darstec

I think he would be suprised to learn it was there. In the Pauline formula of the good news (gospel) concerning the anointed one the whole issue is screwed up. As Robert Price writes about the formula, "he died for our sins, he was buried, he rose on the third day, he was seen, he was seen by Peter and the Twelve, he was seen by James and all the apostles."

He was seen but no number associated. He was seen by Peter and the Twelve. But wait, wasn't Peter part of the Twelve? When did Peter and the Twelve see him? Was that before or after Judas' replacement? When was that replacement selected and was it before Jesus ascended into heaven? Or didn't Paul know about Judas Iscariot?

He was seen by James and all the apostles. Which James? Wasn't he one of the 12? What is the difference between the 12 and 'all the apostles'?

Then the mysterious 500 witnessess. Do any of the above, i.e. those who saw him, Peter and the 12, James and all the apostles, count toward the 500? How about Mary Magdalene? Why didn't Paul mention her by name? What about the other women who accompanied Mary Magdalene? Shouldn't daddy's mistress and junior's mommy get honorable mention? After all what better qualifications could one have to be both god's mistress and mommy? Assuming that Paul talked to each of the 500 for about an hour each, how long would it have taken him to reach the destinations where these witness lived? Surely they didn't all live together in the same town. It is improbable that Paul would have talked to them before his conversion so how much time did he have after talking to all these people scattered throughout the territories and still be able to write Corinthians early in his career? Wouldn't Paul have more to report especially more personal and historic details after talking with 500 witnesses? He didn't seem to have learned much after talking with them. Besides why even bother to learn about them when he says he didn't learn anything he was preaching from either these witnessness, Peter, James, the 12, or all the apostles but rather picked up everything he proselitized either from direct revelation from god, or inpiration from the Old Testament?

Paul mentions the 500 brethren. Why weren't there any sisteren? Wouldn't the gospel authors use this to fortify their stories if they knew about Paul's 500 witnesses? One must also keep in mind what Paul says about himself in 1 Corinthians 9:20.

Oh, did you want answers? I'm sorry but Paul has me confused. The more I think about it, the more questions I have.

I Love Jesus

Peter and the 12 is a term used to refer to the apostles, emphasizing Peter's leadership. Paul could count.

Brethren... you really think this included only males?

Amaleq13

How do you reconcile this with the Gospels? They describe the risen Christ appearing to the eleven remaining disciples after Judas' departure.

darstec

That whole post went over your head didn't it? Paul distinquishes between two groups, Peter and the twelve is the first group, and James and the apostles is the second groups.

Next point, can you give me any other instances in the Greek where a New Testament writer uses the word και which by the way is a conjunctive meaning "in addition to" or "also" to include the superior part of the conjunctive phrase with the subordinate part? What other examples in Greek use the first part to add importance as one of the members like you claim this does?

The problem with your explanation is that you assume the Acts of the Apostles was history. It was not. It was a continuation of the first fictional story by Luke. Paul never read it. But whoever did read it either inserted that into an early epistle attributed to Paul, or the writer known as Paul wrote after 134 CE and after the writer of the Acts of the Apostles.

And why are Peter and the 12 distinquished from James and the Apostles? Paul is being formulaic here:

Part A
1. the anointed one died for our sins
2. the anointed one was buried
3. the anointed one had been raised on the third day

Part B
1. the anointed one was seen by others
2. the anointed one was seen by Peter AND the 12
3. the anointed one was seen by James AND the apostles

but then someone comes along and smack in the middle beween Part B 2 and Part B 3 tosses in the witnesses of 500 brethren. Everything was going fine and Paul had his easy to remember good news credo all set up nice and neat and then...


Yes. The Jews, Paul and especially God were biased. Why else do you think god didn't come as a female? The story was invented with the values of that culture.

Kosh

I guess I'm not following you. I wasn't aware of any Markan dependency on Paul in the traditional views. I know that Vork has argued that "Mark knew Paul" (I think the thread is still active). Is that why you make that statement?

rlogan

When myths are in currency as just that - myths - there isn't much need to worry about the math not adding up. Twelve is a "magic number". So twelve gets thrown in the mix.

When two thousand pigs are stampeded into the sea, there's no lawyer in the myth to prosecute the largest lawsuit in the history of Judea.

Pretty straightforward.

All the boys would be watching her tits instead of listening.

Julian

Most of them have been lost and only known to us by their titles. A few did make though, for example Chaireas and Callirhoe. These guys have a synopsis of this and others: http://www.chss.montclair.edu/classi.../PSNNOVEL.HTML

Vork? Could you help me out here, you know of a lot more of these and I don't have my books handy.

Julian

Roger Pearse

Photius reviews a couple in the 9th century.

Antonius Diogenes, "The incredible wonders beyond Thule". This was perhaps written in the second century, but I think is now lost.

Heliodorus, "Aethiopica" narrating the adventures of Theagenes and Chariclea. The work is 3rd century, and is extant.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

dbarmstrong

You can trace its lineage back to the end of the first century outside of cannonical literature. You can actually reconstruct the entire new testament except for mark 16 I think by using Church fathers who wrote before the middle of the second century

darstec

I don't make it so much as Vork wrote it, but rather because I agree with his point of view. Vork was not the first to make the connection.
Even the New American Bible's Introduction to the Gospel of Mark comments on the Markian/Pauline parallels:Perhaps I can expand upon this later. Right now I'm downloading 5 CD's to update my operating system, and every application I have running seems to bring the download to a crawl.