Diogenes the Cynic

That's also not something Paul could have been referring to because it's not something that actually happened or people who actually existed. Paul didn't even know about an empty tomb, much less 500 non-canonical guards.

spin

Which is the point. Acts of Pilate preserves a tradition, whose age we don't know, but it appears to be post-gospel, thus post-Pauline. 500 soldiers witness the resurrection. This is consistent with 1 Cor 15:3-11 being an interpolation. But you've been through this before.

aa5874

You don't even know when Paul existed. You appear to have NO interest in the evidence that shows the Paul writer is surrounded and inundated with questionable sources and forgeries.

You do NOT appear to be serious.

spin

Coming back to this, it should be noted that the word αναστασις (rising up = resurrection) had a physical connotation at the time of Paul. The verb is found in LXX Gen 24:61 where Rebekah arose, the noun in Lam 3:63, which talks of sitting down and rising up. The noun in Lk 2:34 and the verb in 4:39 both indicate people rising up to go somewhere. In Heb 11:35 the women receiving their dead through resurrection can only be perceived as physical.

So both before and after Paul αναστασις indicated a physical event. I see no evidence that his use of the word has anything other than a physical connotation.

Diogenes the Cynic

This is completely circular. It is consistent (maybe) with Pil. knowing of 1 Cor (which it should,since Pil. is 4th Century), but it's not even a given that the author of the Acta Pilati is alluding to Paul's 500. Just because that number is the same doesn't mean he's necessarily intending to reference 1 Cor. Paul does not give an indication that the 500 were Roman soldiers, and more significantly, Paul's 500 appearance is penultimate in his chronology while Pil. would have to place it first. Furthermore, the author of Pil. is clearly referencing Matthew here (the only Evangelist who puts guards at the tomb), so there's no reason to think it has anything to do with Paul's 500.

Diogenes the Cynic

Well, there is the fact that he adamantly denies the very possibility of a physical resurrection and calls people idiots for believing in it.

Diogenes the Cynic

I mean Paul as the Pauline writer, the same as I say "Mark" and "Luke," and "Homer."

spin

Weird idea of circularity. I'm using the gospels as a marker. If it exists after the gospels (Acts of Pilate) but not in the gospels, it suggests that it is more recent than the gospels. We don't expect flip-flopping traditions. (This is related to the thought involved in lectio difficilior.)

?

spin

Perhaps you are relying too much on the translation.

Will Wiley

You are missing a crucial point here though, Heb 11:35

Obviously the better resurrection is contrasted with your physical one