Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-04-2002, 10:59 PM

Peter - what do you think of Price's arguments that the whole "500 brothers" were inserted by a later apologist? It would tend to rule out your idea that the appearance to the 500 was written back into Jesus' ministry.

I was surprized that I had not heard the argument before, but I don't see any obvious problems with it.

I don't think that you need to assume a later insertion to still think that the passage is no evidence at all for Jesus' physical resurrection.

svensky · 08-04-2002, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Some interpreters argue that the 500 Paul refers to can be found in Matthew 28:10, 16-20:

""""The 500 was probably the appearance in Galilee of Mt 28:10 (notice 'the brethren') and Mt 28.16-20 (the Eleven would have had many, more 'brethren' with them--esp. among the Galileans, Jesus most numerous followers)... """Miller

Does the Price article address this view?

Not that I noticed when I read it.

Hi vinnie.

Jason

Toto · 08-04-2002, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ilgwamh:
Some interpreters argue that the 500 Paul refers to can be found in Matthew 28:10, 16-20:

""""The 500 was probably the appearance in Galilee of Mt 28:10 (notice 'the brethren') and Mt 28.16-20 (the Eleven would have had many, more 'brethren' with them--esp. among the Galileans, Jesus most numerous followers)... """Miller

Does the Price article address this view?

Vinnie

The article refers to it. Apparently E.L Allen recognized the possibility, but still felt the need to explain why the tradition of the 500 was not made explicit in the mainstream of Christian tradition. The point still holds that if there were this astounding proof of Jesus' resurrection, the four Gospel writers (and others) would have referred to it explicitly.

(Third paragraph in the section titled "The Five Hundred Brethren.")

Benjamin Franklin · 08-05-2002, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ilgwamh:
Some interpreters argue that the 500 Paul refers to can be found in Matthew 28:10, 16-20:

""""The 500 was probably the appearance in Galilee of Mt 28:10 (notice 'the brethren') and Mt 28.16-20 (the Eleven would have had many, more 'brethren' with them--esp. among the Galileans, Jesus most numerous followers)... """Miller

Does the Price article address this view?

Vinnie

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/reply-to-craig.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/reply-to-craig.html</a>

Price address this view in a later article.

Tjun Kat

Jack the Bodiless · 08-05-2002, 02:10 AM

As previously mentioned, 500 is a strangely round number.

More importantly, it's an uncountable number in most situations. Even today, with our news resources, we have no means of verifying that a celebrity was seen by 500 people except at a specific venue which holds a known number of people. We can estimate how many saw Bruce Springsteen at a rock concert, but not how many have seen him around town.

So, if the story is true, Jesus must have made a public appearance in a building at least as large as a small colosseum. This would have been a specific, noteworthy event. Alternatively, Jesus could have appeared ten times in a hall which holds fifty people. Again, I think this would have been mentioned somewhere.

svensky · 08-05-2002, 02:51 AM

Quote:

So, if the story is true, Jesus must have made a public appearance in a building at least as large as a small colosseum. This would have been a specific, noteworthy event. Alternatively, Jesus could have appeared ten times in a hall which holds fifty people. Again, I think this would have been mentioned somewhere.

As I noted though, with 500 anonymous people, easily checked if you asked around town, but not so easy if those people aren't easily found any more becasue the town got stomped by the romans.

It does account for why it isn't mentioned, i'm not sure how well at this point. I'd need to think about it more, It was a top of the head suggestion

Jason

King Arthur · 08-05-2002, 05:15 AM

Dang! No time.

However, I just wanted to point out that this business about 500 being a problem because it is a round number is stupid.

Besides, it's not exactly 500, the Greek text read "more than 500". So, the number is somewhere over 500.

Finally, I have noticed that no one (CX?) has shown that there is any textual evidence out of the many ancient manucripts that preserve the New Testament which leave out these verses. One can discover and "prove" interpolations in other parts of the bible because it appears obviously left out of other manuscripts. However, there is no evidence here. Without evidence, how am I supposed to believe Price's lame claim??

Where's the beef?

Price is blowin' smoke. Just wish you guys could tell. As a matter of fact, apparently Craig made the exact same accusation I made without even looking at Price's article (i.e. about verse 12 referring back to verses 3-11, so it is awkward to leave them out - he doesn't do a good job of explaining that away either, btw).

Toto mentions that Price says that there are all of these stylistic problems. I say that's baloney. I showed well how the verses fit together in the Greek.

Where's the beef?

Steven Carr · 08-05-2002, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by King Arthur:

Finally, I have noticed that no one (CX?) has shown that there is any textual evidence out of the many ancient manucripts that preserve the New Testament which leave out these verses. One can discover and "prove" interpolations in other parts of the bible because it appears obviously left out of other manuscripts. However, there is no evidence here. Without evidence, how am I supposed to believe Price's lame claim??
Price is blowin' smoke. Just wish you guys could tell.

Toto mentions that Price says that there are all of these stylistic problems. I say that's baloney. I showed well how the verses fit together in the Greek.

Where's the beef?

You do`not actually need manuscripts with bits missing to show that a bit is an interpolation.

However, I agree that Price`s arguments are very weak.

Steven Carr · 08-05-2002, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xeren:
This is an off-shoot from another topic from this section, but it basically took over the discussion, so i decided to start a new one.

Regarding Jesus' supposed appearance to 500 men in the NT, and why it could not be a lie:

King Arthur states:
If some dork lied when they put in writing that about 500 people saw Jesus after his resurrection, then surely there was at least one reasonable person to write "No, it did not happen that way."

Anyone have any replies to this?

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: xeren ]

Do we have any evidence that nobody said `No, it did not happen that way`?

BTW, a lot of people point out to Jehovah`s Witnesses that their claims of the world ending in the past were wrong, yet JW``S still go on believing. Does anybody have evidence of Christians saying Gosh, that was wrong. Guess I will have to give up my beliefs.

Religious beliefs dont work like that.

King Arthur · 08-05-2002, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:
You do`not actually need manuscripts with bits missing to show that a bit is an interpolation.

Point well taken. However, dealing in probabilities, it seems that without corresponding textual evidence from the many ancient manuscripts for this being an interpolation highly reduces the probability that it is really an interpolation. If there were evidence, for instance, the case of the Markan ending, then it would not be so difficult to believe.

I simply find it hard to believe that out of the thousands of manuscripts (many times original stuff is found in the medieval manuscripts), there is not one manuscript that leaves these verses (any of them) out. Hmm....

Quote:

However, I agree that Price`s arguments are very weak.

Really? I'm impressed. Since you probably don't agree with me, what do you find weak?

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

08-04-2002, 10:59 PM	#51
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Peter - what do you think of Price's arguments that the whole "500 brothers" were inserted by a later apologist? It would tend to rule out your idea that the appearance to the 500 was written back into Jesus' ministry. I was surprized that I had not heard the argument before, but I don't see any obvious problems with it. I don't think that you need to assume a later insertion to still think that the passage is no evidence at all for Jesus' physical resurrection.

08-05-2002, 02:10 AM	#55
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	As previously mentioned, 500 is a strangely round number. More importantly, it's an uncountable number in most situations. Even today, with our news resources, we have no means of verifying that a celebrity was seen by 500 people except at a specific venue which holds a known number of people. We can estimate how many saw Bruce Springsteen at a rock concert, but not how many have seen him around town. So, if the story is true, Jesus must have made a public appearance in a building at least as large as a small colosseum. This would have been a specific, noteworthy event. Alternatively, Jesus could have appeared ten times in a hall which holds fifty people. Again, I think this would have been mentioned somewhere.

08-05-2002, 05:15 AM	#57
King Arthur Banned Join Date: May 2002 Location: Camelot Posts: 290	Dang! No time. However, I just wanted to point out that this business about 500 being a problem because it is a round number is stupid. Besides, it's not exactly 500, the Greek text read "more than 500". So, the number is somewhere over 500. Finally, I have noticed that no one (CX?) has shown that there is any textual evidence out of the many ancient manucripts that preserve the New Testament which leave out these verses. One can discover and "prove" interpolations in other parts of the bible because it appears obviously left out of other manuscripts. However, there is no evidence here. Without evidence, how am I supposed to believe Price's lame claim?? Where's the beef? Price is blowin' smoke. Just wish you guys could tell. As a matter of fact, apparently Craig made the exact same accusation I made without even looking at Price's article (i.e. about verse 12 referring back to verses 3-11, so it is awkward to leave them out - he doesn't do a good job of explaining that away either, btw). Toto mentions that Price says that there are all of these stylistic problems. I say that's baloney. I showed well how the verses fit together in the Greek. Where's the beef?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.