Re: resurrection centrality
- In a message dated 98-07-01 01:17:23 EDT, jwest@... writes:
None, not one, not any, not a single shred of Paul's stuff predates 50. And
you still have not answered the question- why did he wait 20 years before he
remarked on it... Jack Kilmon got it spot on when he made his remarks along
>>Twenty years before remarking? First, most would date e.g., IThess, to about
50, more or less. So that gives a maximum of less than twenty years. And your
comment about 'remarks' is just plain silly--Paul started _writing epistles_
(at least, ones we still have today) around 50. It would be absurd to think
that Paul didn't know anything before 50--we might as well say he didn't know
that Christianity existed, that Jesus existed, etc, before 50, on the basis
that he didn't write a letter about it. Most people, I would think, would get
a bit familiar with the communities they are writing to (via missions or
whatever else) before they write to them. E.g., this is the case in Rom 1:3-4.
Here Paul is citing common knowledge traditions to show that he was 'one of
them' (v.5, "we")--to people all the way over in _Rome_.
Because it is totally idiotic! The tradition behind 1 Cor 15 dates to the
30's? This is pure rubbish. No wonder Dom didn't say anything- the only
thing he could have said is "you're an idiot"- but as Dom is too polite to
say any such thing, he remained silent (most likely on a mini vacation).
>>Jim, you are being mighty presumptuous lately. Crossan was virtually helpless.
Rather often, he showed his lack of familiarity with Craig's work--got quickly
nailed on about every objection he raised--which was definitely not perceived
as a virtue. Even the Crossan-sympathizer after the debate acknowledged that
the debate was lopsided in Craig's favor. Buy the tape and see how 'calm &
silent' Crossan was.
"These guys are all..."? You named 1.
>>I mentioned Craig, Dodd, and Brown as one who considers it. Those are the only
books I have which really deal with the date of the tradition; from the notes
in these books alone, I should be able to name a couple more: Joachim Jeremias
and Fuller. Also, von Campenhausen, and very likely, W. Pannenburg, under whom
Craig initially studied for two years.
<< And, as I have mentioned before, Craig is not exactly well known.... never
>>'Not exactly well known'? So? Is this a rebuttal to his works? If I didn't
know who Bauer or Bultmann or your other 1930's authorities were, would I be
debunking their works? It's all the more reason you should read him. He'll
know stuff you do not.
Besides, Craig _is_ rather well-known/respected, if not to you. Dealing with
the veridicality of the empty tomb/appearances, Brown lists Craig's _Assessing
the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus_
next to his own book on the matter (_Introduction to New Testament
Christology_, p. 167, n. 230).
If you listen to Crossan's concluding remarks in his debate with Craig, you'll
quickly hear a new respect for Craig's work. Craig began his concluding speech
by citing an article in the Chicago Tribune (I think...) magazine which touted
Crossan's views as scholarly and non-fideist, while saying that the biblical
view is based entirely on faith. Craig stated that he hoped if the audience
learned one thing that night, that precisely the opposite is true. Crossan
opened his concluding statement by saying that he hoped that everyone learned
not to trust everything they read in the Chicago Tribune. I ask that you
simply ponder on that.
Craig is internationally known, and usually under-read by his opponents. I've
dueled with/reviewed opposition to Craig's views on a number of occasions. The
best thing his opponents could do for themselves is to actually read his
huh? anyway, answer the question. Make a case for suggesting that Paul's
ideas on the resurrection are developed by the 30's. Cite a passage. But
of course this cannot be done! Paul's earliest stuff is from the 50's- 20
years after his supposed enlightenment. So, again, we return to the central
quesiton- how is it that you are so bold as to suggest that Paul's view of
the resurrection was 1) formed by the 30's, and 2) held by the majority of
Two questions that need to be answered.
>>1) With it being nearly unanimous among researchers that Paul is quoting an
early hymn in ICor 15, Paul speaks of his conversion in Gal 1. Gal 1:18 speaks
of the time after his conversion: "Three years after that I went up to
Jerusalem to confer with Kephas, with whom I stayed fifteen days." 'Conferred'
has the connotation of getting info--and as Dodd quipped, we may presume that
they didn't talk about the weather; or, for that matter, recount snappy catch-
phrases from a cynic who was recently exposed as a fraud by his crucifixion.
As for Paul's development of his resurrection beliefs, Crossan himself
acknowledges that Paul had a Pharisaic (does that help a little?) view of the
resurrection, a view which Christ's resurrection fit into--Christ was the
firstfruits of them that sleep.
2.) I don't know how to go about dumping the contents of the early believers'
minds onto your computer monitor in a way which will satisfy your insatiable
historical skepticism. But we do know that Paul was personally acquainted with
the early pillars of the church--e.g., Peter, James, et al--and that he quoted
the resurrection as a credal pillar of faith to people as far away as Rome.
Brown gives the evidence that the tradition which Paul quoted to the Romans
was established before Paul, in the 40's (_Introduction to New Testament
Christology_, p. 114). Where to go from there--perhaps to the Bauer-related
I have read a great deal in the field and nobody has rebutted Bauer. Why?
Because his work is that good!
>>Jim, I am stunned that you're not even aware of the rebuttals to the Bauer
hypothesis. Here is the bibliography from an article on Bauer's stuff at
http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_02_04_04.html . Not all are
detailed 'rebuttals', but a couple titles here and there should help:
1.Bauer.OxHer Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.
2.Burr.4GJ Burridge, Richard. Four Gospels, One Jesus. Grand Rapids:
3.Dunn.EvJ Dunn, James D. G. The Evidence for Jesus. Louisville:
4.Dunn.UDNT Dunn, James D. G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977.
5.Hult.RNC Hultgren, Arland. The Rise of Normative Christianity.
6.Moul.BNT Moule, C.F.D. The Birth of the New Testament. Cambridge:
Harper and Row, 1982.
7.Koes.Traj Robinson, James M. and Helmut Koester. Trajectories through
Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.
8.Rob.BTE Robinson, Thomas A. The Bauer Thesis Examined. Lewiston:
9.Sand.PaulPal Sanders, E.P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. London: SCM,
10.TurnHEW.PCT Turner, H. E. W. The Pattern of Christian Truth. London:
R. Mowbrey, 1954.
Well now we are at least getting closer to the historical Paul- the apostle
of the double tongue.
>Anyhow, yes, tell me all about the relevant Greek. I'veBTW.
>done my own mini-studies on the latter portion of ICor 15 (and 'ophthe'),
>Wow! You've stumped with that one! How can I argue with you if you have
used Wuest or Robertson!!!
>>I don't even know who those guys are. And I was unaware that you planned on
stumping me with Greek.
Anyway, if I gave ya a greek word or two I would
only have to explain 'em. thats why I urged you to learn Greek and then
read Paul- not because I want to be flippant- but because detailed argument
necessitates personal acquintance with the language of the documents- not
dependence on some old, tired, and facile "word studies" collection by
dogmatically driven conservatives.
>>Yes, Jim, I'm plenty interested in learning fluent Greek. But my high school
only offers Spanish and French. Currently, therefore, I am confined to using
Good. Read it.
>Certainly you've located ICor 15:20 and Phl 3:21 which speaks of Christ'sAnd has nothing to do with history.
>'soma' of 'doxa'. This is elementary stuff.
>>Paul's beliefs have nothing to do with the distinction made between Christ's
resurrection and previous reanimations? That is all I'm shooting at.
Is it? I suppose, then, that as their stories conclude with it, it is the
most important thing? So concluding remarks are the most important? Not
hardly. Otherwise Paul would not conclude his letters with his little list
>>Remember that Paul writes epistles, a rather different form of literature.
Even Crossan speaks of parabolic literature beginning and ending on
ANd the Gospels would not conclude with the little tidbits they
do. For, dear Ryan, the Gospels DONT conclude with the resurrection
>>Mt 28 ends with Jesus giving the great commission during the appearance on the
mountain in Galilee. Mk ends with the empty tomb account. Lk ends with the
ascension, immediately following the appearance to the eleven. Jn 20 concludes
with the 'many other signs' part, right after Jesus appeared to doubting
Thomas. (The appendix is concerned with the appearances at the Sea of
Tiberias.) I don't see how you can say that the gospels do not end with focus
on the resurrection.
As far as acts is concerned, the resurrection is virtually a non issue.
>>Let's read the beginning of Acts, then, and see if it makes any impression on
Acts 1:1-3 In my first account, Theophilus, I dealt with all that Jesus did
and taught until the day he was taken up to heaven, having first instructed
the apostles he had chosen through the Holy Spirit. In the time after his
suffering he showed them in many convincing proofs that he was alive,
appearing to them over the course of forty days and speaking to them about the
reign of God.
A non-issue? My vote's not with you here.
Read Stephen's speech.
>>It's a debate, nearly entirely centered on OT issues, so why would we consider
this an issue in what they believed about Jesus?
Or Peter's on the day of Pentecost.
>>This goes against your thesis: Peter's speech in 2:24-32 argues for Jesus as
messiah on the basis of his resurrection, prophecied by the OT. Raymond Brown
agrees with me here:
In our considerations we are still looking at christological evidence from the
period before preserved Christian writing, and in that pre-50 period there is
more abundant evidence for resurrection christology than there was for second-
coming christology. Not only is it the dominant christology of the sermons
attributed to Peter and Paul in Acts, but also it is found in the Pauline
epistles in some statements that have a likelihood of prePauline origin.
(_Introduction to New Testament Christology_, p. 112-113)
(Neither, by the way, form the actual dudes- both, in fact, placed in their
mouths by the author of the text).
>>Somehow I knew you would be rather certain about this. But that's not what I'm
disputing at all, and it really doesn't matter to me in this argument whether
the speeches were fabricated.
remain calm, I'm not trying to harm you....
> From: "Antonio Jerez"There are two problems of logic here. First, there is by definition
> I side with Ryan here. I don't recall what Bauer says on the matter,
> if the earliest evidence is anything to go by belief in the resurrection
> of Jesus appears to have been CENTRAL to the Christian faith. Pauls
> show it, just like early "orthodox" documents like the Synoptics and 4G.
some "earliest" evidence, which is Paul. Paul, of course, thinks a
lot of the resurrection. But it does NOT follow that what Paul
thought was therefore central to the Christian faith. Paul thought
that what Paul thought was central... that's how to phrase it.
"orthodox" documents were surely selected in part for the "orthodox"
canon because they maintained "orthodox" emphases... including the
resurrection (canonical bias). Unless you will maintain that the
canon contains a random sample of Xian writing, canonical focus is
not probative of general first century central concern.
> With all due respect - this is nonsense. Paul was not the onlyNo. "Obsessed with" is I think a good way of phrasing it and I'd say
> early Christian obsessed with the heavenly afterlife and resurrection.
> Mark was, so was Matthew and Luke and quite a few others in the
> NT. The resurrection of Christ is not just a thing mentioned "in passing"
> in the NT. The whole of GMark (and Mtt and Luke) point toward the
that does apply to Paul and Mark. Luke certainly less so... but it's
fair to say that it was important to Luke. But it's not particularly
important to Matthew. The whole of Mtt concludes with a resurrection,
but we are not led to believe that this is all that big a deal...
especially when Matthew reports hosts of dead people wandering around
resurrected in Jerusalem at the time.
[Geesh. This letter suddenly sent itself off to Antonio before
I was through with it. First time that's happened.]
> I wouldn't say that the Markan predictions about theOn the contrary. Mt and Lk heightened what they wanted to
> Son of Man "having to suffer, die and rise after three days" is a
> thing "mentioned in passing". This is central to all the Synoptics
heighten for emphasis in Mk and diminished what they wanted
to diminish. If Mt and Lk wanted to heighted the Markan
predictions that would show me that these were central
to them... but they did the opposite... they diminished them...
and this shows me that such predictions were of modest
importance to them.
- Ragu1997@... wrote:
> 1) With it being nearly unanimous among researchers that Paul is quoting anI'm not going to jump into the comparison between Craig and Crossan. Paulquotes a
> early hymn in ICor 15, Paul speaks of his conversion in Gal 1. Gal 1:18 speaks
> of the time after his conversion: "Three years after that I went up to
> Jerusalem to confer with Kephas, with whom I stayed fifteen days." 'Conferred'
> has the connotation of getting info--and as Dodd quipped, we may presume that
> they didn't talk about the weather; or, for that matter, recount snappy catch-
> phrases from a cynic who was recently exposed as a fraud by his crucifixion.
> As for Paul's development of his resurrection beliefs, Crossan himself
> acknowledges that Paul had a Pharisaic (does that help a little?) view of the
> resurrection, a view which Christ's resurrection fit into--Christ was the
> firstfruits of them that sleep.
number of earlier scriptural and apocryphal works and may even,
at one point refer (arguably) to GThom. The discourse with the Corinthians
takes place around 55 CE from Ephesus. The expulsion of the Jews,
including early church, from Rome by Claudius had taken place around
49. There are a number of datings in the works of Paul by his mention
of historical personages (Gallio for instance) that allows us to place him
in certain places at certain times. None of Paul's epistles predate 50, that
I can see. I don't think Paul had a "focus" until after the "Jerusalem Council"