Board index ‹ Jesus

[Silk Fiji]

Remember the Gospels and Acts were written AFTER Paul's letters.

Encyclopedia Britannica: "The books are not arranged chronologically in the New Testament. The Epistles of Paul, for example, which address the immediate problems of local churches shortly after Christ's death, are considered to be the earliest texts."

According to Richard Carrier, Paul's letters indicate that both Cephas (Peter) and Paul only knew Jesus from VISIONS/DREAMS, based on the Old Testament scriptures. Not what we would consider real life.

1 Cor. 15.:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also."

Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 gives the exact Greek name of Jesus, describing him as confronting Satan, being crowned king in heaven, ‘rising’ from his place below, and building up God’s house, given supreme authority over God’s domain and ending all sins in a single day.

Daniel 9 describes a messiah dying before the end of the world.

Isaiah 52-53 describes the cleansing of the world's sins by the death of a servant.

Psalm 22-24, which Mark copies the language of, describes the death-resurrection cycle.

Gerd Lüdemann says:

"Not once does Paul refer to Jesus as a teacher, to his words as teaching, or to [any] Christians as disciples."

and

"Moreover, when Paul himself summarizes the content of his missionary preaching in Corinth (1 Cor. 2.1-2; 15.3-5), there is no hint that a narration of Jesus’ earthly life or a report of his earthly teachings was an essential part of it. . . . In the letter to the Romans, which cannot presuppose the apostle’s missionary preaching and in which he attempts to summarize its main points, we find not a single direct citation of Jesus’ teaching."

Furthermore, Richard Carrier points out Paul viewed the death of Jesus (who had a human body manufactured by God) as occurring in outer space.

[jimwalton]

You didn't really have to quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica to support that the NT books are not in chronological order. That's pretty much a no-brainer.

> According to Richard Carrier, Paul's letters indicate that both Cephas (Peter) and Paul only knew Jesus from VISIONS/DREAMS, based on the Old Testament scriptures. Not what we would consider real life.

Carrier is wrong about this, as he is about many biblical things. You quoted 1 Corinthians 15. We'll start there, since you brought it up. You'll notice that Paul distinctly does NOT say that the appearances were "according to the Scriptures," but that his death and resurrection were according to the Scriptures. That's the first point.

Secondly, since Paul mentions the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, those automatically qualify as Paul placing Jesus on the earth. Jesus' crucifixion is also mentioned by Tacitus, Josephus, Ignatius, Lucian, and possibly Thallus and Mara bar Sarapion. John Crossan, a skeptic who denies the authenticity of just about everything in the Gospels, says, "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact." So Paul places Jesus on the earth by mentioning the historicity of his crucifixion and burial.

Third, you bolded "that he appeared to Cephas." Some closer analysis is helpful. The verb used here is ὤφθη (ophthe), and it is an elastic term. It can be translated as "seen by" or "appeared to." All by itself it doesn't specify anything about the character of what is seen (whether the resurrection appearances were bodily or visionary). That has to be judged on wider criteria. Since ὤφθη stipulates that Christ was seen, and the previous two lines clearly affirm that the same "he"—namely, his physical body—was crucified, buried, and emerge from the grave, the context naturally indicates that the physical, bodily Jesus is what was "seen" by the witnesses listed in vv. 5-6a, 7. We have extremely good grounds for concluding that the earliest disciples both regarded the physical resurrection of Jesus as historical, and attested that they themselves—Peter included—had seen the physically risen Jesus after his death.

In addition, the verb is passive, so its normal meaning would be "was seen by." The list of witnesses is a clear indication that Paul doesn't suppose Jesus' resurrection to be a metaphor of some visionary experience. The great variety of times and places mentioned makes it difficult to interpret as legendary or visionary.

Fourth, since Paul is citing an early Palestinian creed that has been told to him, he must mean a literal appearance, based on the literalness of the death and burial.

The "appearing" to the 12, James, and to the 500 uses the same term. As N.T. Wright says, "Paul refers to the resurrection of Jesus as an event for which there were witnesses—a large, though finite number. This reference to seeing the risen Jesus cannot therefore, in Paul's mind at least, have anything to do with regular and normal, or even extraordinary, 'Christian experience,' with ongoing visions and revelations or a 'spiritual' sense of the presence of Jesus. As is clear from 1 Cor. 9.1, this 'seeing' was something that constituted people as 'apostles,' the one-off- witnesses to a one-off event. The Corinthians had every kind of spiritual experience imaginable, as the previous chapters have made clear, but they had not seen the risen Jesus, nor did either they or Paul expect that they would do so."

Paul uses the same term when he speaks of himself in v. 8, but remember that the context has to guide our interpretation, and Paul qualifies his use of the term with respect to himself by adding, "as to one abnormally born." Paul is claiming that his experience was qualitatively distinct from that of the disciples. Of the disciples he uses a three-fold sequence of *hoti ophthe…epeita ophthe…epeita ohthe*, but then he intentionally breaks that pattern by adding "as to one abnormally born he was also seen by me." He was separating the kind of experience he had—it was of a different kind—from that of the previous disciples listed.

Now, it is probably very true that Paul also saw Christ in a physical form, but not the way the disciples saw it. (1) 1 Corinthians 9.1 speaks of a normal human seeing. It was not simply a private experience; (2) "Last of all" makes it clear that his "seeing" of the risen Jesus was the last of a sequence that came to an end. It was not part of a chain of an ongoing set of spiritual experiences or visionary appearances that he or anyone else might have. It was different; (3) 1 Cor. 15.1-11 clear speaks of public events for which there were evidences if nothing else in the form of witnesses who saw something and can be interrogated; (4) the rest of chapter 15 doesn't speak of non-bodily resurrection.

In other words, Richard Carrier is all wet.

> Zechariah 3 & 6

That's not good exegesis. Of course "Joshua" is the Hebrew form of "Jesus." That doesn't prove your point in the least. Not sure what point you're making here, so you have to be more specific.

> Daniel 9, Isaiah 52-53, Psalm 22-24

Not sure what your point is. The resurrection is spoken of and hinted at in hundreds of places in the OT.

> Gerd Lüdemann

Paul briefly references a teaching of Jesus in 1 Cor. 7.10.

> or to [any] Christians as disciples

Not sure what your point is. The book of Acts, starting at chapter 9 where we first see the story of Paul, has 23 references to the term "disciple" in connection with Paul.

> there is no hint that a narration of Jesus’ earthly life or a report of his earthly teachings was an essential part of it

This is correct. Paul's point was Jesus crucified and risen again. It's virtually all he talked about because it was his point for writing.

> In the letter to the Romans, which cannot presuppose the apostle’s missionary preaching and in which he attempts to summarize its main points, we find not a single direct citation of Jesus’ teaching.

That's right. Even if Jesus never spoke a single word, his death and resurrection would have the same meaning. Jesus is important not for what he said, but for who he was and what he did (died and rose again).

> Furthermore, Richard Carrier points out Paul viewed the death of Jesus (who had a human body manufactured by God) as occurring in outer space.

Yeah, I listened to this talk by Carrier and I could hardly stop laughing. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but it was hilarious. I guess the adage is true, "Anybody can make up anything they want." It's amazing how far he is willing to reach to try to discredit the NT, but what amazes me is that you seem to give his teaching more credit than the work of thousands of biblical scholars through the ages, and the careful scholarly work of current-day biblical scholars.

[Silk Fiji]

You didn't understand that the Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 gives the exact Greek name of Jesus, describing him as confronting Satan, being crowned king in heaven, ‘rising’ from his place below, and building up God’s house, given supreme authority over God’s domain and ending all sins in a single day.

This is the origin of Jesus, according to Paul himself. And notice he is in outer space.

Acts is a completely fictional novel according to mainstream scholarship. Acts contradicts Paul's own autobiography in his letters.

[jimwalton]

> You didn't understand that the Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 gives the exact Greek name of Jesus

Of course I understood that. Even Joshua in the book of Joshua has the exact Greek name of Jesus. They were the same name in two different language. It doesn't prove anything.

In addition, "Satan" in Zechariah 3 has the definite article ("the") in front of it, which makes it clear that it is not being treated as a personal name. The Hebrew word means "adversary," so here the reference is to an adversary, not to the person the New Testament calls Satan.

Therefore, this is NOT the origin of Jesus according to Paul himself. There is nothing about your case that holds or that is good exegesis.

> Acts is a completely fictional novel according to mainstream scholarship

I also don't know where you got this outrageous perspective. Just a partial list of proven historical references in Acts: Annas, Caiaphas, Gamaliel, James, Claudius, Herod Agrippa I, Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Feix, Drusilla, Festus, Herod Agrippa II, Bernice, and historical titles such as Sanhedrin, Italian Regiment, Tetrarch, proconsul, magistrates, politarchs, areopagus, city clear, and chief man of the island. These are just a few. Possibly you're only reading Carrier and others of his misinformation. Acts has tremendous historical reliability. You seem to be an example of what has been proved by scientific experiment: People tend to reason with data not to get the answer right, but to get the answer they prefer to be right. A person's defense mechanisms kick in when they feel their identity and core values are being threatened, and so they subconsciously resist information that conflicts with their beliefs.

I think perhaps you're reading too much Carrier and not enough of mainstream biblical scholarship. Richard Carrier is on the extremist fringe.

[Silk Fiji]

The mainstream view is that Acts is a completely fictional novel.

See Richard Pervo, The Mystery of Acts (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2008); and Richard Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009), for the most thorough accounting of this fact (see especially the latter, pp. 17-18), with substantial support in Thomas Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2004), esp. pp. 377-445 (on Acts specifically); Dennis MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003); and John Dominic Crossan, The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 2012), pp. 196-217. See also Clare Rothschild, Luke–Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An Investigation of Early Christian Historiography (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); Loveday Alexander, ‘Fact, Fiction and the Genre of Acts’, New Testament Studies 44 (1998), pp. 380-99; and P.E. Satterthwaite, ‘Acts against the Background of Classical Rhetoric’, in The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting (ed. Bruce Winter and Andrew Clarke; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 337-80.

Dennis MacDonald points out the shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul share nautical images and vocabulary, the appearance of a goddess or angel assuring safety, the riding of planks, the arrival of the hero on an island among hospitable strangers, the mistaking of the hero as a god, and the sending of him on his way. Paul’s resurrection of the fallen Eutychus is based on the fallen Elpenor. The visions of Cornelius and Peter are constructed from a similar narrative about Agamemnon. Paul’s farewell at Miletus is constructed from Hector’s farewell to Andromache. The lottery of Matthias is constructed from the lottery of Ajax. Peter’s escape from prison is constructed from Priam’s escape from Achilles.

Randel Helms has shown that other elements are borrowed from the Book of Ezekiel: both Peter and Ezekiel see the heavens open (Acts 10.11; Ezek. 1.1); both are commanded to eat something in their vision (Acts 10.13; Ezek. 2.9); both twice respond to God, ‘By no means, Lord! (using the exact same Greek phrase, mēdamōs Kurie: Acts 10.14 and 11.8; Ezek. 4.14 and 20.49); both are asked to eat unclean food, and both protest that they have never eaten anything unclean before (Acts 10.14; Ezek. 4.14).

> Acts contradicts Paul's own autobiography in this letters.

For example, we know Paul ‘was unknown by face to the churches of Judea’ until many years after his conversion (as he explains in Gal. 1.22-23), and after his conversion he went away to Arabia before returning to Damascus, and he didn’t go to Jerusalem for at least three years (as he explains in Gal. 1.15-18).

In contrast, Acts 7–9 has him known to and interacting with the Jerusalem church continuously from the beginning, even before his conversion, and instead of going to Arabia immediately after his conversion, in Acts he goes immediately to Damascus and then back to Jerusalem just a few weeks later, and never spends a moment in Arabia.

[jimwalton]

Some of these are not mainstream scholars. John Crossan, for instance, co-founded the Jesus Seminar, a radical group that has been widely criticized. Thomas Brodie supports the Christ myth theory. Wikipedia even claims that Dennis MacDonald proposes a "Fringe theory". These are not mainstream scholars, but extremists, minimalists, fringe theorists, and radicals.

But these are the scholars to which you have drifted, ignoring, so it seems, any scholar who would dare propose that the NT has anything of value in it. As I said, people drift toward information that supports their biases.

> Acts contradicts Paul's own autobiography in this letters.

Here's a reasonable tracking of Paul's movements after his conversion:

1. Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus (c. AD 32)

2. Sojourn to somewhere in Arabia for unknown length of time.

3. Return to Damascus for 3 years (3 is used loosely; an approximation), including the time in Arabia. He was actively preaching, and eventually there was a threat on his life (around AD 32-35).

4. Trip to Jerusalem. There he was preaching, teaching, and debating. He was treated with suspicion by the apostles. Barnabas took him under wing and introduced him to Peter. He stayed with Peter for two weeks, and also met James. There was a threat on his life (Acts 22.17-18).

5. He went to Tarsus in Cilicia by way of Caesarea.

6. After an unknown length of time in Cilicia, Paul travels to Antioch and is active in ministry there.

7. Goes to Jerusalem with Barnabas to negotiate that Gentiles can be part of the Church without having to become Jews first.

8. Other missionary journeys.

Galatians 1 tells only part of this story; Acts 9 tells part; Acts 26 tells part. We can put them together into a reasonable sequence.