I am going to liberally snip this post as I think the various made
don't need to be remade. A few comments to clarify...
>It might help to recap...
>1. [snip]In the light of Paul's close similarities to
>Jesus' teaching (Thompson, Wenham, and not just because of OT antecedents),
>it seems reasonable to hold that Paul's lack of citations also sits
>alongside familiarity with Jesus' teaching.
What specifically are you referring to when you speak of "Paul's
close similarities to Jesus' teachings"? I see some vague
similarities that can easily be explained in other ways (ie common
reliance on the OT, etc) - and even more importantly, I see some
radical differences between J & P! There is the old, yet astute
observation that J mostly preached the kingdom of God, whereas P
mostly preached J! Big difference!!!
>(Paul's considerable familiarity
>with, and that his self-conception had been shaped by, these very prophets
>would tend to confirm this.) I argued that this would cohere with one's
>expectation of a first century devoted follower of a teacher (Elvis is no
Elvis doesn't need to be a teacher for this illustration to
illustrate. The point was simply that it is not difficult to conceive
of a scenario where someone can be radically interested in only one
aspect of someone else's life, without positing any discontinuity.
>2. Throughout, those who have disagreed have often done so, tangentially I
>think, on the basis of a putative dichotomy between the risen Christ and
>earthly Jesus. First it must be recognized that this in no way damages the
>strength of the first argument, which after some time in the lists still
>stands. Re this second argument, I contend that the Christ/Jesus dichotomy
>is a modern scholarly fiction that:[snip]
The Elvis illustration also attempted to show that my understanding
doesn't rest upon this dichotomy. That being said, I am not sure that
some dichotomy does not exist. 2 Cor 5:16b ("...even though we once
knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that
way.) seems to suggest this possibility.
>d. does not take seriously the ontological continuity that is central to
Jewish notions of resurrection.
You have spoken about the Jewish understanding of resurrection -
Xnty radically *redefined* resurrection! The Jewish understanding of
resurrection is something that happens to all humans at the "end of
time". Xn held this, but this idea was serious "morphed" by the
resurrection of Christ. For Xn's the belief is conditioned by Jesus -
where as that would not be the case for Jews. 1 Cor. 15, seems to be
an attempt to understand how the general resurrection at the end of
time can be understood in the light of the resurrection of Jesus.
In short, I think there are as many *differences* between between the
"Jewish" and Xn understanding of resurrection - and thus the Jewish
understanding can not be used as a "control" to understand the XN
Vancouver School of Theology
Once in a while you can get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right...
-Robert Hunter From SCARLET BEGONIAS