andrewcriddle

I'm replying to this as Johnny requested but I'm not sure just what the central point at issue is.

IMO Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 provides good evidence that the Apostles (including Paul) claimed to have met the risen Jesus in his resurrection body.

I agree that it is not clear how far these experiences resembled the resurrection appearances described in the canonical Gospels.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

Paul did not claim that he met Jesus in his resurrection body. He only said that he heard a voice, and since he had never heard Jesus speak, he couldn't possibly have identified Jesus' voice.

Robert Price believes that there is good evidence that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is an interpolation, and he is not alone. At the very least the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses is suspect. It isn't mentioned in the Gospels or anywhere else in the New Testament, and the texts say that the truth should be confirmed by two or three witnesses.

Claims made and claims defended are two entirely different matters. Any writer can claim anything that he wants to claim. History is replete with religious claims. How many disciples were still alive when the book of Mark was released around 70 A.D., if that date is reasonably accurate, and what did they say about Mark's claims? How many records are there of interviews of a good number of the surviving eyewitnesses?

If Paul did make the claim of the 500 eyewitness, did he get away with it to any great extent? There is in fact no evidence that he did.

Diogenes the Cynic

First, the claims of Paul still do not represent first hand testimony from the apostles themselves. Strictly speaking, just because Paul claimed that Christ "appeared" to Cephas et al doesn't mean that Cephas and co. made that claim.

Secondly, it is far from clear what Paul meant by "appeared." He does not mention the empty tomb or give other details which would indicate that he was talking about a physical appearance rather than a spiritual one or a hallucination like his own. The fact that he does not distinguish between Jesus' appearance to the apostles and to himself is not helpful in establishing that he intended to assert physicality in the manner of the Gospels.

There is also the issue of his contradictions with the gospel accounts. He asserts that Christ appeared first to Cephas but the gospels say that it was Mary Magdalene. Plus what did he mean by "the twelve?" Who were they? Did Paul's "twelve" include Judas? And why does he mention the twelve seprately from "all the apostles?"

Paul's appearance formula in 1 Corinthians is simply too vague and problematic to count it as any kind of solid evidence for apostolic claims of a physical resurrection in the first century, and that's without even taking into account the possibility of interpolation (or even flat out lying by Paul. From a purely methodological standpoin, it can't be ruled out).

Johnny Skeptic

Diogenes, 1 Corinthians 15:4-5 say "And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve." Unless you have some other evidence, Christians will tell you that since the testimonies of women were not considered to be reliable, Paul didn't mention Mary Magdalene.

Peter Kirby

Did it get more reliable by the time the evangelists wrote? (I know this isn't your argument.)

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Johnny Skeptic

Which evengelists are you referring to?

Peter Kirby

Primarily Matthew and John, which gospels record appearances to women.

best,
Peter Kirby

Johnny Skeptic

As Diogenes said, "First, the claims of Paul still do not represent first hand testimony from the apostles themselves. Strictly speaking, just because Paul claimed that Christ 'appeared' to Cephas et al doesn't mean that Cephas and co. made that claim."

I will add to what Diogenes said by saying that there is not even reasonable proof that Paul got his evidence third hand or fourth hand.

Peter Kirby

We're talking past each other. I was addressing the apologist argument about why Paul didn't quote the (alleged) appearance to Mary Magdalene.

Diogenes the Cynic

Johnny. Peter was just addressing the apologist argument about why Paul did not mention female witnesses to the resurrection. If they say it's because women weren't taken seriously as witnesses, then why do the gospels mention them? He was asking if anything changed about attitudes towards women between Paul and the evangelists (btw, "evangelists" is sometimes a term used to refer to the authors of the gospels. Apologies if I'm telling you something you already know, but I got the feeling you were slightly confused by Peter's use of the term).

As far as I know, attitudes towards women did not change significantly between 50 and 80 CE in the Hellenistic world. I think, if anything, that the dismissal of women as credible witnesses is being rather overstated by people who need an ad hoc explanation for the absence of women in Paul's appearance account (and to be fair, I'm not convinced that Doherty's argument for interpolation isn't just as ad hoc).