Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 06-27-2005, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Andrew Criddle wrote:

IMHO I would estimate 40,000 Christians at around 100 CE.

Johnny: Even if that was true, Christians would be no better off than Rodney Stark's estimate of 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then the growth that eventually accounted for a possible 40,000 Christians in 100 A.D. would most likely not have begun to increase more rapidly until after the supposed still living eyewitnesses were dead, which would have been late in the 1st century. Until then, people would have said "Hey, we were there, and we didn't see any risen Jesus." What we need to know the most is how many Christians there were in 40 A.D. and 50 A.D. The book of Acts claims "many thousands" of Christians not long after the death of Jesus. Since Christians cannot provide any corroborative external evidence at all for the claim, it cannot logically be ruled out that possibly there were only a few hundred Christians in 40 A.D., or embarrasing for Christians less Christians in total than Paul's 500 eyewitnesses, fairly calling into question the claim of the Resurrection itself.

It is formally possible that there was a very rapid growth of Christian numbers between say 70 and 100 CE, quite unparalled in percentage terms by anything before or since.

However it is not prima facie very plausible.

At face value Paul is good evidence that there were already over 500 Christians before his conversion in c 35 CE.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr · 06-27-2005, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Suetonius says 'He [Claudius] expelled from Rome the Jews who were constantly stirring up a tumult under the leadership of Chrestus.'

McKechnie's belief that this was really a dispute among Jews about the claims of Christ is plausible although far from certain.

(If we accept Acts as reasonably reliable history then the Christian evangelists Aquila and Priscilla were among those expelled from Rome at the time. see Acts 18:1-2.)

How is it plausible that Chrestus was stirring up tumults when he was dead?

Of course, Jews revolted against Rome 20 years later, so possibly there may have been Jewish insurrections in Rome.

Whether you consider it plausible or not that Aquila and Priscilla were stirring up tumults, the Romans probably expelled anybody connected with Judaism, as Christianity was.

Steven Carr · 06-27-2005, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It is formally possible that there was a very rapid growth of Christian numbers between say 70 and 100 CE, quite unparalled in percentage terms by anything before or since.

However it is not prima facie very plausible.

Why? Considering that one major alternative, Judaism, had just suffered a reverse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

At face value Paul is good evidence that there were already over 500 Christians before his conversion in c 35 CE.

Before the ascension even.

Johnny Skeptic · 06-28-2005, 08:23 AM

Message to Andrew Criddle:

Do you have any proof that Paul made the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses, or even that the claim was made in the 1st century? I already know that you don't. I just want to see what your response will be. Dr. Robert Price says that there was no reference to the 500 eyewitnesses in Christian literature for over 250 years. How do you account for this?

So, the 500 eyewitnesses is not a very good argument. Other than the 500 eyewitnesses, we have the women at the tomb, the disciples and the two men on the road from Emmaus. Matthew claims Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Mark claims Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. Luke claims the women who came with Jesus from Galilee. John claims only Mary Magdalene. Do you not find the differences to be strange? Similar type evidence in a lawsuit would be immediately thrown out by the judge. Rather than preventing confusion, the differences immediately cause rational minded people to question the differences. If you found the very same kinds of differences in another religious writings, you would probably immediately criticize the differences.

Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Mary made one trip to the tomb and learned about the Resurrection on that trip, but John claims that she made two trips and learned about the Resurrection on her second trip to the tomb.

Even without the issue of contradictions, you still have a problem. The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says that 90% of Matthew is taken from Mark, and that 50% of Luke is taken from Mark. Even without provable borrowing, a writer is only as good his source, and the Gospel writers never mention how many sources they used. Why should anyone trust their source(s)?

andrewcriddle · 06-29-2005, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to Andrew Criddle:

Do you have any proof that Paul made the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses, or even that the claim was made in the 1st century? I already know that you don't. I just want to see what your response will be. Dr. Robert Price says that there was no reference to the 500 eyewitnesses in Christian literature for over 250 years. How do you account for this?

I think that there is extremely good evidence that Paul's list of resurrection witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-11) goes back to the first century in a form similar to the present text.

This list was part of the text of Corinthians known both to Marcion and to the Valentinians which makes it very unlikely to be a 2nd century orthodox interpolation.

As to whether the reference to the '500 brethren' is an interpolation into a pre-existing list of witnesses, the external evidence is as you point out less strong.

However on internal grounds the difficulty of reconciling this verse with the canonical gospels makes it IMO unlikely that such an interpolation would be so popular as to be now found in all known manuscripts.

If Robert Price is correct that the '500 brethren' are not mentioned in other Christian works till after 300 CE then this probably implies that this passage was part of the generally accepted text for over a 100 years before being cited. It's not clear why being part of the generally accepted text for 250 years before being cited is much more improbable than 100-150 years.

Could you please clarify how large an interpolation you think is involved and when did this interpolation occur ?

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 06-29-2005, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think that there is extremely good evidence that Paul's list of resurrection witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-11) goes back to the first century in a form similar to the present text.

This list was part of the text of Corinthians known both to Marcion and to the Valentinians which makes it very unlikely to be a 2nd century orthodox interpolation.

. . .

Do you have a source for this?

andrewcriddle · 06-29-2005, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Do you have a source for this?

Irenaeus says about the Valentinians

Quote:

And that the Saviour appeared to her when she lay outside of the Pleroma as a kind of abortion, they affirm Paul to have declared in his Epistle to the Corinthians [in these words], "And last of all, He appeared to me also, as to one born out of due time

This sort of acceptance but radical allegorisation of 1 Corinthians 15 v 8 implies IMO that the Valentinians took the authenticity of the verse for granted but felt a need to reinterpret it.

Marcion's text of Paul is difficult to establish. The clearest evidence that his text of Corinthians included at least part of 1 Corinthians 15 v 3-11 is that Epiphanius in the Panarion gives a list of passages left in Paul by Marcion which Epiphanius holds support Christian Orthodoxy against Marcion's heresy. For 1 Corinthians the list includes 'he rose on the third day'

There are also passages in the works of Tertullian and Adamantius against Marcion which quote verses from 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 in a way that most scholars have held implies that Marcion's Paul also had these verses. (ie if Marcion's Paul omitted these verses the argument would not work against its intended targets.)

IIUC Price accepts that Marcion's Paul had some of this passage but emphasises that Marcion's text of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 v 3 probably omitted 'what I also received'.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 06-29-2005, 11:51 PM

FWIW the first mention in Christian writing outside the NT of the 'five hundred brethren' appears to be in Origen Against Celsus

Quote:

And Paul also, in the concluding portions of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in reference to His not having publicly appeared as He did in the period before He suffered, writes as follows: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto the present time, but some are fallen asleep. 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."

No special emphasis is laid on the 'five hundred brethren'.

A more 'apologetic' use of the 'five hundred brethren' is found in Eusebius' Church History

Quote:

And upon examination you will find that our Saviour had more than seventy disciples, according to the testimony of Paul, who says that after his resurrection from the dead he appeared first to Cephas, then to the twelve, and after them to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom some had fallen asleep; but the majority were still living at the time he wrote.

Andrew Criddle

Thomas II · 07-01-2005, 10:07 AM

120 bretheren...500 bretheren...
:huh:

How do they know who was a bretheren and who was just a guy passing by
that all of a sudden saw this other guy flying up to the sky, and simply stopped to stare...??

What I really want to know is how FAR up Jesus had to go before someone said "...and cut!...Ok,it's a rap!",or he actually got to Heaven??

How far up is Heaven??

Were there bretheren in Heaven waiting for Jesus??

And if there were,was he welcomed with a standing ovation??

Was it something of a low now that he was in Heaven, sitting on a throne to the right of his dad, but slightly lower,just sitting there...after all the activity on Earth?

dost · 07-04-2005, 01:38 PM

Hello

Could it not be that Paul' reference to the 500 brethern was an exagerration on his part? Moreover, the audience to whom he made this claim, were they in a position to verify the accuracy of this claim?

Also, it is sometimes suggested that although some Christians opposed Paul on a variety of issues, there is no evidence that he was opposed when it came to the claims regarding resurrection. However, we also read in the Pauline epistles of those who are preaching a different gospel (I don't have the verse number in mind). Could this not be a reference to Christians who perhaps opposed Paul on much more than just circumcision and food laws - hence his use of the term "different gospel"?

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

06-28-2005, 08:23 AM	#14
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to Andrew Criddle: Do you have any proof that Paul made the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses, or even that the claim was made in the 1st century? I already know that you don't. I just want to see what your response will be. Dr. Robert Price says that there was no reference to the 500 eyewitnesses in Christian literature for over 250 years. How do you account for this? So, the 500 eyewitnesses is not a very good argument. Other than the 500 eyewitnesses, we have the women at the tomb, the disciples and the two men on the road from Emmaus. Matthew claims Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. Mark claims Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. Luke claims the women who came with Jesus from Galilee. John claims only Mary Magdalene. Do you not find the differences to be strange? Similar type evidence in a lawsuit would be immediately thrown out by the judge. Rather than preventing confusion, the differences immediately cause rational minded people to question the differences. If you found the very same kinds of differences in another religious writings, you would probably immediately criticize the differences. Matthew, Mark and Luke say that Mary made one trip to the tomb and learned about the Resurrection on that trip, but John claims that she made two trips and learned about the Resurrection on her second trip to the tomb. Even without the issue of contradictions, you still have a problem. The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says that 90% of Matthew is taken from Mark, and that 50% of Luke is taken from Mark. Even without provable borrowing, a writer is only as good his source, and the Gospel writers never mention how many sources they used. Why should anyone trust their source(s)?

07-01-2005, 10:07 AM	#19
Thomas II Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: USA Posts: 8,254	120 bretheren...500 bretheren... :huh: How do they know who was a bretheren and who was just a guy passing by that all of a sudden saw this other guy flying up to the sky, and simply stopped to stare...?? What I really want to know is how FAR up Jesus had to go before someone said "...and cut!...Ok,it's a rap!",or he actually got to Heaven?? How far up is Heaven?? Were there bretheren in Heaven waiting for Jesus?? And if there were,was he welcomed with a standing ovation?? Was it something of a low now that he was in Heaven, sitting on a throne to the right of his dad, but slightly lower,just sitting there...after all the activity on Earth?

07-04-2005, 01:38 PM	#20
dost Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: London Posts: 82	Hello Could it not be that Paul' reference to the 500 brethern was an exagerration on his part? Moreover, the audience to whom he made this claim, were they in a position to verify the accuracy of this claim? Also, it is sometimes suggested that although some Christians opposed Paul on a variety of issues, there is no evidence that he was opposed when it came to the claims regarding resurrection. However, we also read in the Pauline epistles of those who are preaching a different gospel (I don't have the verse number in mind). Could this not be a reference to Christians who perhaps opposed Paul on much more than just circumcision and food laws - hence his use of the term "different gospel"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.