Ted Hoffman

Paul stands in isolation in the New Testament when referring to the appearance to the 500. Were they counted? Why not 503?

Besides, Pauls idea of resurrection is not exactly the same as that of the other evangelists.
Where does that leave us?

I think it was an interpolation. But even if its not, it has no evidentiary value.
Its like one person claiming that 5000 people saw people rise from the dead. Its still one person making the claim NOT 500 people.

We dont have the 500 people and we dont have multiple attestation (from the evangelists) of that claim - even Paul himself mentions it only once - one would think he would mention it to the Philipians, Galatians, Thesalonians etc.

King Arthur

I found a little time for this reply before I leave for the day.

Price is a spin-master for sure. It is obvious from his work. He addresses "apologists" and tries to head them off at the pass by pre-stating any reasonable thing they might say so that he can say "I told you they'd say that". True scholars don't do this and do not address "apologists". They address other scholars.

Now, to the point.

First, what the freak is he thinking? Paul uses this verb all over the place, from Romans to both Corithian letters to Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Collosians... Oh you get the point. He uses this verb quite often. Price is playing word tricks. He says that Paul doesn't use this "form" of the Greek verb. Whatever! He's basically saying that Paul can't switch tenses. Puhleez... Paul uses this tense quite a bit in 1 Cor, so the fact that provides even more probability for verses 3 - 11 being original.

Judgin by the tone of his work, Price is an atheist apologist.

Kosh

CX has the details on this and hopefully he will post them again or link to the previous thread. But basically, these "thousands" manuscripts are form the 4th century. Prior to that, there is a very small percentage of the NT represented in manuscripts.

Plenty of time for interpolation.

CX?

Gooch's dad

King Arthur states:
<strong>

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."

</strong>

There's a hidden assumption in KA's argument here--that skepticism was common at the time. I would like KA to present a single case of skeptical debunking of supernatural claims from the first century, and show that this debunking had any effect on the beliefs of the masses.

Radcliffe Emerson

Very few people could read and write in those civilizations. Government people and religious scribes were just about the ONLY people that could.

Jack the Bodiless

Even "at least 500" isn't something that could be known unless Jesus was the star turn at one or more major social events. I would not make a claim that Bruce Springsteen was seen by at least 500 people during a period of 40 days if he simply wandered about: I would have insufficient data to make such an estimate.

As for whether a record of such an event would survive the events of 70 AD: well, that was several decades later, and this big public spectacle featuring a very publicly executed dissident preacher would surely be the biggest and most widespread of all the miracles attributed to Jesus. It would grab far more attention than (for instance) turning water into wine, or allegedly raising one allegedly dead person. It would be comparable to a comeback gig staged by Elvis Presley after his death.

By 70 AD, Jesus would be widely known as "the guy who was executed by Pilate but got up from the grave and harangued the Romans from the Temple Mount" (or wherever). The location of his public reappearance would be as important to Christians as Golgotha or the Church of the Holy Sephulcre.

It would be a much bigger story: too big to be omitted from the gospels, and big enough to deserve more mentions (and more details) from Paul.

Instead, from every other source, we appear to have the rather mundane and common scenario of the followers of a revered leader being "in denial" about his death, with rumors and scattered sightings over the next few weeks.

Amen-Moses

And that slave girl buried under ash at Herculanium!

If I may ask, If noone could read then why did the Romans spend so much money and time putting inscriptions all over the empire, in multiple languages, saying everything from "10 stadii to Jerusalem" to "Don't walk on the grass"?

Amen-Moses

Radcliffe Emerson

Possibly so the religious leaders who could read them could inform the uneducated what they said.

Radcliffe Emerson

One thing somewhat misrepresented by the number of manuscripts is the fact that they are all fragments. There are very few complete manuscripts of any one biblical book. There are a few, but the vast majority of the thousands quotes are merely fragments, some only being a verse or two, some just a chapter.

Amen-Moses

Whatever!

Amen-Moses