condemnation offered against those who are hypocritical)! Indeed, Price's level of desperation is evident in that, rather than citing evidence, he must seek the following irrelevant parallel:

...James' claim was precisely parallel to that of Ali, the son-in-law and nephew of the Prophet Muhammad. Ali's "partisans" (Arabic: Shi'ites) advanced his claim to the Caliphate upon the death of Muhammad on the theory that the prophetic succession should follow the line of physical descent. Later legend claims that Ali was entitled to the position on the strength of his piety and charisma, a tacit concession that blood relation was no longer deemed adequate for spiritual leadership (cf Mark 3:31- 35). Finally he is made, in retrospect, the recipient of new angelic revelations like those of the Prophet himself, taking down the dictation of the Mushaf Fatima, one of the Shi'ite holy books.

What possible resemblance does THIS situation have to the matter of James and the early church??? We are talking about a social and religious situation far removed from that of a first-century Jewish milieu which involves quite clear issues of familial succession that are completely lacking for the example of James! (And let me add here that even then, Price has failed to give the whole story - according to my Muslim sources, this is a far more complicated issue than Price portrays - for example, the Mushaf Fatima is considered about the equivalent of one of our apocryphal gospels, and was written much later than the time of Muhammed. Let it only be said that once again, Price has managed to offend two religious groups in the same sentence!)

In summary:

There is NO EVIDENCE that James used his blood relation to Jesus to his advantage; nor is this the case for any member of the Holy Family. This is strictly a figment of Price's overactive imagination, a terrifying stretch from what is the most natural interpretation (even, as Price admits, for those without any "apologetical" interest), and is the result of using documents well beyond the chronological pale of the time needed for legendary accretion (GThom, Hegesippus, etc.). It cannot be used as support for his view of 1 Cor. 15:3-11 as an interpolation, for it is nothing more than a case of one questionable supposition leaning on another of the same type - the result being, that neither argument is sufficiently supported!

And now, seeking yet another reed upon which to lean, Price engages the speculative position following:

I will now return to the much-disputed question of whether the appearances to Cephas and the Twelve and to James and all the apostles represent rival traditions. I believe Harnack was essentially correct and that the criticism of Conzelmann, von Campenhausen, Kloppenborg, Fuller, and others are not decisive.

The average reader no doubt is saying here, "Huh? Where does he get a rivalry out of a simple listing of names?" Patience: We shall explore that venue shortly. For now, let us note again: We have a position admittedly, strongly against consensus, and would therefore expect far better quality and/or quantity of arguments to achieve an overturn. This is not done, and this alone makes the dealing with the issue insufficient, but let us take the time to examine the counter-prose anyway. To begin:

Fuller, for example, first points out that if the two independent formulae suggested by Harnack had been added onto the death and resurrection kerygma of vv. 3-5b, then we would have to leave that kerygma in its original form ending, implausibly, with "appeared." But some scholars have suggested we do this on independent grounds anyway, e.g., for the symmetry that would then exist between the short membra "that he was buried" and "that he appeared."

This again is entirely unsatisfactory: Who are these "some scholars" who make this suggestion, why do they make it, and are their arguments of sufficient quality that they may be accepted? We are not told, so let us simply say, then, that ending with the word "appeared" would be highly implausible, symmetry or no symmetry - for obviously, Jesus would have appeared TO somebody, and whomever this kerygma was offered to would, I think, be inclined to want to know who witnessed the appearances! (Also, the "symmetry" notion is based on a strictly MODERN stylistic approach - which adds to making the assertion a questionable one.)

Second, Fuller argues, "[O]n Harnack's analysis, the appearance to the five hundred is left in isolation, belonging neither to the Cephas formula nor to the James formula. In either position it would destroy the parallelism between the two formulae and can only be explained as an independent tradition or as a Pauline insertiom (sic)." Then that is the way to explain it; Fuller has answered his own objection.

It is rather amusing here that Price has (mis)appropriated Fuller's argument for his own purposes! Fuller has offered the suggestion of a "Pauline" insertion, in context, as a "non-viable" alternative; Price subsumes it as a proof of the passage as a "non-Pauline" insertion! Of course, this would be fair IF his own main point were proven, which has yet to be done, and is not done further on either:

Third, Fuller maintains that "the theory of an outright rivalry between a Peter- and a James-party is speculative. There is no real evidence for this in the New Testament." And as if uneasy about this absolute statement Fuller immediately adds, "Galatians 2:11 shows that there were for a time differences between Peter and James on the interpretation of the 'gentleman's agreement' (Gal 2.9-10), but to speak of a rivalry goes beyond the facts." But is not Fuller's reading of the Galatians passage itself a going beyond the facts, setting them into a harmonizing, catholicizing model? At question is precisely the interpretation of the facts with an apologetical reading of his own. And besides, there is certainly material in the New Testament that is polemically aimed at James and the heirs (John 7:5; Mark 3:21, 31-35) as well as pro-Peter polemic (Matt 16:18-19) and anti- Peter polemic (Mark's story of his denials of Christ, hardly neutral material), followed by the denial narratives of all the gospels; contrast the milder Johannine shadowing of Peter in favor of the Beloved Disciple. A James versus Peter conflict is as plausible a Sitz-im-Leben for such materials as any.

Here is yet another misappropriated argument. Fuller speaks of no evidence of PARTY rivalry; Galatians 2:11 shows evidence of INDIVIDUAL disagreement (hardly "rivalry") on a single issue! Psychologizing Fuller by saying he appears "uneasy" is a bald and worthless propagandic technique: Fuller is not "uneasy" but is simply acknowledging the one "source verse" that is used to justify the view of a James/Peter party rivalry, analyzing it in context, and finding in it insufficient support for the "rivalry" theory.

Re harmonizing: Remember again that Fuller is doing exactly what historians should do - interpret passages in light of the overall sense of their context and history. There is NO evidence for a party rivalry of the sort Price suggests; there is NO evidence for the sort of conflict that Price suggests - indeed, Price's citations from the NT would lead us to suggest that in order to escape this interpretation, the early apostles could never have disagreed on anything, and may not be allowed to have made a single mistake! Looking at one of the cited examples:

John 7:2-5 But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near, Jesus' brothers said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world." For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

Why should we take this as polemic? If Jesus' brothers did not believe in Him, they did not believe in Him; it is reported as simple fact, with not a hint of polemical intent. Polemic would have gone on to say more nasty things about James and the others! It is only in Price's excessive overreadings, for the purposes of his own polemic, that we find such things as "party rivalry" in very simple statements such as these. (As an added note: There is a strong possibility that James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were first cousins of Jesus, making the "brothers" into "first cousins" of the author John! With family loyalties as high as they were in those days, polemic doesn't make much sense here.)

And finally, there is this - an attempt to answer what I daresay is a decisive criticism against reading a rivalry into these verses:

Fourth, Fuller observes that for the compiler of the 1 Cor 15 list (whom he thinks to be Paul himself) the relation between these various appearances was a strictly chronological one, the order of which was verifiable. This calls for two responses. To begin with, there is no question that the /epsilon.iota.tau.alpha...epsilon.pi.epsilon.iota.tau.alpha/ structure of the list as it now stands implies temporal sequence; but this may simply be the gratuitous assumption of the reader** of the list. Second, Fuller's own assumption (shared by O'Collins, Von Campenhausen, and others) that Paul himself compiled the list on the basis of extensive interviewing of the principal layers is a fanciful piece of historicization. To realize just how fanciful it is, one need only read Bishop's "The Risen Christ and the Five Hundred Brethren," which makes explicit the dubious scenario implicit in all such suggestions: Paul taking the role, usually assigned Luke, as a pilgrim to the Holy Land seeking out various living saints willing to reminisce about the great days of old when angels whispered in one's ear and dead men tapped one on the shoulder.

Author's Note: In the original Drew article, "reader" was "redactor". The only change this makes for me is that is makes my first point below irrelevant. I would then change the point to simply say that Price is doing no more than offering a wild speculation against hard data in order to support his theory.)

This also calls for two responses:

Actually, temporal sequence is implied by more than just the structure! It is also indicated by the order of events as listed in the first part of the list (died, buried, rose, appeared), and by Paul indicating that his appearance was "last of all." This, and the fact that Paul is making "careful use of chronological particles," indicates that a temporal sequence is FAR FROM a "gratuitous assumption" - all of this in fact suggests that Paul "checked the relative order of the series." [Full.FRN, 28]

Re Paul's compiling of the list: I fail to see why this is a "dubious scenario" - but even if it were, may we point out that Luke, as Paul's travelling companion, would very likely offer the information that he gathered to Paul for his own use? Price's excessive use of adjectives like "dubious" and "fanciful," and the flaunting of angels whispering in the ear, are merely attempts to decry a more reasonable and plausible scenario ad hominem and should be ignored. Positing an excessive version of events in order to refute more reasonable versions is a sly but transparent tactic, and one I daresay Price makes imaginative and frequent use of.

And finally, there is this:

Conzelmann and Kümmel add the argument against Harnack's view that there seems to be no polemical edge or tone discernible in either of the supposed rival credential-formulae. But this is far from certain, as I hope to show.

Price will now attempt to show that "all the apostles" means to exclude James but to include Peter and the rest of the Twelve, thus making the formula into a slam against James. This is in itself rather a stretch, and is refuted by the simple fact that the list indicates a temporal sequence. Obviously, Jesus appeared to somebody first, second, etc., and there is not the least bit of "polemia" inherent in that! But Price's arguments are made even more irrelevant by the fact that it is quite likely that James ought to be included among the apostles anyway. Let's look at two verses that help us decide:

1 Cor. 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas ?

Gal. 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.

In an extended passage that Price ignores, but would have done well to address, Fuller [Full.FRN, 39-40] notes of these verses:

On the whole, there is more to be said for including James and (in the [1 Cor.] passage) the brothers of the Lord among the apostles than for excluding them. In Pauline usage, ei me, which occurs in the (1 Cor.) passage, normally means "except" rather than "but only" (Gal. 1:7). In the (Gal.) passage Cephas was certainly an apostle in the eyes of Paul (Gal. 1:18f), which suggests that we could paraphrase this passage as: "the other apostles, including the brothers of the Lord and Cephas." A further consideration is the parallelism between the two sets of appearances, Peter-the Twelve, and James-all the apostles. Since Peter is included among the Twelve, and therefore was a recipient of the second appearance as well as the first, we may perhaps legitimately infer that James was one of "all the apostles" to whom the fifth appearance occurred.

And so it is: Price's analysis hereafter is rendered pointless, by the simple fact of the temporal sequencing of the appearances, and the likelihood that James is to be included in the number of that group called "apostles." In closing: