Freethought & Rationalism Archive

02-16-2004, 12:08 PM

Hey! I'm just curious as to what explanations exist - be they evangelical or not - as to why the appearance (or "alleged appearance") of the resurrected Jesus to over 500 people is not mentioned in any of the gospels.

Thanks,

Kevin

Toto · 02-16-2004, 12:42 PM

Uh - because it was an obvious fiction, inserted into Paul's letter after Paul wrote it, probably after the gospels were written?

Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 As a Post-Pauline Interpolation by Robert Price {scroll down to The 500 Bretheren for a discussion of various theories.}

Quote:

I judge the very notion of a resurrection appearance to 500 at one time to be a late piece of apocrypha, reminiscent of the extravagances of the Acts of Pilate. If the claim of 500 witnesses were early tradition, can anyone explain its total absence from the gospel tradition?

Atticus_Finch · 02-16-2004, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Uh - because it was an obvious fiction, inserted into Paul's letter after Paul wrote it, probably after the gospels were written?

Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 As a Post-Pauline Interpolation by Robert Price {scroll down to The 500 Bretheren for a discussion of various theories.}

I am curious, upon what basis do you assert that the passage was a later insertion into Paul's letter? Is there any basis from the language or are you merely speculating based on the absence of the account in the gospels?

Regards,

Finch

Toto · 02-16-2004, 02:49 PM

It is not I who asserts it, it is Biblical scholar Robert M. Price, with 2 PhD's behind him. So it is informed speculation, not mere speculation. Informed speculation is as good as you can get in Biblical scholarship on most issues.

The reasons for seeing it as a later insertion: it's a big round number of the sort that people tend to use when they are making up a good story, and it seems unlikely anyone was doing a census; it sticks out like a sore thumb (see Price's article for more details); it contradicts Acts 1:15 which says that there were only 120 believers about that time.

Can you give any positive reasons to accept it as part of Paul's original work?

rlogan · 02-16-2004, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Uh - because it was an obvious fiction, inserted into Paul's letter after Paul wrote it, probably after the gospels were written?

Geez Toto. Always so closed minded.

They knew it did not satisfy the embarrassment criteria. They knew it would be anachronistic thinking to presume mentioning it in the gosples. There was no tradition of mass spirit vision gospel reporting.

No, its exactly as you would expect. Nothing to see here. Move along now...

Magus55 · 02-16-2004, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
It is not I who asserts it, it is Biblical scholar Robert M. Price, with 2 PhD's behind him. So it is informed speculation, not mere speculation. Informed speculation is as good as you can get in Biblical scholarship on most issues.

The reasons for seeing it as a later insertion: it's a big round number of the sort that people tend to use when they are making up a good story, and it seems unlikely anyone was doing a census; it sticks out like a sore thumb (see Price's article for more details); it contradicts Acts 1:15 which says that there were only 120 believers about that time.

Can you give any positive reasons to accept it as part of Paul's original work?

How is it a contradiction that Acts only states 120 believers? There is a difference between seeing a ressurected Jesus, and believing in a ressurected Jesus. And Jesus made this point quite clear. Just like today, there were probably many skeptics who weren't willing to believe.

Roland · 02-16-2004, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
How is it a contradiction that Acts only states 120 believers? There is a difference between seeing a ressurected Jesus, and believing in a ressurected Jesus. And Jesus made this point quite clear. Just like today, there were probably many skeptics who weren't willing to believe.

If only 120 viewers believed the vision, that means 320 didn't. Rather than casting aspersions on the skeptics, perhaps the appearance itself wasn't really all that convincing.

Toto · 02-16-2004, 06:46 PM

Oh Magus.

Paul says in 1 Cor 15:6

Quote:

After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time.

brothers in this context = Christian believers - that was how they referred to themselves. In fact, it appears to be the same word used in at least some versions of Acts:

Acts 1:15

Quote:

In those days Peter stood up among the believers[3] (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty)
. . .

[3] 1:15 Greek brothers

Mediancat · 02-16-2004, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland
If only 120 viewers believed the vision, that means 320 didn't. Rather than casting aspersions on the skeptics, perhaps the appearance itself wasn't really all that convincing.

Um, 380.

Carry on.

Rob aka Mediancat

Roland · 02-16-2004, 07:04 PM

Oops..sorry, math never my strong suit.

Be glad I'm not making change.

02-16-2004, 12:08 PM	#1
TheDiddleyMan Guest Posts: n/a	the 500 witnesses Hey! I'm just curious as to what explanations exist - be they evangelical or not - as to why the appearance (or "alleged appearance") of the resurrected Jesus to over 500 people is not mentioned in any of the gospels. Thanks, Kevin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-16-2004, 02:49 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	It is not I who asserts it, it is Biblical scholar Robert M. Price, with 2 PhD's behind him. So it is informed speculation, not mere speculation. Informed speculation is as good as you can get in Biblical scholarship on most issues. The reasons for seeing it as a later insertion: it's a big round number of the sort that people tend to use when they are making up a good story, and it seems unlikely anyone was doing a census; it sticks out like a sore thumb (see Price's article for more details); it contradicts Acts 1:15 which says that there were only 120 believers about that time. Can you give any positive reasons to accept it as part of Paul's original work?

02-16-2004, 07:04 PM	#10
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	Oops..sorry, math never my strong suit. Be glad I'm not making change.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.