FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-12-2013, 06:11 AM   #21
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kesler View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Interesting, the empty tomb could be a misunderstanding like this. But we still have the matter of Paul knowing people first hand that claimed to have witnessed the resurrected.
The key word is "claimed." If we accept the biblical account that there really was an empty tomb, this could eventually morph into actually "appearances."
I having trouble imagining how this morphing would take place.

Quote:
That the gospels can't get straight if the first alleged appearance occurred in Jerusalem (Luke/Acts, John 20, and the "long ending" of Mark) or Galilee (Matthew, Mark 14:28 and implied in 16:7, and John 21) casts even more doubt that such a thing actually happened.
We can set up two scenarios:
1. There were actual appearances.
This would mean either that people saw someone who looked like Jesus, or that Jesus were never dead.

2. There were never any appearances.
This would mean among other tings that Peter and James and others had been either delusional or lying to Paul.
Cesc is offline  
Old 05-12-2013, 10:40 AM   #22
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
... But we still have the matter of Paul knowing people first hand that claimed to have witnessed the resurrected.
Even if you accept Paul's account that he met Peter (or Cephas) and James and John, Paul does not claim that these people told him that they saw the resurrected Jesus - just they they were the pillars of the Jerusalem Church, and he had disputes with them over table fellowship with gentiles and circumcision.

In another unrelated passage, Paul (or someone forging part of his letter) says that Jesus "appeared" to Peter and James, but the word he used is the same word that Paul uses to say that Jesus appeared to Paul himself, so this likely refers to a spiritual appearance, not a resurrection of the body.

You have to go the gospels to get an account of the risen Jesus appearing in bodily form to Peter and other disciples (but not James!). But these gospels accounts are so contradictory that there is no reason to take them as literal history.

There's no need to come up with convoluted explanations for ancient stories that are probably fictional.

There is a school of Protestant Rationalism that Robert M. Price likes to refer to. Protestant Rationalists assume that everything in the gospels actually happened as written, but that there is a naturalistic explanation for the story. This is where you get hypotheses such as the "swoon theory" - that Jesus didn't die on the cross, but only appeared to be dead, and then revived in the tomb and left. Or that he had a twin separated at birth, and people later saw the twin.

These might be interesting mental exercises in imagination, but they ignore the most likely explanation - that the NT contains a hefty dose of theological fiction or allegory.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-12-2013, 12:13 PM   #23
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 322
Default

Some good points, Toto. The word in question is the verb οραω in passive, to be seen or to appear to somebody in dative. This construction is indeed usual with spiritual appearances. In Luke 24:34 this construction is used, but the tomb is still empty. A spiritual resurrection can also include that the body resurrects, but in a different state.

Paul says he met Peter (or Cephas) and James, and he says Jesus appeared to them. I don't see any reason to believe that Paul is not telling the truth concerning him meeting them. I also don't see much reason to doubt that Paul is the author of 1 Cor 15. Therefore I think it's reasonable to conclude that Paul has it from somewhere that Peter and James had seen the resurrected, and likely from themselves directly.
Cesc is offline  
Old 05-12-2013, 12:52 PM   #24
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
...

Paul says he met Peter (or Cephas) and James, and he says Jesus appeared to them.
But not in the same passage.

Quote:
I don't see any reason to believe that Paul is not telling the truth concerning him meeting them.
Personal incredulity?

Some reasons to question the authorship of Galatians is the handiest reference - it links to Deterings' Fabricated Paul (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Also

Did Paul Write Galatians?

Quote:
I also don't see much reason to doubt that Paul is the author of 1 Cor 15.
Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation should give you a few reasons.

But even if Paul wrote that section, it seems to be universally agreed that Paul is just passing on a credal statement. Paul never writes about how Cephas told him about that Easter morning, and he never treats Peter as someone entitled to the respect that would be due someone who saw the risen Jesus.

Quote:
Therefore I think it's reasonable to conclude that Paul has it from somewhere that Peter and James had seen the resurrected, and likely from themselves directly.
It might be true, but it is more of a speculative story than it is anything required by the available evidence, even if you treat that evidence with extreme charity (or gullibility.)
Toto is offline  
Old 05-12-2013, 12:52 PM   #25
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Interesting, the empty tomb could be a misunderstanding like this. But we still have the matter of Paul knowing people first hand that claimed to have witnessed the resurrected.
The Pauline writer claimed to have witnessed the resurrected Jesus so there could not have been any mis-understanding.

Paul claimed he was last to see the Resurrected Jesus.

But again, there is the same problem that has plagued the Pauline writer.

No author of the Canon attested that Paul saw the resurrected Jesus.

The author of Acts claimed or implied Paul did NOT see the resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writer MUST have or most likely HEARD or read about the Belief of the Resurrection.

The Pauline writer could not be the earliest witness of the Belief of the Resurrection.

Paul was LAST even in the Canon of the Jesus cult.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8 KJV
Quote:
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received , how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried , and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep .

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles


And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
The Pauline writer has admitted that he was NOT our earliest witness for the Belief of the Resurrection.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-12-2013, 01:08 PM   #26
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Valdebernardo
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Can anybody think of scenarios (within the HJ paradigm) of how the idea of Jesus’ historical resurrection was conceived?
One scenario seems simple to me: people like good endings. If you tell a story that ends when the hero dies, be it real or fictional, someone (from Hollywood or elsewhere) will change the ending and make a more profitable film... er, story.
Gorit Maqueda is offline  
Old 05-12-2013, 01:36 PM   #27
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
...

Paul says he met Peter (or Cephas) and James, and he says Jesus appeared to them.
But not in the same passage.
It doesn't matter if Paul is indeed the author of both passages. If.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't see any reason to believe that Paul is not telling the truth concerning him meeting them.
Personal incredulity?
Paul's credulity must be carefully assessed at every word of course, since he is obviously a master of rhetoric and manipulation and motivated by passionate faith. In this case I don't see reason to doubt that he have met them.

Of course, if Paul is not even the author of Gal. that changes everything, and then it's a whole different discussion. But I don't subscribe to the radical criticism of Detering, and I feel somewhat convinced that Gal. is a Pauline letter (and that Paul actually existed).

Quote:
Quote:
I also don't see much reason to doubt that Paul is the author of 1 Cor 15.
Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation should give you a few reasons.

But even if Paul wrote that section, it seems to be universally agreed that Paul is just passing on a credal statement. Paul never writes about how Cephas told him about that Easter morning, and he never treats Peter as someone entitled to the respect that would be due someone who saw the risen Jesus.
I'm also aware of the reasons to suspect this is an interpolation, but I don't think so myself. Even if he is passing on credal tradition, he still writes that Jesus appeared to Peter. But if you don't believe he wrote Gal. then it changes the whole picture of this passage.
That he doesn't treat Peter that way is interesting, I think. How do you mean?



Quote:
Quote:
Therefore I think it's reasonable to conclude that Paul has it from somewhere that Peter and James had seen the resurrected, and likely from themselves directly.
It might be true, but it is more of a speculative story than it is anything required by the available evidence, even if you treat that evidence with extreme charity (or gullibility.)
I don't think it's treating the evidence with extreme charity to take Gal. and 1 Cor 15 as genuine Pauline.
Cesc is offline  
Old 05-12-2013, 01:39 PM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc

Can anybody think of scenarios (within the HJ paradigm) of how the idea of Jesus’ historical resurrection was conceived?
The gospel's are 'prophecy fulfillment texts', with a highly imaginative narrative constructed entirely around selected snippets of OT texts, and material culled from reports on the lives and miracles of other famous people, as well as old midrashim sayings. The gaps being filled in and connected with fabricated situations and narrated 'conversations'.

The coming of the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead were old themes, and with those troubled times, a hot commodity among apocalyptic groups.
A composition that suggested the Messiah had indeed came and wrought the promised salvation of God's 'chosen ones' and was now ruling from heaven was what many people wanted to hear. And once it was suggested, the ball was rolling, with multiple authors and sects coming up with their variation on the theme.
I like this scenario. Of course the pivot point is the suggestion part. And I could see how somebody would construct the story in 'the righteous man suffering' pattern. But once again I ask, why the resurrection?

We have the letters of a man, Paul, who personally knew people that claimed to have seen this resurrected messiah in a very real historical understanding. Were they lying to him? Couldn't the messiah just have died and gone straight to heaven to the right side of God's throne? Why the resurrection?
Why the resurrection? If you search the OT you will not find the word 'resurrection' or 'resurrect' in the common English versions.
But it is not as though the concept is missing in those texts, the phrase 'I will raise up' or to 'stand' up, are from the Hebrew root words quwm and amad used in contexts where they signify a raising up or restanding from the dead. (see Isa 49:6, 51:17, 61:5, Hsa 6:2, Job 19:25, Dan 12:1-2, 12:13) and more. (it is a matter of interpretation of the Hebrew)

There is also the matter of the 'intertestamental' apocryphical writings, and those of various Jewish sectarians of the period, most of whom devoutly believed in a coming messiah and the bodily resurrection of the dead.
The messiah by many being perceived as the one that would be the 'Firstfruits (of the harvest) of them that slept', then the long growing season, and finally culmulating in the Great Harvest ingathering at the end of the age, when all men are to be resurrected ('havested')

The NT is just an adaption of the these Scriptural themes and popular messianic tropes and expectations.
And thus quite natural (to some) that the messiah would have to die first, so that he could be that first one to be 'raised up' from the dead, 'the Firstfruits' of the many to come.

'Paul' is a piker, no one 'lied' to him because there was no aunthentic 'Paul'.
'Paul' is nothing more than a late church fabricated talking head.

'Paul', the Book of Acts, and 'Pauline Epistles' are a late 2nd century church fabricated impositions upon the basic Gospel story.


.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-12-2013, 02:37 PM   #29
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
...

Paul's credulity must be carefully assessed at every word of course, since he is obviously a master of rhetoric and manipulation and motivated by passionate faith. In this case I don't see reason to doubt that he have met them.
"Paul" is obviously a master of rhetoric and spin doctoring who is a Jew to the Jews and something else to the gentiles - but you don't see a reasons to doubt him? What would it take?

Quote:
Of course, if Paul is not even the author of Gal. that changes everything, and then it's a whole different discussion. But I don't subscribe to the radical criticism of Detering, and I feel somewhat convinced that Gal. is a Pauline letter (and that Paul actually existed).
What sort of evidence are you looking for?

Quote:
I'm also aware of the reasons to suspect this is an interpolation, but I don't think so myself. Even if he is passing on credal tradition, he still writes that Jesus appeared to Peter.
Or Cephas? Are they the same?
Quote:
...
That he doesn't treat Peter that way is interesting, I think. How do you mean?
The credal statement of 1 Cor 15 is obviously meant to elevate Peter - but Paul speaks as if James is the head honcho, Peter has to clean up his act when agents of James come to spy on him, and Paul obviously disapproves of Peter giving up table fellowship with the non-kosher. Is this any way to treat the representative on earth who first saw the risen savior?

Quote:
Quote:

It might be true, but it is more of a speculative story than it is anything required by the available evidence, even if you treat that evidence with extreme charity (or gullibility.)
I don't think it's treating the evidence with extreme charity to take Gal. and 1 Cor 15 as genuine Pauline.
What are your criteria for authenticity?
Toto is offline  
Old 05-12-2013, 02:46 PM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 1,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kesler View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Interesting, the empty tomb could be a misunderstanding like this. But we still have the matter of Paul knowing people first hand that claimed to have witnessed the resurrected.
The key word is "claimed." If we accept the biblical account that there really was an empty tomb, this could eventually morph into actually "appearances."
I having trouble imagining how this morphing would take place.
If the disciples were in what we would call an altered state of consciousness--caused by grief, lack of sleep, fasting, or whatever--then the report of an empty tomb could effect "appearances" to some of Jesus' followers. Is this what happened? I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cesc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kesler View Post
That the gospels can't get straight if the first alleged appearance occurred in Jerusalem (Luke/Acts, John 20, and the "long ending" of Mark) or Galilee (Matthew, Mark 14:28 and implied in 16:7, and John 21) casts even more doubt that such a thing actually happened.
We can set up two scenarios:
1. There were actual appearances.
This would mean either that people saw someone who looked like Jesus, or that Jesus were never dead.

2. There were never any appearances.
This would mean among other tings that Peter and James and others had been either delusional or lying to Paul.
I think that delusional is a little harsh. The disciples could have sincerely believed that they saw Jesus--even that they were supposed to "see" him in the way that they did. Again, this is all conjecture, but you asked for possibilities. The problem is that if you are going to concede that there really was an empty tomb, really were Jesus-sightings, etc., why stop there? Why not accept that Jesus really rose from the dead, since the Bible claims this is true also?
John Kesler is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:26 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.