Jefferson Vann summarises scholarly studies done in 1 Corinthians 15 since the turn of the millennium.
1 Corinthians 15 is a normative text for the doctrine of the resurrection, and – as such – is an integral part of conditionalist arguments for the centrality of the resurrection. The passage also refers to dead Christians as having fallen asleep (6). It says that without the resurrection, both Christian faith and gospel proclamation is in vain (14). It argues that without the resurrection, we are still in our sins (17); without a resurrection, the sleeping believers have perished (18). It teaches that Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection harvest (20). It teaches that Christ is the Second Adam (22), and death is the last enemy that will be abolished (26). It looks forward to the time when God will be all in all (28).
Since the turn of the millennium, there have been numerous scholarly studies of this chapter, many of which have addressed issues which warrant careful consideration by those teaching it – especially those teaching it from a conditionalist perspective. Several of these resources are available online free of charge, while some will only be available through theological libraries.
Abernathy, D. “Christ As Life-Giving Spirit in 1 Corinthians 15:45”. Irish Biblical Studies. 24: 2-13. 2002. [Explores the meaning and implications of the phrase πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν as it refers to Christ.]
Asher, Jeffrey R. “Polarity and Change in 1 Corinthians 15: A Study of Metaphysics, Rhetoric, and Resurrection.” Univ. of Chicago, Diss., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000.
Asher, J. R. “Σπείρεται: Paul’s Anthropogenic Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44″. Journal Of Biblical Literature. 120: 101-122. 2001.[This essay examines the meaning of the metaphor of sowing in 1 Cor 15:42-44 by examining its context in Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 15:35-37 and the use of the metaphor as describing human origins and generation in the Greco-Roman world.]
Boateng, Kwasi. “The Resurrection of Jesus and the Believer in 1 Corinthians 15: 1-18.” M. Theol. Thesis, Melbourne College of Divinity 2007.
Borchert, Gerald L. “The Resurrection: 1 Corinthians 15”. Review & Expositor. 80, no. 3: 401-415. 2016. [Explains how Paul’s teaching on the resurrection fits the occasion of the epistle.]
Brodeur, Scott. The Holy Spirit’s Agency in the Resurrection of the Dead: An Exegetico-Theological Study of 1 Corinthians 15,44b-49 and Romans 8,9-13. Roma: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2004. [One reviewer writes “No emphasis at all on the most important thing; the resurrected body. At the time Mr. Brodeur wrote this book he should have been aware that the thing people will be looking forward the most is learning about the new body humans will have once they are resurrected. He paid very little attention to this. The most important thing he said about the resurrected body is that it will most likely be “material” as well. However, he didn’t answer crucial questions such as whether or not this new body will be tangible and visible for example. It seems as if he didn’t want to commit himself to any lose speculation of any kind. He only wanted to stay safe in the parameters previously established by St. Paul.”sic.]
Brown, Paul J., and Eckhard J. Schnabel. “Bodily Resurrection and Its Significance for Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 15.” Ph. D. Dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2013.
Brown, Paul J. Bodily Resurrection and Ethics in 1 Cor 15: Connecting Faith and Morality in the Context of Greco-Roman Mythology. Tübingen, Germany : Mohr Siebeck, 2014. [Introduction and research setting; Greco-Roman afterlife beliefs and Paul’s resurrection convictions; The deniers of the resurrection; The bodily resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor 15:1-11); The veracity of the bodily resurrection and the resulting ethical imperatives (1 Cor 15:12-34); The nature of the bodily resurrection and its ethical implications (1 Cor 15:35-58); Summary and conclusion.]
Connor, Matthew Michael. “”Baptism on Behalf of the Dead”: 1 Corinthians 15:29 in Its Hellenistic Context.” M.A. Thesis, Oxford, Ohio: Miami University, 2010. [Argues that Paul was referring to cultic ritual baptism on behalf of the dead]
Cook, John Granger. “Resurrection in Paganism and the Question of an Empty Tomb in 1 Corinthians 15”. New Testament Studies. 63, no. 01: 56-75. 2017. [On the basis of the semantics of ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω and the nature of resurrected bodies in ancient Judaism and ancient paganism, one can conclude that Paul could not have conceived of a resurrection of Jesus unless he believed the tomb was empty.]
Coppins, Wayne. “Doing Justice To The Two Perspectives Of 1 Corinthians 15:1-11”. Neotestamentica. 44, no. 2: 282-291. 2010. [While most scholars recognize that Paul is concerned to establish a point of common ground with the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 15:1-11, few do justice to the multiple indications that this point of agreement may be in danger of being forgotten, abandoned or distorted. In addition to showing the presence of these two different perspectives in the passage, which I refer to as the agreement perspective and the uncertainty-perspective, this article stresses the need to do justice to each of them rather than marginalizing the uncertainty-perspective or subordinating it too quickly to the agreement perspective.]
N. Clayton Croy. “A Note on 1 Corinthians 15.1–2”. The Bible Translator. 55, no. 2: 243-246. 2004. [Discusses the function of τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν and how it is syntactically related to the context.]
DaSilva, Valdecy José. “Paul’s Concept of the Resurrection of the Body: An Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:50-58.” Thesis (M.A.R.)–Emmanuel School of Religion, 2005.
De Wet, Chris L. “A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis of Paul’s ‘Refutation’ in 1 Corinthians 15:35-49”. Ekklesiastikos Pharos. 86, no. 3: 251-260. 2004. [Paul’s ‘refutation’ in 1 Corinthians 15:35-49 is analysed utilising a socio rhetorical method. It is done to establish who his opponents were, what they believed, and on what arguments their beliefs were based. Paul’s rhetoric is also analysed and the conditions under which his presuppositions would be valid, specified. It is concluded that Paul develops Pharisaic thought, fills concepts of the mystery cults with his own content, and applies Plato’s dualism linearly to Jewish apocalyptic.]
De Wet, Chris L. “John Chrysostom’s Exegesis On The Resurrection In 1 Corinthians 15”. Neotestamentica. 45, no. 1: 92-114. 2011. [This study examines John Chrysostom’s exegesis on the resurrection in 1 Cor 15, found in homilies 38-39 on 1 Corinthians. It indicates that John Chrysostom believes in carnis resurrectio, and especially emphasizes this as amelioration against Manichaeism. He also implements an oikonomia of the resurrection, stating that there are hierarchies among resurrected bodies, differing in heavenly reward or fiery punishment. Most importantly, the resurrection functions as an important aspect for the controlling of bodies and promoting a pro-ascetic sentiment over and against the urban temptations of Antioch. It concludes with a synthesis—a discussion of key motifs in Chrysostom’s exegesis on the resurrection and its significance for a cultural historical glimpse into the ascetic mind.]
Edwards, Dennis Robert. “Apocalyptic Eschatology in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:50-57.” M.A. Thesis, Biblical studies Catholic University of America, 2003. [Compares the prophetic statements in the two passages]
Troels Engberg‐Pedersen. “A Stoic Understanding of the Pneuma and Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15”. in Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011. [This chapter develops the ontology of Paul’s notion of pneuma (‘spirit’) by analysing the cosmology that seems to be invoked in his account in 1 Corinthians 15 of the specific (ontological) shape of the resurrection body, the ‘pneumatic’ body. It appears that Paul understood the pneuma as a through and through material, bodily phenomenon. The chapter also situates Paul in relation to Graeco-Roman philosophy of his day. Two Alexandrian Jewish Hellenistic writers who were slightly earlier than Paul, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon and Philo, display a 1st century BCE/CE, incipient interest in and influence from Plato that eventually issued in 1st-2nd century ce ‘Middle Platonism’. For Paul himself, however, the basic, philosophical reference point was materialistic and monistic Stoicism rather than immaterialistic and dualistic Platonism.]
Garcilazo, Albert V. “The Denial of the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Corinthians 15: A Study of the Corinthian Dissenters and the Possible Influence of Stoicism.” Thesis (Ph. D.)–Fuller Theological Seminary, School of Theology, 2005.
Gardner, David Jason. “The Influence of Jewish Apocalyptic Literature on Paul’s View of Death in 1 Corinthians 15.” Unpublished research paper submitted in partial fulfilment of Phase One of the Ph.D. program–Dallas Theological Seminary, 2012.
Hartman, Luther K. “The Gospel in Context: A Comparison of Euangelion in 1 Corinthians 15 and Galatians.” Guided research paper (Course 5700)–Harding University Graduate School of Religion, 2006. [Compares the idea of “gospel” (Greek εὐαγγέλιον) presented in 1 Corinthians 15 with that presented in Galatians.]
Hull, Michael F. Baptism on Account of the Dead (1 Cor:15:29): An Act of Faith in the Resurrection. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. [This volume reviews and critiques the over forty different interpretations of 1 Cor 15: 29, then examines the verse anew in terms of its literary, historical, and theological contexts within the writings of Paul.]
Hultgren, Stephen. “The Origin of Paul’s Doctrine of the Two Adams in 1 Corinthians 15.45-49”. Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 25, no. 3: 343-370. 2016. [The origin of Paul’s doctrine of the two Adams in 1 Cor. 15.45-49 has been the subject of much discussion. The most commonly argued background is Philo or Alexandrian traditions. Study of Philo, however, makes it unlikely that Paul is reacting either to Philo, to Alexandrian traditions, or even to a misrepresentation of Philo. Gnosticism also does not provide a plausible background. In 1 Cor. 15.46 Paul is not reacting against an over-realized eschatology, nor is he reversing an alleged priority of ‘spiritual man’ to ‘natural man’. Paul’s main object is to answer the question of 1 Cor. 15.35: In what kind of a body are the dead raised? The closest parallels to Paul from the history of religion are found in rabbinic literature. Paul knew Palestinian exegetical traditions about a first and last Adam. His encounter with the risen Christ gave concrete form to that abstract idea.]
Jeong, Donghyun. “1 Corinthians 15:35-58: Cultural Contexts and Rhetorical Strategy of the Text.” S.T.M. Yale Divinity School 2015.
Kelly, Amy Loree. “Paul’s Hermeneutic in 1 Corinthians 15 and the Believer’s Bodily Resurrection.” Th. M. Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2013.
Kwon, Oh-Young. “Discovering the Characteristics of Collegia—Collegia Sodalicia and Collegia Tenuiorum in 1 Corinthians 8, 10 and 15”. Horizons in Biblical Theology. 32, no. 2: 166-182. 2010.[In 1 Corinthians 8, 10 and 15 Paul appears to argue against some of the Corinthian Christians who would have regarded their Christian community as analogous to a sort of voluntary collegia in the first century Greco-Roman world. Some characteristics of the collegia are exhibited in these chapters. Especially 8:1-13 and 10:1-22 contains the characteristics of collegia sodalicia, while 15:29 comprises those of collegia tenuiorum. This finding provides an alternative to the current scholarly interpretation of the Pauline description of the Corinthians’ eating food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 8:1-13 and 10:1-22) and of their engagement in baptism for (or on behalf of) the dead (1 Cor 15:29).]
Legarreta-Castillo, Felipe de Jesús. The Figure of Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15: The New Creation and Its Ethical and Social Reconfiguration. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014. [Felipe Legarreta gives careful attention to patterns of exegesis In Second-Temple Judaism and identifies, for the first time, a number of motifs by which Jews drew Ethical implications from the story of Adam and his expulsion from Eden. He then demonstrates that throughout the “Christological” passages In Romans and 1 Corinthians, Paul is taking part In a wider Jewish exegetical and Ethical discussion regarding life In the New Creation. (See Matson below for review).]
Leese, J. J. Johnson. “An exegetical study of 1 Corinthians 15:42-49: theological and historical contexts.” S.T.M. Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 2002. [The passage compares the present body with the resurrection body. The study explains numerous Greek terms.]
Lioy, Dan. “Checkmating the human drive for life : a Biblical-theological examination of Genesis 5, Ecclesiastes 1, and 1 Corinthians 15 : 50-58”. Conspectus : The Journal of the South African Theological Seminary. 2, no. 09: 1-22. 2006. [The major premise of this essay is that since the dawn of time, the human drive for life has been checkmated by death. A Biblical-theological examination of Genesis 5 and Ecclesiastes 1 indicates that despite the efforts of people both individually and collectively to extend the realms of human existence, their efforts are ultimately ambushed (in a manner of speaking) by the end of life. Moreover, while each generation appears to be making incremental strides—sometimes even laudable gains—the reality of death neutralizes these advances and in some cases entirely wipes them out. An examination of 1 Corinthians 15:50-58 informs people of faith that only in Christ can work and leisure be enjoyable, beneficial, and fulfilling.]
Marcus, Joel. “The Last Enemy 1 Corinthians 15:19-26, John 20:1-18”. The Expository Times. 118, no. 6: 287-288. 2016.
Maston, Jason. “The Figure of Adam in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15: The New Creation and its Ethical and Social Reconfiguration. By Felipe de Jesus Legarreta-Castillo.” Emerging Scholars. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2014. . Religious Studies Review. 42, no. 2: 110. 2016.[Review of Legarreta-Castillo above.]
Mitchell, Matthew W. “Reexamining the ‘Aborted Apostle’: An Exploration of Paul’s Self-Description in 1 Corinthians 15.8”. Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 25, no. 4: 469-485. 2016. [In Paul’s description of his vision of the risen Christ (1 Cor. 15.8) he refers to himself as ‘one untimely born’. The Greek word underlying this phrase literally means a ‘miscarriage’ or ‘abortion’, and presents a problem for commentators seeking to understand the precise manner in which Paul considers himself to be an abortion or miscarriage, since Paul’s vision of the risen Christ is unusual in its lateness, while an ἐκτρώμα arrives before its time. Studies of the word’s extra-biblical use, though extensive, have failed to provide an explanation for Paul’s use, often attributing it to a function of Paul’s humility or his regret over his past persecution of the church, and suggesting its difficulty can be explained away as a ‘unique’ use of the word by Paul. It seems more plausible, however, in light of the well-established semantic range of the word and its context, to understand it as a reference to the rejection of his apostolic authority as equal to that of the other apostles.]
Moore, Terri Darby. “The Mysteries, Resurrection, and 1 Corinthians 15: Comparative Methodology and Contextual Exegesis.” PhD Thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2014. [Introduction; Literature review; Methodology; Afterlife in the Eleusinian mysteries and the mysteries of Isis; The mysteries and Paul at Corinth; Summary and conclusions.]
Netchaev SA. “Pauline Anthropology According to 1 Corinthians 15:35-53.” MTh Dissertation, University of South Africa, 2000.
Ozanne, Charles. If There Is No Resurrection of the Dead … What Then?: (an Exposition of 1 Corinthians 15). Upper Basildon, Reading: The Open Bible Trust, 2013. [Argues that the resurrection is the most distinctive, attractive, and far-reaching doctrine that Christians believe. Though not exclusively Christian, since both Judaism and Islam have a doctrine of resurrection of their own, it is nevertheless the most distinctive of all Christian beliefs, and certainly the founder of no other religion claims to have risen from the dead. It is the most attractive because it holds out the promise of eternal life on the other side of the grave. And it is the most far-reaching because the resurrection life goes on for ever and ever! That is why 1 Corinthians 15 is such an important chapter. This chapter tackles the whole subject of resurrection against the backdrop of some who denied or doubted there was any such thing. To the Greek way of thinking bodily resurrection was a ludicrous idea, and there were Jews also, the Sadducees in particular (Acts 23:8), who entertained the same scepticism.]
Patrick, James E. “Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: in 1 Corinthians 15.29”. New Testament Studies. 52, no. 01: 71. 2006. [Baptism in the Corinthian church was an expression of allegiance to honour not only Christ but also the ‘patron’ apostle in whose testimony the convert had believed (1 Cor 1.12–17). Some apostles known to the Corinthians had died (cf. 15.6), yet their testimony lived on and bore fruit in Corinth, resulting in baptism for the honouring of the dead apostles. In the context of 15.20–34 Paul uses this practice to expose the hypocrisy of those who deny the resurrection and yet seek to honour apostles who depend on the resurrection for receiving honour, as do Christ and God the Father.]
Price, Robert M., and Jeffery Jay Lowder. The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 2005. [A collection of essays which raise issues and concerns about the claims of late twentieth century Christian apologists who accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ as historical fact. The Empty Tomb scrutinizes the claims of leading Christian apologists and critiques their view of the resurrection as the best historical explanation.]
Schmisek, Brian J. “The Spiritual Body: Paul’s Use of Sōma Pneumatikon in 1 Corinthians 15:44.” Thesis (Ph. D.–Biblical Studies)–Catholic University of America, 2002. [σῶμα πνευματικόν is often translated “spiritual body” and refers to the resurrection body.]
Schmisek, Brian. “The “Spiritual Body” As Oxymoron in 1 Corinthians 15:44”. Biblical Theology Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture. 45, no. 4: 230-238. 2015.
Scholer, John M. “1 Corinthians 15:1–11”. Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. 70, no. 4: 475-477.2016. [The passage looks backward over behaviours that contradict the truth of the gospel and also serves as an introduction for Paul’s response to those in Corinth who are denying the resurrection of the dead.]
Seebarran, Ronald Richard. “1 Corinthians 15:12: The Corinthian Controversy Over the Resurrection of the Dead.” Th. M. Thesis, Wycliffe College Ottawa: Library and Archives Canada = Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, 2010.
Smith, Mitzi J. “1 Corinthians 15:12–20”. Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. 67, no. 3: 287-289. 2013.
Thiessen, J. “Firstfruits and the Day of Christ’s Resurrection: An Examination of the Relationship between the “Third Day” in 1 Corinthians 15:4 and the “Firstfruit” in 1 Corinthians 15:20″. Neotestamentica. 46: 379-393. 2012. [Shows the logical connection Paul makes between the feast of firstfruits and Christ’s resurrection on the third day.]
Verheyden, Jozef, Andreas Merkt, Tobias Niklas, and Meinolf Vielberg. If Christ has not been raised …: studies on the reception of the resurrection stories and the belief in the resurrection in the early church. Göttingen [Germany] ; Bristol, CT, U.S.A. : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. 2016.
Vlachos, Chris Alex. “Law, Sin, and Death: An Edenic Triad? An Examination with Reference to 1 Corinthians 15:56”. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 47, no. 2: 277-298. 2003.
Vlachos, Chris Alex. “Law and Sin: An Edenic Nexus? : a Study with Reference to 1 Corinthians 15:56 and the Catalytic Operation of the Law.” Ph. D. Dissertation, Wheaton College 2006. [The present study weighs attempts to explain the presence of 15:56 in the epistle and argues that the law-critical epigram contained there is contextually associated with the Adamic allusions in 15:21-22, 45-49, immediately stimulated by the Adamic nexus of sin and death in 15:56a, and thematically related to the edenic contexts of Romans 5 and 7.]
Voelz, Richard W. “1 Corinthians 15:35–58”. Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. 72, no. 1: 58-60. 2017.
Walker, W. O. “1 Corinthians 15:29-34 As a Non-Pauline Interpolation”. Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 69, no. 1: 84-103. 2007. [Suggests that this passage does not fit the logic of 1 Corinthians 15, and therefore must have been added by someone other than Paul.]
Ware James. “Paul’s Understanding of the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:36-54”. Journal of Biblical Literature. 133, no. 4: 809-835. 2014. [The article begins with the chapter’s history of interpretation, which is generally unfamiliar to NT scholars but provides crucial perspective on the current discussion. The article then argues that the specific way in which Paul shapes his exposition has crucial implications for his understanding of the nature of the resurrection event. In concert with this structural analysis, the article also seeks to advance scholarly discussion of two much-debated elements of Paul’s thought in the passage, providing a fresh discussion of the nature of the “change” that Paul envisions in 15:51–52, and an analysis of Paul’s description of the risen body as a σῶμα πνευματικόν in 15:44.]
Wasserman, Emma. “Gentile Gods at the Eschaton: A Reconsideration of Paul’s “Principalities and Powers” in 1 Corinthians 15″. Journal of Biblical Literature. 136, no. 3: 727-746. 2017. [This article argues that Paul’s “principalities and powers” in 1 Cor 15:23–24 are best understood as a subordinate host of gentile gods. Like texts such as Isa 24, the Book of the Watchers, the Animal Apocalypse of Enoch, and Dan 10, Paul treats gentile gods as belonging to the lower ranks of the divine order and envisions a time when they will be judged, punished, or destroyed.]
Wegener, M. I. “The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Corinthians 15”. Currents in Theology and Mission. 31, no. 6: 438-455. 2004. [The purpose of this study is to identify more clearly the rhetorical outline and strategy of 1 Corinthians 15 and to clarify more precisely its likely impact on Paul’s auditors as well as its potential impact on modern readers.]
White, Joel R. “Christ, the Firstfruits: The Old Testament Background of [Aparchē] in 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 and Its Function in Paul’s Argument.” Th. M. Thesis, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, Mass. 2000. [Traces the idea of firstfruits (Greek ἀπαρχὴ) from its Old Testament beginnings to its application in 1 Corinthians 15:20]
White, Joel R. “Recent Challenges to the Communis Opinio on 1 Corinthians 15.29”. Currents in Biblical Research. 10, no. 3: 379-395. 2012. [The conventional interpretation of 1 Cor. 15.29, according to which the phrase οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν (generally translated as ‘those baptized on behalf of the dead’) refers to vicarious baptisms for the dead, still enjoys majority support even though it is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons. Older minority positions have failed to offer convincing alternatives. In the last 15 years, however, several scholarly works have been published, all which dispute the majority position and are similar to each other in that they posit a causal nuance for the preposition hyper and take the literary context of this verse more seriously. Together they point to a possible way forward in the discussion of this enigmatic text.]
Williams, Guy, “An Apocalyptic and Magical Interpretation of Paul’s Beast Fight in Ephesus (1 Corinthians 15: 32)”. Journal of Theological Studies. 57, no. 1: 42-56. 2006. [This article argues that Paul’s mention of a fight with ‘wild animals’ during his time in Ephesus (1 Cor. 15:32) should be understood as a reference to the evil spirits, or ‘beasts’, at work in the demon-possessed, sorcerers, and idolaters of the city. Two major arguments are given. First, in Jewish apocalyptic circles, θηρίον was commonly used in reference to evil spirits and supernatural monsters. This connects with the magical tendency of referring to daimones as wild animals, a practice that Paul may well have encountered in Ephesus. Secondly, the book of Acts remembers Paul’s time in Ephesus as characterized by exorcisms, magical rivalries, and conflict with idolatry—an account that fits with other historical information. The early reception of the verse is also discussed, with particular attention being paid to the interpretation of Origen.]
Wilson, Andrew. “The Strongest Argument for Universalism in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28”. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 59, no. 4: 805-812. 2016. [Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:22 that ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται has frequently prompted the suggestion that Paul is a universalist: that is, Paul teaches here that all humans will, eventually, be reconciled to God and raised with Christ. However, despite being the most well-known argument, this is actually only one of four indications that Paul holds to universalism in this paragraph, to which interpreters have attributed different levels of weight—and arguably, it is not even the strongest. In this paper we will briefly summarise and critique three of them, and then engage in more detail with the most compelling argument, namely that the defeat of death makes it hard to imagine an unresurrected humanity continuing into eternity.]
Yagow, David Charles. “The Gospel as formulated in the apostolic tradition: an exegetical examination of I Corinthians 15:1-11.” B.D. Thesis, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 2008. [Text includes words and phrases in German and Greek.]
You are invited to post further comments on these studies, or to recommend the addition of others.