Family Man

A passing statement?! He chose not to elaborate. In my opinion, given Paul's vested interest in promoting Christianity, I doubt he was personally familiar with what he was reporting. In fact, other Christians have told me that he was merely passing along a tradition. So, no, I don't think he could have elaborated and, no, I don't think the claim even remotely approaches the believable.

You're entitled to your opinion. I and other non-thiest have stated our reasons very clearly. What's unclear here is why you think it is a real event. Just because someone says something is true doesn't mean it is true, and there are plenty of reasons to assume it isn't true.

It's hardly necessary to belabor the obvious.

Now if you'd only take your own advice.

Toto

KA - I had to go back and read my post to understand what you meant about "one verse". So I should have written verse 6 et seq. for you who cannot extrapolate.

Evidence of interpolation:

Why is this not good enough for you? At the beginning of his article, Price describes and demolishes critics who rule out the possibility of interpolations. It certainly sounds like you fit into this school.

Perhaps you don't think that I could understand your rebuttal of Price, but you could try. Maybe you could convince a lurker that you are not bluffing.

svensky

Toto
When do you date the gospels ?

I started to read the article you linked.I'm not really convinced by any of it thus far.

He simply seems to reply to the claim, "The text is innocent until proven guilty" by simply saying. "Nuh Uh!".

I dont see why we are obliged to accept any such speculation with such a paucity of evidence.

Jason

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: svensky ]</p>

Toto

Take any standard dating. Paul wrote around 50 CE. The Gospels were written around 70-90 CE or perhaps later. If this spectacular appearance to 500 were part of Christian lore, why did Luke not pick up on it, at least? Luke claims to have surveyed the existing accounts.

==

Price is not the easiest read. He is writing for an academic audience and refers to other scholars as if everyone is familiar with their arguments. But it you stick with it, his argument makes sense

If you've made up your mind that the text is innocent until proven guilty, probably nothing will sway you.

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

svensky

That is hardly a standard dating.

but lets run with it. Perhaps it was not included becasue, if as you contend the gospels being written after the fall of jerusalem, then the 500 anonymous eyewitness's would no longer be easily avalable for comment. So it was left out as not being of any value. They are an anonymous 500 after all.

This explanation to a lesser extent would also hold true for a pre 70AD date.
I did get down to the end of the article. I'm not buying it at all.

To be honest, it seems like his whole argument is speculation piled upon speculation. Given there is zero manuscript evidence for his hypothesis it isn't reasonable to ber required to give him the benifit of the doubt.

Especially as he accounts for the missing manuscripts as lost due to cover up and conspiracy by the early church.

Jason

Vorkosigan

[b]svensky: Why would he make the appeal if it wasn't so ?

...general idea may apply. It is often observed that such a remarkable occurrence as the appearance to 500, strangely, did not leave any trace in the gospels. This is strange regardless of whether we think it was an early story or the unvarnished truth. But perhaps there is an explanation. Scholars have noted that certain scenes in the gospels that are narrated as if they happened during the life of Jesus may rather have been retrojected resurrection stories. Compare John 21:1-14 with Luke 5:1-11, for example.

Yes, but Streeter and more recently, Powell, have argued that John 21 was the ending of Mark, so that Luke copied Mark (as usual) and this may not support your case....

(Note that the statement of Peter in Luke 5:8 is unmotivated where it stands but makes sense in the context of a post-resurrection story after the incident in which Peter denied Jesus three times.)

Inserted by a redactor into the original text of Mark, as were the beloved disciple references.

....appearance to 500 has anything to do with the feeding of the 5000 men found in all four gospels (twice in Mark, as 4000 and 5000, once in John as 5000). The very fact that, whatever this event was, it must have been memorable, suggests that there may be a connection, because a memorable event would find its echo in a wide range of texts as this one does: in Paul, in the Synoptics, and in John. As to the nature of the event, I can only speculate that a few hundred people gathered together in Galilee and shared bread and fish together in a way that affirmed the reality of Jesus and the victory of life in their experience as a community. I freely admit that this is speculation, but speculation no more extravagant than the idea say that five hundred people were standing around together for no particular reason when the body of Jesus popped out of the sky and said hello and then vanished again into thin air. What I like about my speculation is that it doesn't make the author of 1 Cor 15 into a liar and it doesn't make natural science into a liar either. No conspiracies required: according to this speculation, these few hundred brothers actually did have an experience that showed to them that Jesus was risen indeed. It is modernistic scientism (and its bastard offspring fundamentalism) that demands that this experience be physical in order to be real. So I see no theoretical reason that an atheist and a Christian could not agree that this speculation concerning the historical situation here is plausible.

Theoretically, no, but in the context of the passage, where he appears to first to three worthies of the Jerusalem church, this type of speculation does not make sense.

However, this is a common pattern in missionary sales talk, where an amazing event happens to "people I know/people who are famous as well as "large numbers of people."

[b]
Here are the texts that show the connection between eucharist/feeding and resurrection/appearance. Note the parallel structure.[b]

This is certainly interesting. Could we argue, on this basis, that the eucharistic meal was something either discovered in, suggested by, or certified, by its presence in the OT....through the miracle feedings in Jewish legend?

Just to be clear, when I say speculation, I mean that I offer the idea as interesting and plausible but not proven and not a "belief" of mine.

I can see several ways that such/similar story might get around.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

I wrote: "Scholars have noted that certain scenes in the gospels that are narrated as if they happened during the life of Jesus may rather have been retrojected resurrection stories. Compare John 21:1-14 with Luke 5:1-11, for example."

Vorkosigan writes: Yes, but Streeter and more recently, Powell, have argued that John 21 was the ending of Mark, so that Luke copied Mark (as usual) and this may not support your case....

I don't understand why this would damage the point that some resurrection stories were retrojected into the ministry of Jesus. If the catch of the fish story was a resurrection narrative in Mark's last chapter and was copied by Luke in 5:1-11, wouldn't this in fact support the contention that at least one resurrection story had been secondarily set in the life of Jesus?

Vorkosigan writes: Inserted by a redactor into the original text of Mark, as were the beloved disciple references.

I assume you mean "as were the beloved disciple references" of John, not of Mark, because no beloved disciple references have come down to us in the text of the Gospel of Mark.

I am not aware of any evidence of any type to suggest that the story of Peter denying Jesus was inserted into Mark by a redactor.

Vorkosigan writes: Theoretically, no, but in the context of the passage, where he appears to first to three worthies of the Jerusalem church, this type of speculation does not make sense.

I assume you mean that, given the references to appearances to Peter and to James, it seems reasonable to assume that the appearance to the 500 is of the same type.

I would suggest that, if it is reasonable to suggest the plausibility that the appearances to Peter and to James were "spiritual" in nature (not the kind that would be recorded on video tape), then the appearance to the five hundred brothers may also have been "spiritual" in nature. Unless we think that the author of this passage is saying that the appearance to the 500 was the appearance of a physical body, then the speculation suggested seems to be one of the more plausible ways to understand the reference.

Vorkosigan writes: However, this is a common pattern in missionary sales talk, where an amazing event happens to "people I know/people who are famous as well as "large numbers of people."

I agree that the reference may just be hype.

Vorkosigan writes: This is certainly interesting. Could we argue, on this basis, that the eucharistic meal was something either discovered in, suggested by, or certified, by its presence in the OT....through the miracle feedings in Jewish legend?

I think that Crossan would allow that the practice of share-meals was initiated by Jesus, who probably was influenced by the scriptures, particularly the imagery of a messianic banquet, which also shows up in some parables. The story of the feeding of 5000 men may have had its origin in a memorable feast celebrated by the followers of Jesus after his death, but it certainly has taken inspiration from the Jewish scriptures (specifically 2 Kings 4:42-44).

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Is King Arthur going to weigh in here with some substantive discussion of the points I've raised against the passage?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Kirby:
I would suggest that, if it is reasonable to suggest the plausibility that the appearances to Peter and to James were "spiritual" in nature (not the kind that would be recorded on video tape), then the appearance to the five hundred brothers may also have been "spiritual" in nature. Unless we think that the author of this passage is saying that the appearance to the 500 was the appearance of a physical body, then the speculation suggested seems to be one of the more plausible ways to understand the reference.

Well, the "appearance" is a common theme in Paul. It seems that Paul is referring to an identical event that occurred singly to he, James and Peter, as well as to a group of witnesses. Whatever naturalistic speculation one has about it, it must be something that could reasonably happen to both individuals and groups, and to a single person separated from the Jerusalem crowd (Paul). I confess that nothing suggests itself offhand.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

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?

Hi Jason

Vinnie