Clutch

Prosecutor: Mr Smith, did you see the defendant commit a murder?

Mr Smith: No, I didn't see it. But 500 people did. You can take my word on that. I mean, I don't know when they saw it, exactly. I can't tell you how I know them, nor even whether I know them, nor how I know their numbers. I won't give you their names, nor can I quote even a single word from them on the nature of their testimony. Take my word for it, though.

Prosecutor: There you have it, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You have the evidence of 500 eyewitnesses who saw the defendant commit murder. Never has a crime been more thoroughly documented by evidence!

(Mr Smith adds: Madame Prosecutor, shut up. It's a disgrace for a woman to talk in court or have authority over a man.)

King Arthur

Clutch... He said it was a Lie.... A Lie... Not, "Can it stand up in a court of law". A Lie...

Just because something can't stand in a court of law doesn't mean it was a lie and that the person who said it wasn't telling their percieved "truth".

Family Man

So, KA, you would believe a man who stood up in court, said 500 people witnessed the murder, but couldn't give any details about these 500 mysterious people. Personally, I would think the guy was probably lying. Wouldn't you? And isn't that the position Paul is in?

From my perspective, I wouldn't say Paul was lying in the sense that he probably believed it was the truth. But I think the story is a lie. There's certainly no reason to believe it is true.

So take a Valium, man, and chill out. You're making yourself look ridiculous.

svensky

Which may actually imply the opposite of what you are claiming. That the identiy of these people was widely known at the time.

But as to where they where, well some of them at least would still be in the jerusalem church.
Not just from corith, from rome, or anywhere else christians turned up. You dont seriously believe that pauls comment in corithians would have been made in isolation do you ? If this body of witnesses did exist, presumably other evangelists would have refered to them. Also, I was suggesting that in fact people did send servants to find out, and the story checked out.
They ended up being written down in the second century and where transmited orally prior tothat if memeory serves. I'll get back to you on this one (tonight if not later today).
See above.
Ummm ... are you a professional NT scholar ? Everybody in the field who is taken seriously beleives that the letters where written inthe first century.
It is often considered a sign of weakness in an argument to throw a punch you know.

Jason

King Arthur

Can Paul explain it in more detail? I have no idea. It was a passing statement. If he had been pressed on the issue, perhaps he could have explained it. I dunno. Do you?

You think the story is a lie is still different from the story is as lie. I still don't know how you can know for sure it was a lie. I think it was a real event.

Oh, but please! I love it! Call me a Buffoon too?

Ridiculous or not, if I make a few people think a little harder about their positions or go out and read a few new books, then that's ok by me. I rather enjoy it.

Toto

Robert Price argues in scholarly detail that the reference to the 500 was a later insertion.

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:3-11 As a Post-Pauline Interpolation</a>

His argument is based on internal literary evidence that the references to the 500 and to Paul break the formal structure of the list of the others, which show a parallel set of appearances to Peter and his followers, and James and his followers, part of a formal confession of faith.

In addition,
edited to add: the article is also at
<a href="http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html" target="_blank">http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rp1cor15.html</a> in a slightly different format

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

xeren

King Arthur,

You said

You are not making anyone think harder about our positions because you are spewing the same apologetic nonsense that all christians defending the bible give me.

Now you can call me dogmatic, or you can present some reason that the tale of 500 people actually is credible, one that not every atheist on this board has already thought of and rejected on solid grounds.

I posted this discussion in order to hear some new point of views. Could you please keep this board free of petty fights between you and other members, i've never seen someone try to start so many fights on a message board.

King Arthur

Now you're thinking a little more, Toto. I suppose this is a little better.

However, Carrier is known for inflating his case. He seems to do so here as well.

He calls this an interpolation because the "formal structure" is broken? Well, my first challenge to this is that out of the many manuscripts, there is no evidence of this as an interpolation. Go look for yourself in the critical texts - NA27th for instance.

Second, I don't see why it necessarily has to break the "formal structure". Paul is giving the "appearances" of Jesus in order. The appearance to the 500 appears in its order. As a matter of fact, the beginning of the sentence starts with the exact same greek words. The form even fits in with the previous verses. There is a list of ordered witnesses here that seems coherent.

Here is how the sentences begin from 4 - 8:

Greek
4 - Kai hoti etaphe (note similarity of etaphe to ophthe)
5 - Kai hoti ophthe (note ophthe continues...)
6 - Epeita ophthe (the verse in question)
7 - Epeita ophthe
8 - Eschaton...ophthe

English
4 - And that he was buried...
5 - And that he appeared...
6 - Then he appeared... (verse in question)
7 - Then he appeared...
8 - Lastly...he appeared...

It follows a trend. I see no break and no evidence of significant tampering.

I think Carrier inflated his case. I don't think this was an interpolation.

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

King Arthur

You betcha I am. Apparently it isn't working for you though. Sorry. Can't guarantee it works for everyone.

Spouting Christian apologetic nonsense I am not because not am I a Christian. I spout atheistic logic that is heads above atheistic dogma.

I don't see any real reason to say it wasn't credible. I'm not the one who called it a lie, remember?

Now you're hearing a different point of view. If you don't have the brains to look a little deeper and perhaps learn some Greek and use a little logic, then don't fault me. Just go with the flow man. You'll get the hang of intelligence after a short go-around. Look at Toto after all, he's really coming along now!

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by svensky:
But as to where they where, well some of them at least would still be in the jerusalem church.

How do you know they were even in the Jerusalem church?

Not just from corith, from rome, or anywhere else christians turned up. You dont seriously believe that pauls comment in corithians would have been made in isolation do you?

Is it recorder elsewhere?

If this body of witnesses did exist, presumably other evangelists would have refered to them. Also, I was suggesting that in fact people did send servants to find out, and the story checked out.

So why doesn't anybody else mention them? If the story had not checked out how would we know?

Ummm ... are you a professional NT scholar ? Everybody in the field who is taken seriously beleives that the letters where written inthe first century.

When were the letters PUBLISHED? i.e at what point did they become available to a large enough number of people that one of them might think "shit, I better go check these details out", did the recipients of other letters bither to do this? Is there any evidence that any of the recipients of Jefferson's letters bothered to check that he was not making things up? How long after the fact were Jefferson's letters published?

It is often considered a sign of weakness in an argument to throw a punch you know.

Well don't throw any then.

Amen-Moses