Rick Sumner

You miss the argument (which isn't unique to Strobel), though you somewhat ironically catch it in the converse below. Price argues that it's a post-Pauline insertion. Strobel argues that it's a pre-Pauline creed. Strobel is a far cry from unique in this regard, and his reasoning for thinking it pre-Pauline is pretty self-explanatory, Paul shared what he received (15.3), and "I or they, so do we preach" (15.11). When Paul converted has nothing to do with this dating of the creedal confession.

Placing it at 22 months after the resurrection is sketchy. Placing it as pre-Pauline is as mainstream as it gets. You'd find few commentators who would disagree.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Malachi151

See my recent post about this on the Randi forum:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...6&postcount=85

Read the posts before and after for further explanation.

Toto

New Atheist: you can only edit posts for about 2 hours.

It does appear that New Atheist is reading Strobel's The Case for Christ (or via: amazon.co.uk). His quote is from p. 35, citing Craig Blomberg, author of The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Investigative journalism at its best.

I'll wait for NA to comment on a merge.

Diogenes the Cynic

I didn't miss the argument for Strobel's dating of Paul's conversion, it wasn't presented. That Strobel was arguing it as pre-Pauline was self-evident. What I was asking for was Strobel's arugment for Paul having learned the kerygma within two years of the crucifixion.

Paul claims that he "received" his info from Jesus, not from other people, so there the possibility that his "creed" is his own invention cannot be ruled out.

I wasn't advocating in favor of Price's interpolation argument, just suggesting that it might be amusing to throw at an apologetics prof. The kerygma probably (though not certainly) is pre-Pauline.

Incidentally, if there was no crucifixion, then it doesn't matter when Paul learned this little creed.

Rick Sumner

Exactly. Which is still the problem. He doesn't claim that Paul learned it then, he claims that it existed then.

I'm not offering a comment one way or the other, simply pointing out the self-evidence of Strobel's position, which you seem to have misunderstood.

It doesn't matter when Paul learned it either way, because it's not the point being made.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

xrey

A Christian friend talked me into reading Strobel's other book, The Case For Faith, and my notes were about 15 pages!

I think it's a massive conspiracy to get all non-theists to waste their collective time.

Steven Carr

Early Christian creeds , such as in Romans 1 and Philippians 3 spectacularly fail to mention any resurrected Jesus walking the earth in a physical body.

And, as pointed out many times, converts to Jesus-worship in Corinth scoffed at the idea that God would choose to raise a corpse.

Diogenes the Cynic

But his basis for saying it existed then is that Paul (Strobel believes) was converted, i.e. learned it then.
I didn't misunderstand anything. That Strobel thinks the kerygma existed before Paul's conversion was obvious to me. However, there is still a question of how long it existed before Paul's conversion and how much time elapsed between the crucifixion and Paul's cnversion. the earlier he can date Paul's conversion, the closer to the crucifixion he believes he can date the kerygma. All of that went without saying. What i was questioning was how Strobel arrived at his date for Paul's conversion.
It kind of does, because he's attempting to use Paul's conversion to establish a terminus ad quem for the kerygma.

Rick Sumner

With apologies, my head's clearly in the clouds for missing the obvious. You're of course correct.

For anyone interested, here's what Strobel says:

[citing Blomberg]"[Paul's] first meeting with the apostles would have been about AD 35 [which Blomberg places as five years after the resurrection, not two years] At some point along there, Paul was given this creed. . .a good case can be made that Christian belief in the resurrection, though not yet written down, can be dated to within two years of that very event

Regards,
Rick Sumner

jakejonesiv

Hi Blackwater,

This is an interesting question.

In addition to the article, Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation, Robert Price also discusses some of the issues in Review of Gary R. Habermas’s “The Resurrection Appearances of Jesus.” This article will probably help you evaluate the overall approach of the instructor.

Do not miss TRADITION ODER INTERPOLATION?
ANTIMARCIONITISCHE INTERPOLATIONEN IN 1 KOR 15, 1-11 by Hermann Detering. IMO, this is really the best review of the evidence available, if you can make it through the German.

Here, in English, is a reconstruction of the earliest text.

"Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
I delivered to you first that Christ died, and was buried, and that he rose again the third day. So we preach and so you believe.
If it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised."

Good luck with your instuctor, but watch your back! Some people become really viscious when you challenge their faith.

Jake Jones IV