Re: Re; refuting bad apologetics
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Robert Griffin"
>I think it is relevant to the discussion in the sense that, since
> As far as I'm aware, humans have been making ethical changes since
> before the beginning of written history. This is not unusual, and
> does give some hope for our future. However, it is completely
> irrelevent to Paul's discussion in 1 Corinthians and to the
> discussion of the resurrection of Jesus (what was it? did it really
> occur? what did folks mean when they wrote about it?...)
> The claim the Paul (and the other disciples) were only referring to a
> re-evaluation of the impact of Jesus' life when they spoke or wrote
> about the resurrection seems extremely farfetched to me. They don't
> appear to be claiming what anyone could claim of Socrates, Diogenes,
> or Isaiah or Moses. . . .
Saul's description of his conversion and his discourse in 1Cor. is the
only near-contemporary attestation that we have (wouldn't it be great
if we had letters of Barnabbas or of Apollos to compare and contrast
Paul's developing christology to? - lacking these, what "other
disciples" were saying this?), then saying that people were
claiming Jesus had risen bodily at that time is a projection back into
Paul's day of a position which didn't really surface in any texts
until the author of Mark and the subsequent gospels spoke of such a
thing (very probably a couple of decades later).
That is, if Paul was *not* talking about a physical re-animation of
Jesus' body (a tenable position, and one which I admit to leaning
toward), then placing such claims to his physical rising so early is
really "just-so" anachronistic speculation, unsupported by historical
I've been up late working on a website and I need to sleep, but I
wanted to say a few words on this.
r. leon santiago
heathen at large
--- In email@example.com, león <taino_leon@...> wrote:
What was it about this sect of Jews that circa 32-36 C.E. made Saul so
violently opposed to it?
Saul/Paul objected to denial of Torah by the sect and the acceptance
of Gentiles into Israel without circumcision - the very thing he
defended with such force later.
The problem with the negative approach to a psychological 'crisis'
which is where this conversation seems to have been over the past day
or so, is that it fails to take in the positive aspects of the
covenant dialogue, the issue of Paul's experience of his relationship
with his God, the God of Israel, through love of Torah and in its
fuller revelation for Paul, love of God through his Lord, Jesus Christ.
His writing about his experience of love resulted in the disputes and
evolution of 'Christian' sectarian theology through how we read Paul's
letters. Explanation of theology or psychology should not be mistaken
for the reality of the love or his original intent.
Is there evidence that what people see as unique to Paul (Gentiles not
requiring circumcision etc), precedes his conversion? The 'evidence'
is provided by Acts in the Peter-Cornelius episode. Post hoc reasoning
would say that Paul would never have been commissioned to go to the
Gentiles with this message if such a radical break with the covenant
sign had only occurred to him.
- Hi Gordon,
From what I've read, I believe most such 'metaphorical' usages are
intended to be read as straightforward narrative. Some examples from
the far fringes:
My favorite: When Yogananda claims that his parents saw the man who
was to become his guru several hundred miles away from where that man
actually was, Yogananda appears contextually to be claiming that
something extremely unusual happened.
When the Ahmadiyya (Qadiyani) Muslims claim that Jesus survived the
crucifixion, fled through Galilee, Nisibis, and Afghanistan to settle
and die in Kashmir, they go to a lot of trouble to treat this as non-
The various claims that Jesus visited India, Kashmir, or Ladakh (or
Tibet) are handled by their propagators as non-metaphoric fact.
All of the above can be neatly and nicely treated as metaphor, but
the literary context makes it clear that this is not the authors'
intent. I understand you probably disagree with me on this. I'd be
interested in a demonstration with regards to any of the above.
A somewhat similar modern American phenomenon is UFO material. We
can get a lot of inspiration from treating it all as metaphorical,
but is that an appropriate approach to the literature?
> > The claim the Paul (and the other disciples) were only referringto a
> > re-evaluation of the impact of Jesus' life when they spoke orwrote
> > about the resurrection seems extremely farfetched to me.wanted
> I, of course, accept that this is your evaluation. I quite
> disagree. I would argue that the whole of the TANAK heritage
> capitalizes in the use of creative theological writing to give
> expression to theo-ethical convictions. Moses, for example,
> to see God, and so there's that marvelous of him having to hideto
> behind the rock, God passes quickly by and only allowing for Moses
> see his hind parts:)! That's an "appearance" story and one filledthrough
> with "revelation:)!" If one will, for arguments sake, think
> the 3rd option above, then one will find it none to surprising thata
> crowd of Hebraic/ Jewish folk utilized this metaphorically rich,understood
> theological/ ethical story telling tradition and framed their
> understanding of Jesus in terms of precisely this kind of creative
> theological communication. And my point is, this can be
> as intellectual work... very careful and thoughtful intellectualabout
> work, whether one is religiously drawn to it or not.
> Back to Paul. The language of Galatians is revelation language
> what God did. In I Corinthians the 15th chapter explicitly beginstheological
> with Jesus' death and resurrection as being "in accord with
> scriptures." This is theological writing that utilizes a
> heritage of communication. It "appears" to me, that it is mostessential
> "revealing" to think through the 3rd option as central and
> to understanding what resurrection means even if one wants to makea
> case for either metaphysical or emotional understandings:)!
> Gordon Raynal
> Inman, SC
- Hi Bob,
On Feb 9, 2007, at 3:36 PM, Robert Griffin wrote:
> Hi Gordon,
> From what I've read, I believe most such 'metaphorical' usages are
> intended to be read as straightforward narrative.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this statement, but, of course,
most all stories, save surreal ones, are told with narrative
realism. Said realism gives us absolutely no indication that said
story is a historical or biographical account.
> Some examples from
> the far fringes:
> My favorite: When Yogananda claims that his parents saw the man who
> was to become his guru several hundred miles away from where that man
> actually was, Yogananda appears contextually to be claiming that
> something extremely unusual happened.
> When the Ahmadiyya (Qadiyani) Muslims claim that Jesus survived the
> crucifixion, fled through Galilee, Nisibis, and Afghanistan to settle
> and die in Kashmir, they go to a lot of trouble to treat this as non-
> metaphorical history.
> The various claims that Jesus visited India, Kashmir, or Ladakh (or
> Tibet) are handled by their propagators as non-metaphoric fact.
Many traditional stories, once generations removed, are regarded by
those later as factual remembrance or essentially factual. But the
ancients just like the moderns knew how to spin myths, legends,
parables. And the creators and hearers/ readers knew what they were
doing in such literary creations. That later readers/ generations
historicize such stories, of course, doesn't turn creative fictions
> All of the above can be neatly and nicely treated as metaphor, but
> the literary context makes it clear that this is not the authors'
> intent. I understand you probably disagree with me on this. I'd be
> interested in a demonstration with regards to any of the above.
Yes, we quite disagree. I'm not quite sure what would count as "a
demonstration" for you. If you want a list of Bible stories that I
think are creative theological fiction, well... let's start at
Genesis 1, proceed on to the 2nd chapter... and go right on down to
through the Gospels. This is not to say that I believe there are no
instances of historical reference... remembrance of some actual
persons, some deeds, some words ... some underlying accounts of
events that did occur. But I don't at all think the vast majority of
the Bible stories are historical/ biographical materials, but rather
as a whole are better understood in terms of the poetics and creative
narratives of explicitly theo-ethical communication. It has only
been in very modern times that the questions of scientific
historiography have been asked of these and such stories as you
sight. And to this day most all people in all cultures don't study
much history and for the most part could care less about it. To say
the least the theological/ ethical and communal value for all
societies is not based in "the historicity" of narratives. I don't
for a minute think, for example, that the powerful story of Jonah has
any thing to do with the accounting of some guy named Jonah who was
swallowed by a big old fish and later vomited out. Neither do I
think the author of said story thought he was crafting a story to
remember such a set of events. But that in no way at all suggests
any diminished value to the story. Quite the opposite, actually. To
understand a story in terms of genre is absolutely important in terms
of understanding the very nature of the communication. And so with
that judgment about Jonah, it remains theologically and ethically
one of the most profound stories. That the majority of church folks
in SC think it is a remembrance doesn't exactly work to push me to
think they're on to something;)! But at the same time it is not hard
at all to engage such persons in conversations about the theological,
ethical... and human meanings is such story telling. To do so one
precisely points to the matters of thought and poetry in such a story.
Should you want to entertain this alternative to your position, I'd
suggest you read Thomas Thompson's, "The Mythic Past." Thomas, has
now and again, actually written a few notes on this list. And then
again, if you have not, read such as Crossan, Mack and the Five
Gospels by the Jesus Seminar, they will provide other resources for
thinking about this alternative.
> A somewhat similar modern American phenomenon is UFO material. We
> can get a lot of inspiration from treating it all as metaphorical,
> but is that an appropriate approach to the literature?
Pardon, but I don't at all get your point about this. I don't at all
think the production of cultural/ communal theological and ethical
craftsmanship... speech and writings that connect persons across
generations in terms of theology, ethics, communal and personal
praxis... is at all on par with UFO stories. And who is going to get
what sort of inspiration??? Unless you are meaning this as a joke
that I'm just missing, what is the relevance of this to the crafting
of the the TANAK, the Christian Scriptures, the Koran, the Gita,
etc? So, you'll have to clarify the point here.