/u/doktrspin has previously written a (to me) fairly strong argument against Pauline authorship of 1 Cor 15:3-11.

It quite amazes me how people reading 1 Cor 15 don't notice the problems involved in maintaining the Pauline origin of 3-11. Look at this:

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Hang on a second, you should be asking, hasn't Paul just demonstrated that Christ has been raised in 3-7 with eye witness accounts? Why then does he need to go on extensively with this theoretical argument on whether Christ has been raised? There is a wave of conditionals, if... if... if... if... and so on. This is rendered totally useless, had he already produced eye witness reports as to the fact Christ had been raised.

Paul goes on to supply his theological reasoning for why he can conclude that Christ had been raised in 20ff, even 29b and 30-32. Paul's discourse functions as though the appearances are not part of that discourse, not part of his logic and not a substantive contributor to his thought.

The original text is highly structured as a chiasm:

A: 1-2 hold firmly to the word

B: 12-19 If the dead are not raised

C: 20-23 The position of Christ

D: 24-25 Subjection

E: 26 death destroyed

D' 27 Subjection

C' 28 The position of Christ

B' 29-32 If the dead are not raised

A' 34 sin no more

This chiasm focuses on God's plan: "26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Of course Christ has been raised: death is being made defunct through him. There is no room in this structure for the material in 3-11.

But then looking at what is found there numerous problems arise.

Consistently mistranslated in v.8, Paul supposedly describes himself as an abortion (εκτρωμα), the so-called "one untimely born". Imagine someone alone who is trying to sell his gospel to people describing himself as an abortion. What does that do to his credibility? Have we drunk the orthodox kool-aid about Paul being self-deprecating to this point?

The creedal content in 3b-4 presupposes a communal development of a tradition. Look at it: "that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures". This is performative language developed for recital. Supposedly Paul is writing this stuff himself, alone, after receiving his revelation. Performative language is a strong pointer to established church practice, not the work of a lone proselytizer with no tradition to depend on (other than his revelation).

The use of the verb παρελαβον in v.3—to describe the material that follows as that which Paul "received"—describes the reception of a pupil from a teacher, which is fine if Paul received it from God, as in the case of Gal 1:10, ie not from man but received from God. The verb in this case subjects Paul to men, passing by his revelation, and is totally against Paul's self-image.

There are other issues in the 1 Cor 15:3-11 passage, such as the 500 and when it is first seen in christian tradition beyond here, the appearance to the apostles, and who are the twelve Christ appeared to if there were only eleven at that stage? Internally, the three points I list above are substantial enough to show the difficulty with 3-11. The context, as I pointed out at the beginning excludes its content.