1 Corinthians 15:5

The two first appearances mentioned here, that to Peter in the course of the day of the resurrection, and that to the Twelve on the evening of the same day, are also mentioned by Luke (Luke 24:34-36); the second only by John 20:19 seq. Paul omits that to the two disciples going to Emmaus described in detail by Luke, and that to Mary Magdalene related by John. The reason no doubt is, that neither those two disciples, nor Mary, were of the number of the witnesses expressly chosen by the Lord.

The term ὤφθη may signify was seen, or appeared (in vision); in each case the context must decide. In this passage, after the word: He was raised (1 Corinthians 15:4), the choice is not doubtful; it can only designate, according to the writer's view, a bodily appearance. This is also plain from the very object of this whole enumeration of apostolic testimonies. What is St. Paul's aim? To prove our bodily resurrection. Now it is impossible to understand how a simple vision, a purely spiritual appearance of the Lord, could serve to demonstrate our bodily resurrection. The appearance to Peter, mentioned here and in the passage of Luke, is one of the traits which reveals the close relationship between Paul's tradition and the third Gospel.

The εἶτα, then, of the Vatic. and the Byz., separates the two facts less than the ἔπειτα, afterwards, of the Sinaït. and the Alex. The former reading is the better; for the appearing to the Twelve was much more closely connected with that to Peter than those which follow; comp. Luke 24:35-36. With greater reason must we set aside the reading of the Greco-Lats.: καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα, and after these things. The same MSS. read τοῖς ἕνδεκα, to the eleven, instead of τοῖς δώδεκα, to the twelve. This reading is either due to the reflection that Judas was wanting on that occasion, or it is borrowed from Luke 24:33. The Twelve were still the Twelve, notwithstanding the absence of one or even two of them (Thomas). For the term calls up above all the official character which had been impressed on them at the time of their election. Holsten suspects the authenticity of the last words, τοῖς δώδεκα, because of the difficulty of explaining their relation to the end of 1 Corinthians 15:7 (see on this passage). But notwithstanding the Greco-Latin variant (τοῖς ἕνδεκα), they are not really wanting in any document.

Thus far all was dependent on the verb παρέδωκα, I delivered unto you. But from this point the sentence breaks off, and the following appearances are stated in the form of independent propositions. Should we infer, with Heinrici, that Paul had not spoken at Corinth of the facts afterwards mentioned on the occasion of his first preaching? In any case that would not apply to the appearance mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:8. Holsten thinks that Paul no longer remembered the limit between the appearances which he had mentioned and those he had omitted. But this even is unnecessary. He may very well have broken the construction in order to prevent the sentence from dragging.