Is I Corinthians 15:3-8 ‘Too Early’ to Be Legend?
Dawson Betrhick of the Incinerating Presuppositionalism blog posted an excellent essay on the alleged post resurrection appearances listed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. Mr. Bethrick's style make his critique worthwhile reading. Here is the link to Is I Corinthians 15:3-8 ‘Too Early’ to Be Legend?
Here is the link to Is I Corinthians 15:3-8 ‘Too Early’ to Be Legend?
Here is the link to Is I Corinthians 15:3-8 ‘Too Early’ to Be Legend?
44 comments:
I have not read Geisler’s book which was cited, but I would like to quickly outline what Habermas commonly presents in his debates and also address some of Dawson’s comments.
Habermas is interested in trends underlying the various branches of NT scholarship. He prefers to use source material which conservatives and liberals agree on. His approach has been termed the
minimal facts apologetic.
www.garyhabermas.com/audio/habermas_minimal_facts_approach.mp3 for his short description of what this is.
The majority of his resurrection apologetic uses criteria and argumentation developed by skeptics.
This is Habermas’ timeline for the events leading up to the Gospels:
Jesus crucified: 30 AD
Paul’s conversion +2 (years after 30 AD)
Early creedal statement +3
Paul’s visit to the apostles +5
1 Corinthians +25
Mark +40
Matthew +50
Luke +55
John +65
Let’s consider some of the statements made here in regard to this highly contested passage.
Right off the bat he’s out of sync with scholarship. With regards to authorship, 1 Corinthians is almost universally acknowledged to be authentic Pauline material. Even Bart Ehrman affirms it as one of the “undisputed Pauline epistles” (in addition to Romans, Galatians, Philemon, 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians).
Michael Martin in his Case Against Christianity concludes that Paul is the only eyewitness testimony we have to Christ’s post-resurrection appearances. Of course he doesn’t believe it but he and a majority of historians/philosophers can agree that Paul was sincere in his belief about the Damascus experience. Doesn’t make it true just because Paul believed he saw Jesus.
The authors tell us that the First Epistle to the Corinthian church “contains the earliest and most authenticated testimony of the Resurrection itself...I can only ask at this point, “authenticated” by what? And what specifically do the authors think is “authenticated” in this passage?
Likely if Habermas is the one who said “authenticated” then he’s implying that this material is written by Paul, can be dated pretty accurately and a vast majority of NT scholars agree on the data.
. In fact, if the gist of I Cor. 15:3-8 is a creedal formula passed down to him from other believers, it is at best hearsay that he inserts into his letter.
The deal with these early creeds is pretty interesting. There are certain places where Paul’s syntax and word choice go completely out of character (scribe wrote his dictations down in some letters) and become pithy, rhythmic cadences. Scholars claim these to be echoes of what the earliest Christian preaching sounded like. The gospels weren’t written down right away. There was a period of oral proclamation during which these creedal statements developed to proclaim Jesus’ resurrection. (Philippians 2 contains another one of these pertaining to the early belief in Christ’s deity by the way).
So what we have in 1 Cor 15:
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received :
After the colon we get the creedal statement…. , 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…
The language here is the exact same as the Pharisees used when passing on their traditions to one another…so we have even more reason to think Paul’s about to tell us something from oral tradition. So when did Paul hear this material?
The consensus among critics is that Paul received this material around 35 AD. His conversion is dated at roughly 32 AD, with 3 years passing before he visits the apostles (Galatians 1:18), from Peter and James. Scholars on both sides have no quarrels with that. Before giving it to Paul, where did Peter and James get it from?
Gerd Ludeman, atheist NT scholar from Germany says the latest this material became a creed is 33 AD. The Jesus Seminar also dates this creed to be at latest +2 years after Jesus’ death. Some more conservative scholars like James Dunn argue for earlier dates back even to the fall of 30 AD. There was never a time when Jesus was preached as anything less than raised from the dead. All arguments that a resurrection legend popped up later are squashed if scholarship is correct here. What this argument doesn’t do (when presented in isolation) is show the resurrection to be historically true.
There is an important difference between making these two arguments:
1. Jesus was resurrected from the dead
2. The early Christians believed Jesus rose from the dead
Since Habermas’ argument concludes #2, the next step is to ask what theory best explains (explanatory power and scope, I think Craig pushes this side more) the early belief in resurrection….so anyways just wanted to make it clear that this isn’t some slam dunk apologetic (there is no such thing).
Normally I chide my non-Christian friends for not reading Christian scholarship and vice versa, but in Dawson’s case I wish he would check out ANY scholars on the matter. He apparently thinks he is capable of overturning the work of men who have been developing their approaches for decades...and how many sources did he cite? I counted 1 but maybe I missed a few.
I would listen to a few of his debates (particularly Antony Flew and Kenneth Humphreys) for a real depiction of his arguments. Sounds like Geisler and Turek have made use of this in their book which is nice but the primary source is always better.
A great collection of materials on the resurrection is the Greer-Heard Forum from a few years ago. NT Wright and Dom Crossan go at it a bit and there are several papers presented (Craig is there in full force of course). As much as I disagree with Crossan on some issues, the man is so polite and well-mannered you can’t help but respect him.
Responses to Bethrick are probably better posted at Incinerating Presuppositionalism. I will link this thread to the Bethrick's at IP.
Kevin, done!
david,
I am not sitting near a NT, but as I recall, if we didn't have the Book of Acts (likely a 2nd century creation) to give us some contextual "background" information, there is nothing in Paul's writings that describes the Road to Damascus event.
So much of our interpretation of Paul's epistles rests on datings which depend entirely on a literal acceptance of the Gospel & Acts chronology.
How do we know that there even existed an Historical Jesus of Nazareth to date the 1 Corinthian epistle?
What is the earliest reference to this epistle by a third party to corroborate the existence of these epistles from the mid first century let alone the 30's?
Take the anonymous & undated Acts / Gospel references away from Paul's epistles & what do you have? This is not that ridiculous an exercise. After all how much of the Gospel narrative do we see referred to by Paul? - almost nothing actually.
I think that these arguments & discussions are really quite crippled by the inherent faith-like assumptions that one must make to support any such confident datings. One has to buy into the idea that the Gospels and the Book of Acts have some sort of historical core & some level of veracity but this is by no means an easy position to defend.
-evan
I would be very suspicious of the "minimal facts" approach even if I agreed that they were facts. Is it really valid historical method to cherry pick a subset of facts and claim that the best theory is the one that explains those, and only those, cherry-picked facts?
Isn't this exactly what the conspiracy theorists do? The 911 nuts pick out three or four carefully chosen video clips and they find three or four people who report hearing an explosion at the right moment. Then they demand that any theory must explain those cherry picked bits of evidence and, not surprisingly, the only explanation is their theory of a controlled demolition by the U.S. Government. If all the evidence is considered, it is so obvious that terrorists flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Center that those few "facts" can probably be dismissed as anomalies. However, when you insist on examining a manipulated subset of evidence, it is easy to reach an absurd conclusion.
I always want to suggest an additional fact for Habermas' consideration and it is a fact upon which virtually all men of science throughout the history of makind agree: Once you're dead, you're dead. I think that any historical theory should account for that fact, too.
And then there's the angle of the several pagan savior dying resurrection gods. As Robert M. Price points out, to say the Jesus stories are true while denying similar stories related of other gods is special pleading. Zealous Christians are whistling past the graveyard when they want people to not notice the lumps under the rug. But when we pick up the rug to see what lays beneath, we find a supernatural world view where for any given event there are an infinite number of possible causes. Theism is a cartoon universe where anything goes. So even if Habermas was right, there is no valid inference from a particular demi-god resurrected to my favorite god did it. If theism is true, then extreme skepticism prevails.
eheffa:
1 Cor 9:1 has to be explained on other grounds than the story in Acts if one contends that the Damascus experience was not part of Paul's belief. Haven't seen any good theories as to what else he could have meant there.
So much of our interpretation of Paul's epistles rests on datings which depend entirely on a literal acceptance of the Gospel & Acts chronology
Dom Crossan has about the most metaphorical hermeneutic I have ever seen (regarding the resurrection), and he has no problem with I Cor, nor do any of his friends in the Jesus Seminar from what I have read. Or are you driving at something else here?
What is the earliest reference to this epistle by a third party to corroborate the existence of these epistles from the mid first century let alone the 30's?
I'm not sure, but I don't subscribe to that kind of historical criticism.
After all how much of the Gospel narrative do we see referred to by Paul? - almost nothing actually.
I think the assumption about what Paul was "given" may be a bit wide. We don’t know what Jesus, James, or Peter told him outside of the texts we’re given. We also see Paul’s letters were written for specific purposes and often were more theological than narratival. Its an interesting point, but I’m not sure why I should expect Paul to narrate the gospel.
Robert_B:
Yay, you win!
Actually the pagan rising god is a theory pushed by popular skeptics while scholars largely ignore it. I could be competely missing out on something; find me a source written in the last 30 years by a credentialed scholar and I'll consider his arguments.
That kind of theorizing fizzled out by the middle of the 20th century thanks to the Old Princeton club and their constant battles with German rationalists. The only Christian apologist I have read who deals with the older arguments is Ronald Nash in The Gospel and The Greeks
Theres a funny saying about New Testament scholarship: "The Germans create it, the British correct it, and the Americans corrupt it."
Actually Robert_B I may have been unfair to Dr. Price...he would probably fit the criteria I gave so nevermind...guess now I have another book to add to my summer reading list.
For now I'm going to watch these vids (blogger.com doesn't like me posting them as links sorry):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE6KqJjeE8A
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5426420211446884729
I'll let you know my thoughts on it later this week if you care to continue discussing his specific arguments.
For David:
[quote]1 Cor 9:1 has to be explained on other grounds than the story in Acts if one contends that the Damascus experience was not part of Paul's belief. Haven't seen any good theories as to what else he could have meant there.[/quote]
He says: [i]Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?[/i]
If not for Acts, one would be left to theorize a little more, but if Acts is a second century fabrication (designed to integrate the Marcionite / gentile friendly / Pauline traditions with the Petrine Jerusalem traditions) then one must consider the alternative options and try and step away from the Acts-based explanation. When did Paul see Jesus? Maybe in a vision when taken up to the third heaven? Who knows but the author of Acts may not have had any better information than we have...
Is Paul's apparent lack of knowledge & interest in the earthly or Gospel Messiah not rather troubling to the traditional view? Is it not possible that the Jesus of Paul's "Gospel" is actually an ethereal Logos type of heavenly savior. A savior-god who has no real connection to the Gospel Jesus we find in the Midrashic writings of the anonymous author of Mark & his redactors. Perhaps Paul's Logos cult savior actually inspired the later Midrash of Mark to bring a more human Messiah into the picture.
The Jesus Seminar folks are assuming that there was an actual historical Jesus at the core of the Gospel accounts. What if the Central figure of Christianity was not a real person after all but merely a religious & literary invention designed to give some sort of historical grounding to an otherwise Platonic Logos cult with Jewish messianic inspiration?
If you think this is an entirely wacko or far-fetched possibility, then I would invite you to consider the arguments of Earl Doherty at http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm
I think he does a very reasonable job of arguing the case for a Mythical Jesus & is at least worthy of some consideration.
[quote]We also see Paul’s letters were written for specific purposes and often were more theological than narratival. Its an interesting point, but I’m not sure why I should expect Paul to narrate the gospel.[/quote]
Doherty deals with this question at length. Why would Paul repeatedly use OT scripture to argue for principles that are much more powerfully argued using the Gospel Jesus as the example? Perhaps because the Gospel Jesus was unknown to Paul. It's possible that the Gospel Jesus we meet in Mark (& in the writings of those that plagiarized Mark later) was a later creation not conceived of by Paul while devoting his life promoting his heavenly Messiah.
Surely a zealot like Paul should have been obsessed with knowing & understanding the details & puzzling sayings & deeds of the Gospel Jesus of the Synoptics. How many preachers have we heard parsing those very words & deeds & deriving important principles from the subtlest details. Why is Paul, the devotee so ignorant & disinterested in the earthly Christ? Perhaps because the Earthly Messiah had not been invented yet.
Personally, I am not sure that I have enough evidence at my disposal to make up my mind, but I do think that is takes a lot of stubborn blind faith to accept the Gospels at face value. Interpreting Paul's writings without the Gospels & Acts to steer your context can give a very different picture of Christianity's earliest writer.
-evan
eheffa:
I passed over this the first time but I would like to press you on your claim that Acts is most likely a 2nd century document. Could you premise that assertion?
Do you reject the authorship of Luke? Given there is internal and external attestation naming Luke, I am interested to hear your position.
If you accept Luke as the author, then we've really got some issues to hash out! :)
Hi David,
As a recent de-converter, I am no critical scholar but I have read quite a bit on this topic over the last while. Having said that though, I'll need to do my homework before I answer your "challenge" ;-) as it has been a few months since I last looked at this in any depth.
I'll hope to have some semblance of an answer for you tomorrow.
-evan
David,
Thank you for your comments. I have posted some thoughts by way of reply on my own blog (it was just getting too long to post as a comment here):
In Response to David on I Corinthians 15:3-8
Regards,
Dawson
Take your time Evan, I would rather read a well researched opinion any day.
J Gresham Machen’s The Origin of Paul’s Religion is a good scholarly work. I don’t agree with him all the time and he is a bit dated (1921) but he goes into detail about claims of Paul’s Gnostic dualism and also the influence of mystery cults (Dionysus, Mithra, Horus, etc…)
Google has this book free online since its public domain.
Perhaps Paul's Logos cult savior...
I am not familiar with that terminology and it is confusing because that word appears primarily in John’s writings and at least conceptually in Hebrews. I doubt you think Paul wrote Hebrews, so I’m assuming this is a term Doherty or someone else uses to allege Hellenistic influence?
What if the Central figure of Christianity was not a real person after all but merely a religious & literary invention designed to give some sort of historical grounding to an otherwise Platonic Logos cult with Jewish messianic inspiration?
Many people have a hard time maintaining that level of skepticism and being intellectually honest…I will check the website and see what Doherty is up to. I’ve read a few things by him and honestly didn’t think he was that skeptical. I will also look at his points about Paul and his gospel.
Why would Paul repeatedly use OT scripture to argue for principles that are much more powerfully argued using the Gospel Jesus as the example?
I’m surprised Doherty is arguing this since I thought everyone agreed the Jews commonly argued that way (using OT). His whole Jewish education would have revolved around that kind of thinking...I certainly wouldn't be suprised if he relied on it in his writing...especially to a Jewish audience.
David: "His whole Jewish education would have revolved around that kind of thinking...I certainly wouldn't be suprised if he relied on it in his writing...especially to a Jewish audience."
I thought Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles rather than to Jews (see Romans 11:13). Were the Galatians, Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians and Romans Jews, or Gentile Christians?
At any rate, if Paul knew that Jesus, as the gospels portray him, had taught on the same matters with which he wrestled in his budding congregations, it's hard to understand why Paul did not appeal to Jesus' authority on the matter. In my response to David, I gave some examples of Paul's moral teachings which are later attributed to Jesus in the gospels, but for which Paul does not credit Jesus.
Regards,
Dawson
bahnsen: I'll response to your post this evening.
Paul's audience was mixed. Even though primarily the "Apostle to the Gentiles"...he wrote to the converted Jews as well.
Oh david, you keep blathering on about scholars and scholarship. But why the heck are you talking about scholarship relative to the supernatural world view for?
Scholarship means "learning; knowledge acquired by study".
Knowledge means "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles."
Fact means "something that actually exists; reality; truth."
Truth means "actual state of a matter or conformity with reality."
In the supernatural world view, there is no uniformity of nature, no Law of Identity, no Causality, and hence no reality. Christianity asserts what we all perceive as existence is simply the imagination of its "God". That which is imaginary is not real. Without reality, there can be no facts, no conformity with reality, and hence no truth to study or derive knowledge from. Under supernaturalism, scholarship, like all else, is an illusion.
Only under naturalism can reality be ascertained for what it actually entails. Thus only naturalistic learners and studiers can engage in actual scholarship. But more importantly, in reality the dead do not rise from their graves. And Paul would have agreed.
David re: Dating Acts.
I hope my superficial summary below is not too cursory to be useless. I am just at the point of more fully formulating my understandings of the origins of Christianity and am open to any evidence that can be brought to the table but I am quite convinced that "The Faith" is a man-made construct. I might be persuaded to reconsider this conclusion but have yet to hear or read anything that contradicts this opinion.
One can see the need for an early dating of Acts to maintain Evangelical orthodoxy but these early datings are predicated on the assumptions that Luke was the author and also one of Paul's travelling companions in Paul's Missionary journeys.
These assumptions, like so many orthodox positions regarding the veracity and dating of the Gospels etc do not hold up to closer scrutiny.
The book:
Dating Acts: Between the Evangelists & the Apologists by Richard Pervo (2006) covers this question in great depth & with careful analysis of the extant evidence.
According to Pervo, it would appear that the author of Luke had access to both Josephus' writings c. 100's as well as compilations of the Pauline epistles dating from ~100 CE. He used language peculiar to the styles & issues of the early second century. The earliest unequivocal references to Acts by other authors are ~180 CE but hints of references may occur as early as 130 CE but certainly not before. Pervo builds a convincing case for dating Acts around 115 (110-120) CE.
So, is Acts history or evangelistic fiction or is it something in-between with an historical core and a fictional embellishment? How does one understand the anachronisms of the Pauline epistles and their heavenly Christ and their apparent disconnect from the Gospel Jesus? Can Acts be relied upon to reconcile these difficulties & outline the early history of the Church? Probably not.
I was raised to accept the premise that the inspired Word of God was authentic, reliable and inerrant. One is supposed to understand that these canonical NT writings are authoritative & written with pure godly integrity. Against that simplistic view though, it is quite clear that many of the Pauline epistles were written by second century authors pretending to be Paul. e.g. 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy etc. Those writing these Deutero-Pauline epistles seemed confident that the good of their doctrinal clarifications outweighed the necessary evil of their pseudonymous & deceptive attempts to mimic Paul. (Exactly how does the Spirit of God inspire forgeries? See Eusebius & his justification for fabricating evidence for the greater good of the Kingdom) If the canonical epistles could be corrupted by well-meaning second century authors, you don't suppose that Luke could have ever succumbed to the temptation to fill in the important details when he lacked for real history? What is clear is that he could not have been a travelling companion to Paul; why then would he pretend to be? Would you trust a modern account published today by someone claiming first person knowledge of supernatural events occurring in 1922? Maybe, but I'll bet that you would require extraordinary evidence to be convinced of the veracity of the story.
May I suggest that you not take my word for this (a poor summary at best) & read Pervo's book. He puts the shoddy scholarship of the apologists to shame.
-evan
eheffa,
I downloaded the free book by Pervo called, Rethinking The Unity of Luke and Acts from Google and I’ll have a look. I should probably be consistent and outline some of the reasons I reject 2nd century dating for Acts (there are only a handful of scholars who accept it), and give you something to chew on from my side of the coin.
There are basically three dates suggested for Acts: before 70 AD, 80-85 AD, and 105-130 AD.
The later dates derive from a theory that Luke was not the author of acts and obtained his info about the revolutionaries (Theudas and Judas, see Acts 5:36,37) from Josephus in Antiquities 18.4-10 and 20.97-98. This document was written later first century mind you.
Reasons to doubt dependence on Josephus:
1. Theudas in Acts may have actually been one of many revolutionaries during that time period, and not necessarily the one mentioned by Josephus.
2. Luke’s knowledge of Judas was not necessarily derived from Josephus’s account anymore than Josephus’s knowledge was derived from Luke. For example, the two account of Herod Agrippa’s dead in 44 AD (Acts 12:19-22) are considerably different.
Support for the conclusion that Acts was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD:
1. After devoting over half of Acts to Paul’s ministry, Acts 28 leaves Paul alive and under house arrest waiting for Caesar. Talk about a cliffhanger!
2. Act’s portrays the Roman government as benevolent towards Christianity, an attitude that definitely changed in 64 AD when Emperor Nero blamed the Christians.
3. Vocabulary points to an early date: words like “disciple”; “the first day of the week” (later the “Lord’s Day”); “the peoples of Israel” (4:27); and the early title “Son of Man” (7:56); as well as language about geographical and political details.
a. “A writer who thus relates his story to the wider context of world history is courting trouble if he is not careful; he affords his critical readers so many opportunities to assess his accuracy…One of the most remarkable tokens of his accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons whoa re mentioned in his pages. This was by no means such an easy feat in his days as it is in ours, when it is so simple to consult convenient books of reference.” (pg. 82; FF Bruce, The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable?
b. “But given the massively accurately terminology Luke uses to describe each and every governmental leader he notes, a second century person would clearly not have that information, from reading Josephus or anything else. His familiarity with the local terminology and customs and names can only come from someone who was actually there in the first century. There is no reason whatsoever to assign a second century date to Luke/Acts.” – material provided Dr. James R White
4. Theophilus was presumably Luke’s patron who would have supported Luke and allowed him to research and write books (where are these nice guys now huh?). Josephus had Vespasian and Titus as patrons, as well as another benefactor, to whom he dedicated Against Apion. Also both Luke and Acts were addressed to Theophilus.
5. The author goes to the trouble of mentioning several names of people who may have helped him (16:11;20:4)
6. Patristic sources that affirm Luke’s authorship of Acts: Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome
7. Muratorian Canon (ca. 170 AD) affirms Luke as author of Acts
8. Luke is a relatively obscure figure in the NT, so a historian attempting to argue that someone would pseudo-author something in his name would require some justification. Why choose Luke who has with educated Greek syntax and razor sharp historical/political precision?
9. Josephus mentions the martyrdom of James in 62 AD…why doesn’t the author of Acts record this significant event?
Also if you would like to discuss the authorship of 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy I am up for it. Since you are making the positive claim based I will ask you for some sources and then respond to those arguments the best I can. If people are getting annoyed let us know and we can move the discussion to email.
Cheers,
David
David offered nine reasons in “support for the conclusion that Acts was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD,” several of which are tangential at best. In response to the first two, which I would consider the strongest, I’ve quoted Wells on the topic from his book The Jesus Myth. Wells devotes more ink to the problematic relationship between Acts and the Pauline epistles in his book The Historical Evidence for Jesus (see pp. 145-165).
David: “1. After devoting over half of Acts to Paul’s ministry, Acts 28 leaves Paul alive and under house arrest waiting for Caesar. Talk about a cliffhanger!”
Wells accepts that the gospel attributed to Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are written by the same individual (cf. The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p. 146), and gives reasons for dating the gospel of Luke after AD 70, such as pronounced allusions to the sacking of Jerusalem in, for instance, Lk. 21:20 (The Jesus Myth, p. 26f). Of Acts and where it leaves Paul, Wells notes:
If Luke wrote his gospel after AD 70, he wrote Acts, which he himself calls a sequel, even later. Conservative scholars still argue that he must have written it before the trial and death of Paul, which he would otherwise have mentioned, and before Nero’s persecution of Christians in Rome of AD 64, on which he is similarly silent. But Luke knew that Paul had stood before Nero’s court in Rome, for at Acts 27:24 he is made to tell his shipmates that they will all survive the voyage, an angel having informed him that he “must stand before Caesar” and so wil reach Rome safely. Acts concludes by stating that, once there, he lived in relative freedom, in lodgings at his own expense “for two whole years.” Haenchen is surely right to say that whoever wrote this knew that, after these two years a change occurred, and what it was that happened, namely that Paul was condemned and executed ([Die Apostelgeschichte, p. 647). The author of Acts has already earlier gone out of his way to make him tell Christian clergy in Asia not only that imprisonment and affliction await him, but that he will never subsequently return to the areas he has missionized (20:25). This sorrowful pronouncement is repeated at 20:38, and surely mplies that the author knew that Paul was never released but died a martyr. But he could hardly say so outright because, for him, Paul was the bearer of the triumphant and invincible word of God, and in Acts is given a career which reflects this triumph. The author therefore goes no further than to “introduce shadows of martyrdom as they fall, not too darkly, across his hero’s path” and to “indicate that Paul was aware of what was to happen” (Barrett [“Pauline Controversies in the Post-Pauline Period.” New Testament Studies, 20], p. 240). (The Jesus Myth, pp. 31-32.)
David: “2. Act’s portrays the Roman government as benevolent towards Christianity, an attitude that definitely changed in 64 AD when Emperor Nero blamed the Christians.”
Again, writes Wells:
Luke’s attitude in Acts to Rome is decidedly friendly. He may well have been concerned to counter the kind of anti-Roman sentiment evidenced in the book of Revelation (which most scholars date in the 90s), and have recognized such provocation as a danger to Christianity. Commentators have repeatedly observed that one purpose of Acts is to represent Christianity as entirely innocuous politically, as contravening no Roman laws. Hence Acts repeatedly makes Roman officials behave with tolerance towards Christians – and this means, in effect, towards Paul, for it is he who carries Christianity westward from Jerusalem into the Roman empire. An author who supplies so many examples of tolerance on the part of the Roman authorities would have been glad indeed to report Paul’s acquittal, and the evidence suggests that he fails to do so not because he wrote before the case had been decided, but because he knew that it did not lead to an acquittal. It would have spoiled his pro-Roman stance to have ended his book with a Roman execution of his hero. (Ibid., p. 32.)
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
Which reason(s) is tangential and why?
Wells argument is interesting because I have seen others use the Olivet discourse as support for a pre-70 AD dating; for instance, Dan Wallace and friends in Misquoting Jesus on page 28. Unless Wells rejects Markan priority I am a little fuzzy on how he can be consistent. At any rate I am not very convinced by his attempt to push Luke/Acts back…I would like to see if any of the Old Princeton apologists had anything to say about it.
Cheers,
David
The Mystery of Paul's Ignorance [1]
This article is not copywrited.
Louis W. Cable
Paul's writing is no better than the jargon of a conjurer who picks up phrases he does not understand to confound the credulous people who come to have their fortune told.
Thomas Paine2
Let us consider the question of Paul's ignorance, perhaps the most perplexing problem confronting the defenders of the historical Jesus. The Apostle Paul, often referred to as the real founder of Christianity, seems to have been totally unaware of any details of Jesus' life and teachings as they are presented in the New Testament gospels. Nowhere does Paul equate his hero, Jesus Christ, with a virgin born miracle worker from Nazareth recently put to death in Judea. Certainly it is not unreasonable to expect that somewhere among his extensive writings he would have betrayed some knowledge of the circumstances surrounding these most important events had they actually occurred.
Paul's dates are not definitely known, but he must have lived from somewhere around 53 to around 674. Although these dates may not be exact, the traditional dates of Jesus’ ministry (27-30) fall well within them. When Jesus was supposed to have been active in his ministry, Paul was a grown man in his early to mid twenties living and working in Jerusalem. He was a Jew, a member of the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1). He claims to have studied under the famous rabbinical teacher, Gamaliel, and to have been closely associated with the political and religious leaders of that day (Acts 22:3-5). During that time Jerusalem was a city of approximately 120,000 population5, not significantly large. He surely must have heard of Jesus, the miracle worker. In Matthew 4:24 we learn that Jesus' fame as a healer had spread "throughout all of Syria." How could he have missed Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem which, according to Matthew 21:1-10, attracted great multitudes6. How could he not have heard about Jesus’ cleansing of the temple which incurred the wrath of the chief priest (Matthew 21:12-16)? As an enforcer of the law, how could Paul not have known of Jesus’ betrayal by Judas Iscariot, the trial, and/or the crucifixion with its attendant anomalies such as darkness at noon and earthquakes? Why didn't he mention the resurrection of the saints (Matthew 27:52-53) or the amputation by Peter of the right ear of Malchus, the chief priest's slave (John 18:10,) and its miraculous reattachment by Jesus (Luke 22:51)? Surely Paul would have encountered Jesus sometime during those years so crucial to what was later to become the Christian religion. In Luke 24:18 Cleopas, one of the two travelers the resurrected Jesus encountered on the road to Emmaus, says that everybody in Jerusalem knew about Jesus. Yet, not a single reference to these important, even astounding, events appears anywhere in the authentic Pauline epistles. As far as the record goes, the only encounter Paul ever had with Jesus was that famous incident which allegedly occurred on the road to Damascus.
The Book of Acts records three separate accounts of Paul’s conversion to Christianity. None of these accounts agrees fully with the other two. For example, in Acts 9:7 Paul says that the men with him "heard the voice." But in Acts 22:9 he says they "did not hear the voice." The other contradiction lies in the manner in which Paul claims to have received his instructions. According to the first two accounts, Jesus didn't say very much. He directed Paul to go into the city where he would be told what he must do (Acts 9:6 and 22:10). However, in his defense before King Agrippa (Acts 26:12-18) Paul tells a different story. Here he says that Jesus instructed him in great detail right there on the spot. So, did Paul (or the writer of Acts of the Apostles) deliberately lie?
Paul tells in II Cor. 11:32-33 how he made a daring escape from the agents of King Aretas who were out to arrest him. This establishes a reliable extra-biblical time line because Aretas, King of the Nabataeans, is a historical person known to have died in the year 407. Therefore, Paul’s conversion and the beginning of his career as an evangelist had to have taken place sometime in the late 30s, less than ten years after the alleged crucifixion. He should have been personally acquainted with many people who had had direct contact with Jesus. For example, he went to Jerusalem where he spent fifteen days with Cephas (Peter) (Galatians 1:18), whom Jesus had personally selected to be his earthly successor (Matthew 16:18-19). Surely they discussed the life of Jesus, and his teachings.
Those Pauline epistles considered to be genuine were written between 50 and 60. They predate the gospels and are among the earliest extant Christian writings. For that reason one would expect them to contain a wealth of details about Jesus' life and teachings, details confirming the gospel accounts. But this is far from the case. Concerning the alleged virgin birth Paul never mentions Mary. He says only that, Jesus was born of a woman, born under the law (Galatians 4:4). The time, place and circumstances of Jesus’ alleged miraculous conception and birth, recorded in such great detail in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, are never mentioned. Paul says not one word about Joseph, Jesus’ surrogate father who figures so prominently in the birth narratives. Also, Paul apparently never heard of John the Baptist who not only baptized Jesus, but who is said to have been instrumental in the fulfillment of certain Old Testament prophecies allegedly confirming Jesus as the long awaited messiah.
In Romans 1:3 Paul tells us without proof that Jesus was in fact a direct descendant of King David. Paul's writings predate the gospels of Matthew and Luke by some twenty five to thirty years. He was a contemporary of Jesus yet he obviously never heard of the virgin birth touted as one of Christianity's most important miracles. The only conclusion we are left with is that the virgin birth of Jesus is a fantasy concoction of the writers of Matthew and Luke inserted in their gospels probably for the purpose of converting Pagans.
Romans 1:18-32 ~ Here Paul unleashes a torrent of abuse upon his fellow Jews for not being faithful to God and following His commands. He accuses them of being contemptible, unrighteous fools who openly practice fornication, wickedness, covetousness and maliciousness. He goes on to say that they are full of envy, murder, debate, and deceit. Yet he fails to mention their worst offense - the rejection of Jesus, the son of God. One can only conclude that Paul never heard of the Jesus of the gospels?
In Matthew 23 Jesus bitterly denounces the scribes and the Pharisees, accusing them of being nothing more than a bunch of lying hypocrites out to get him. Apparently Paul was unaware of this because when testifying before the chief priest and the Council he proudly proclaims, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6).
First Corinthians 15:45 begins with the familiar words, "So it is written" and goes on to say, "the first man, Adam, was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." Here Paul claims to quote scripture that is nonexistent. There is no mention anywhere else in the Bible of a second Adam. This second Adam, according to Paul, is none other than Jesus, a spirit who, according to 1 Cor. 15:47, came directly from heaven. This Pauline passage contradicts the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke as well as Gelatins 4:4.
In Philippians 3:10-11 Paul declares with great emotion, "That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." Yet when he returns to Jerusalem it is merely to visit Peter, as mentioned above. He never expresses the slightest desire to see Bethlehem, Jesus’ birthplace, Nazareth, his home town, the sites of his preaching, the upper room where he is supposed to have held the fabled Last Supper, nor Calvary where the ultimate sacrifice was allegedly made. Most astonishing of all, however, is that there is not one hint of a pilgrimage to the tomb in which the resurrection, the center piece of Paul’s theology, is supposed to have taken place.
Paul makes no references to Jesus' ethical and moral teachings in situations where it would have been in his best interest to have done so8. He, in fact, contradicts some of them. For example, Paul held that gentile Christians need not obey Jewish law to be saved (Gal. 3:8-9 and 5:6). Evidently he was unaware that this was a direct contradiction of the teachings of Jesus on this matter (Matthew 5:17-19). Furthermore when Paul does make such ethical pronouncements as "Bless those who persecute you" (Romans 12:14), he does not cite the authority of Jesus (Matthew 5:10-12). We can only conclude that he never heard of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus’ prescription for Christian living.
First Corinthians 13 (NRSV) has been dubbed, "Paul's Hymn to Love." Throughout this short chapter he does indeed wax eloquent over that important emotion. The chapter concludes with Paul summing it all up as follows, "And now faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love." Why at this point in his pontification didn't Paul cite the many love pronouncements of Jesus particularly John 13:34? Here Jesus issues the well known new commandment, "That you love one another." Was Paul unaware of it?
When Paul, in Romans 8:26, says "we do not know how to pray as we should," does this mean he was unaware that Jesus taught the Lord’s prayer to his disciples (Matthew 6:9, Luke 11:2)? Did Paul not know of Jesus’ prayer against temptation (Mark 14:35-36 and parallels) or the famous farewell prayer (John 17:1-16)? In 2 Cor. 12:12 Paul states, "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you . . . by signs and wonders and miracles." Surely Paul would have cited Jesus' miracles at this point, had he been aware of them. We can only surmise that Paul had no knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus as they are presented in the gospels. Considering his temporal proximity to these events this makes absolutely no sense.
Paul’s brief rendition of the resurrection appears in I Corinthians 15:3-8: For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. This bare list stands as the earliest extant reference to a resurrection tradition. But there are big problems. First, Paul refers to scripture that is non-existent. No one has yet been able to locate it. Second, "the twelve" apparently refers to the apostles and has to include Judas Iscariot. Here again Paul, a contemporary of Jesus, shows no awareness of Judas and the important events surrounding his alleged treachery and death. Third, who were the "more than five hundred"? They are never identified nor are there any eyewitness reports from any of them, and there is no mention of them anywhere in the gospels. So what it comes down to is that it’s Paul’s word and his alone.
G. A. Wells10 points out that Paul is not alone in his silence concerning the alleged earthly life of Jesus as it is portrayed in the gospels. Also silent in regard to this question are all of the earliest extant Christian writings as well as the extant writings of all first century Jewish historians. References to the biography of Jesus as depicted in the gospels does not appear in Christian writings until the beginning of the first century after the gospels had become current. It becomes obvious therefore that it was the gospels themselves that provided the source for these writings. (See Are the Gospels True? on this web site.)
The first paragraph of this essay ends with a question - Why? Why was the Apostle Paul ignorant of the life of Jesus as it is presented in the gospels? Well, the answer is obvious. The gospels are fiction, and Jesus’ "life" had not been invented when Paul lived and wrote.
For more information on Paul see The Pauline Epistles and Would You Buy a Used Car From St. Paul? on this website.
_____________________________________________________
1 Compiled by Louis W. Cable.
2 The Age of Reason.
3 All dates are common era (CE) unless otherwise indicated.
4 Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, under Biographical Entries.
5 Encyclopedia Judaica - population and area of Jerusalem during the time of Pontius Pilate (26-36).
6 In the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia "multitude" is defined as a number too great to count.
7 Brownrigg, Ronald - Who’s Who in the New Testament - Holt, Rinehart and Wenston, 1971 - page 34.
8 Wells, G. A., 1999. The Jesus Myth, page 69.
9 Mack, Burton L., Who Wrote the New Testament? pgs. 206 - 207.
10 Wells, G. A. , Can We Trust the New Testament?, Open Court, 2004, pages 50-51.
David in dating Acts to the first century Christians seeks to establish veracity for their ridiculous claims. No matter when ancient Christian wackos scribbled their fairy tales, a plain reading reveals basic contradictions fatal to the assertion that Christianity is in conformity with the facts of reality.
Ken Humphreys at jesusneverexisted.com notes that Saul of Tarsus should have known much about the gospel character Jesus of Nazareth.
"One is informed by Acts that St Paul's early day stance was as "Saul, the Christian persecutor". Yet if Saul really was a vigilante for orthodox Judaism at the time of Stephen's stoning (Acts 7.58-8.3), becoming the chief persecutor of Christians, no less – one wonders just where was Saul, not long before, when a supposed radical rabbi called Jesus was stirring up whole towns and villages?
Paul's role as religious policeman seems not to have awakened until shortly after the godman's death. But in itself this suggests Jesus of Nazareth had no great impact. After all, Saul was a contemporary of Jesus in time and place, raised in Jerusalem ("at the feet of Gamaliel" – Acts 22.3) at precisely the time the godman was overturning moneychangers in the Temple and generally provoking Pharisees and Sadducees.
Would not Saul, a young religious hothead ("exceedingly zealous of the traditions" – Galatians 1.14) have waded into those multitudes to heckle and attack the Nazarene himself? Would he not have been an enthusiastic witness to JC's blasphemy before the Sanhedrin? And where was Saul during "passion week", surely in Jerusalem with the other zealots celebrating the holiest of festivals? And yet he reports not a word of the crucifixion?
Paul, another "witness for Jesus", saw and heard nothing!"
If Acts records history, why does Paul display a near total dearth of knowledge regarding the Christian god, Jesus.
The Reliance of Luke-Acts on the Writings of Flavius Josephus by Paul N. Tobin
There are some compelling reasons for believing that Luke was "familiar" with Josephus' works. The reasons are as follows:
* Many details of the gospel of Luke have uncanny parallels in Josephus' works.
* Luke hit upon the exact same names of people Josephus used in his narratives. Since the names given by Josephus were merely examples (i.e. they were not that outstanding), someone with access to a different source would have come up with a list of different names.
* The manner in which historical errors were made in Luke-Acts betrays his source as Josephus.
* Perhaps more importantly, the similarities in uncommon vocabulary between Josephus and Luke, form the final proof of latter's dependence on the former.
*****************************
Luke and Josephus by Richard Carrier
"Luke almost certainly knew and drew upon the works of Josephus (or else an amazing series of coincidences remains in want of an explanation), and therefore Luke and Acts were written at the end of the 1st century, or perhaps the beginning of the 2nd. This also results in the realization that almost every famous person, institution, place or event mentioned in L that can be checked against other sources is also found in Josephus, so that efforts to prove the veracity of L by appealing to these checks is cut short by the fact that he appears to have gotten all this information from Josephus, and simply cut-and-pasted it into his own "history" in order to give his story an air of authenticity and realism. He could thus, for all we know, have been writing historical fiction--using real characters and places, and putting them in fictional situations, all dressed up as history--history with a message, and an apologetic purpose. We thus cannot really know what in L is true or false with regard to the origins of Christianity or the actions of early Christians, since these particular details are the most prone to manipulation for didactic, symbolic, politico-ecclesiastical and apologetic reasons, and have very little if any external corroboration (and no external corroboration from a non-Christian)."
*************************
Since it is almost certain that the Lukian author used Josephus as source, that would put Luke-Acts firmly in the 2nd century and way too late to be evidence for a historical Jesus or Paul.
Oh david, you keep blathering on about scholars and scholarship.
Wow that’s surprising if you define words within your worldview it excludes them!
Maybe Drew will come back over and deal with your metaphysical problems; philosophy isn’t my specialty but there are lots of problems with the statement: “Christianity asserts what we all perceive as existence is simply the imagination of its "God". That which is imaginary is not real.”
Only under naturalism can reality be ascertained for what it actually entails.
You defined reality under a naturalistic worldview and then pointed to it like you didn’t just put it there.
www.jesusneverexisted.com : pffft
Did you listen to Humphrey’s debate with Habermas in the link I provided?
So let me get this straight since we don’t know the exact whereabouts of Saul during Jesus’ ministry we can conclude….? Ummm....
What would you like to see in Acts that isn’t there?
* The manner in which historical errors were made in Luke-Acts betrays his source as Josephus.
I don’t want to waste time reading Carrier’s garbage, what historical error is he alleging?
Since it is almost certain that the Lukian author used Josephus as source, that would put Luke-Acts firmly in the 2nd century and way too late to be evidence for a historical Jesus or Paul
I’m sure he has a conspiracy theory to explain away the early patristic sources I’ve mentioned…or else conveniently dates it’s during the first year of the earliest quote.
For David,
I should probably be consistent and outline some of the reasons I reject 2nd century dating for Acts (there are only a handful of scholars who accept it), and give you something to chew on from my side of the coin.
Well, I am probably not a worthy "opponent" for you & would defer to more knowledgeable individuals either in print (see Pervo Carrier) or here; but, the oft-used phrase "majority of scholars" or variants thereof is a rather poor justification for any argument. When one considers that the "majority of biblical scholars" are Bible school grads who have a personal interest in maintaining their orthodoxy (or risk the peril of the lake of fire), it is no wonder that these opinions of early gospel authorship & apologetics designed to defend the integrity of the NT canon are the prevailing view. I have little confidence in even the sober opinions of FF Bruce & others who remain steadfastly committed to the tenets of "the Faith" whenever they conflict with the evidence. This is not to say that their opinions be discounted outright but like listening to WL Craig expound on the certainty of the Resurrection, one has to take a step back to rethink the case before being swept along by the smooth rhetoric.
The later dates derive from a theory that Luke was not the author of acts and obtained his info about the revolutionaries (Theudas and Judas, see Acts 5:36,37) from Josephus in Antiquities 18.4-10 and 20.97-98. This document was written later first century mind you.
Why wouldn't Luke be the author of both? Both the GLuke & Acts were probably written close to the same time period - Early Second Century(?). I have yet to see any compelling evidence for the early gospel datings supported by the "majority of scholars" who seem quite happy to quote each other without questioning the quality of evidence. There is a great deal of comfort in sticking with like-minded folks I guess (- even here on D-BC amongst all my skeptic friends ;-) )
Josephus mentions the martyrdom of James in 62 AD…why doesn’t the author of Acts record this significant event?
Maybe like the TF, this passage wasn't in Josephus' writings until Eusebius or one of his minions had his kick at the manuscript?
Also if you would like to discuss the authorship of 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy I am up for it.
I don't have the grounding to adequately argue as to which of the "Pauline epistles" are actually authentic but are you suggesting that all the books of the NT traditionally attributed to Paul are authentic? I suppose I could get back the the books to argue for this but I'm sure you have access to the same pro/con arguments & I am going on holidays & need to pack so can't take the plunge here...
Sorry.
All the best to you.
-evan
eheffa:
You're right, citing a scholar doesn't make something automatically correct, even if a majority of scholars agree...but mind you Habermas' data was based largely on non-Christian NT scholars who don't fit your criteria for bias.
I think you have a distorted view of what real Biblical scholarship is about. Its hard! You are talking at least 6 years to get a good degree, and depending on your field of interest you will at least need to learn German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew; not to mention if you're a NT historian reading Coptic, Syriac, Gothic, etc...I haven't gone yet (saving money), but trust me...it ain't no backyard Bible college. There are varying degrees of education and experience though, and no one can specialize in everything.
If having to memorize pages of Greek morphological codes is the way out of hell...thats a hell of a way out :)
...but mind you Habermas' data was based largely on non-Christian NT scholars who don't fit your criteria for bias.
Are you sure? In Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present:
What are Critical Scholars Saying?, Habermas says: "By far, the majority of publications on the subject of Jesus’ death and resurrection have been written by North American authors. Interestingly, my study of these works also indicates an approximate ratio of 3:1 of moderate conservative to skeptical publications, as with the European publications." That doesn't sound like largely non-Christian sources to me.
Vinny,
Yes Habermas often points out that the distribution is slanted towards the conservative side.
That doesn't alter the fact that he purposely uses data from skeptics sources in his apologetic.
David,
In the interviews and articles I have seen, Habermas rarely mentions it. In fact, the linked article is the only one I have seen where he makes it explicit. On the other hand, I have heard him claim that 75% of scholars accept the historical validity of the empty tomb without noting that this is the same as saying that only the conservative Christian scholars accept the empty tomb.
In any case, Webster’s online defines “largely” as “mostly” or “primarily,” so the notion that Habermas’ data is “largely” non-Christian seems like wishful thinking.
Vinny,
There are two statements being made regarding two sets of data:
1. The overall distribution of conservative and skeptic scholars in the field of NT studies.
2. The sources for Habermas' resurrection apologetic.
There is also a difference between using data both sides agree on, and using data developed specifically by skeptics (that conservatives may disagree on).
I agree he isn't clear about which set of data he is coming from all the time. There is a book you can preview on Google, I think its called the Case for the Resurrection.
David,
Perhaps you could provide the source for your assertion that "Habermas' data was based largely on non-Christian NT scholars."
Vinny,
There is a 30 min summary lecture by Habermas on the Veritas Forum website.
David,
Can I take that as an admission that you don't have a source?
I was already aware that Habermas uses quotes from skeptics. That is hardly the same thing as basing his data "largely on non-Christian NT scholars."
I never cease to be amazed at the lack of critical thinking on the part of Christians when it comes to Habermas' apologetics.
david typed: "...there are lots of problems with the statement:" about what I typed and then quoted me “Christianity asserts what we all perceive as existence is simply the imagination of its "God". That which is imaginary is not real.”
There are no problems with what I typed, there are, however, many problems with your faulty and fantasy based beliefs.
David, please direct your attention to your book of mythical fairy tales. Review Genesis 1:1 where you'll read.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (NASB)
Christianity defines its god as a transcendent, primordial consciousness. But consciousness is merely a process resulting in awareness of existence. For process to occur, causality is required. Time and space are necessary for causality to happen, but that which is transcendent lacks time and space. In a transcendent void without duration, location, coordinates, dimensions, or any sort of existence, consciousness cannot obtain. But God is defined as a consciousness that exists in such a non-existent transcendent void. Consciousness cannot happen without process and causality. Thus "God" could not have caused existence.
The Abrahamic religions assert their god imagined existence and wished it to instantiate, and "poof" existence. Thus in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam existence is the imagination of "God." But this cannot be, for consciousness is not capable of causing matter, energy, or space to obtain. Consciousness at the most common denominative rung on the metaphorical ladder of complexity is a process of awareness. This presupposes existence having metaphysical primacy over consciousness.
That which is real exists independent of any consciousness. But the Abrahamic religions wrongfully assert nothing exists independent of the consciousness of God. To correct that fallacy, it must be understood that consciousness can imagine and that imagination cannot create reality or existence. Hence, responsibility for existence cannot be ascribed to Yahweh-Jehovah-Allah.
David, if you are a Christian, you are living a lie and following a religion founded and based on lies. "God exists." is a lie.
David typed: "...So let me get this straight since we don’t know the exact whereabouts of Saul during Jesus’ ministry we can conclude.?"
David, by retreating into agnosticism you establish Humphrey's point. If Saul were a real person who had been on the scene, we could reasonably expect him to have behaved in accordance with his depicted nature. That is real people choose means appropriate to their desired ends. Humphrey's speculation is in conformity with what Acts says about Saul's job as religious policeman relative to the principle of final causation. So "pffft" your own self.
Vinny,
I've tried every way I know how to explain this:
He does quote skeptics; however more imporantly he uses Biblical texts and dating that skeptics affirm to make his case.
David,
I am aware that Habermas claims that he is only relying on facts that are affirmed by skeptical scholars, but I find that he does not always tell the whole story. For example, he includes the empty tomb in his minimal facts because 75% of scholars support it, but he fails to mention that 75% of scholars are conservative Christians. So when I ask for a source, I am hoping for something more substantive than a self-congratulatory speech that Habermas gave.
Robert, you’re doing it again. If you aspire to be an atheist apologist, by whatever name you want to call it, you cannot do it with the types of comments you’ve left on this thread. As we’ll see from our examination of two comments on this thread, on repeated occasions, you say that Christians believe things they don’t believe. Also, you frequently make the argument that something isn’t true because it contradicts you’re naturalistic worldview. That doesn’t work. You can’t just contradict your opponent and call it an argument. These are the same mistakes you’ve made before. Let’s look at some examples:
Robert:
Scholarship means "learning; knowledge acquired by study". Knowledge means "acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles." Fact means "something that actually exists; reality; truth." Truth means "actual state of a matter or conformity with reality."
Now, I have no problem with this little progression. But since it’s what you base the rest of this comment on, I just wanted you to know that every one of these statements is fully consistent with the Christian worldview. In fact, as we’ll see, you should apply some scholarship to your understanding of that worldview.
Robert:
In the supernatural world view, there is no uniformity of nature, no Law of Identity, no Causality, and hence no reality.
Really? Which supernatural worldview are you talking about? There are many, and perhaps some of them are accurately described this way, but Christianity isn’t. If the phrase “the supernatural world view” means “any supernatural worldview” then your statement is simply false, and on two counts. First, it tries to say too much. The only basic difference between a supernaturalistic worldview and a naturalistic one is that the supernatural worldview allows for there to be supernatural things, beings, and causes, in addition to all the natural ones. It takes the material world to be only a part of reality. That will become important later. To make these descriptions definitional to the supernatural worldview, you’re going to have to do more than assert that it is so. You’ll need to argue for it. The second problem is that what it does say is in fact false with regard to Christianity. On the Christian worldview, uniformity is the normal working of providence, or how God interacts with the universe. Remember, if you have a problem with that, show me how I’m wrong about what the Christian worldview says. Don’t just try to say, “No, God doesn’t exist, so that’s false.” Do that, and you’re just displaying your opinion not actually disagreeing with what was said. You’ve made that mistake before.
The Law of Identity just says that any thing is itself. Christianity does not disagree with that. Put anything on both sides of the A=A equation and it will always be true. That’s all the Law of Identity says. It applies to all of reality, material and non-material.
As for Causality, you can’t be serious. It is among the most basic of Christian teaching that God caused the universe to exist. Also, events cause other events all the time. Again, I don’t know what sort of supernatural belief system you’re arguing with, but it isn’t Christianity, no matter how many times you call it that.
Robert:
Christianity asserts what we all perceive as existence is simply the imagination of its "God". That which is imaginary is not real.
Okay, you’ve got two fallacies and one misunderstanding of logic at work here. First, this is the straw-man fallacy, the one you seem to use the most. Christianity does not assert that what we perceive is the imagination of God. There is no Scripture that says it, and I would challenge you to find a Christian scholar that says it. You won’t. Christianity does assert that what we perceive is actually there. That all of the universe is a creation of God. He made it, formed it. We are not thoughts in His mind, we are works of his action. When you write, or paint, or cook, that is a real thing out in the world. Just because you are responsible for it doesn’t mean that it “is” your imagination.
That leads me to the misunderstanding of logic. You’re misusing the law of identity here. I’m sure many Christians would agree that the universe came from the imagination of God, but that is not identity, that is cause, another thing you erroneously say Christians don’t believe. But perhaps you misspoke. Perhaps you only meant that Christians believe that material existence came from the imagination of God. Even then, you still commit your other favorite fallacy, equivocation.
You say that it’s all from God’s imagination, and then say that whatever is imaginary is not real. You are sneaking in a second definition of imagination in your second use of the word. The first definition would be “whatever is found in the mind”. This is the only way to make the first statement at all consistent with the position you say you’re trying to refute. The second definition, is “whatever is merely made up, but not actual”. If you use the first definition both times, then the first statement is true of Christianity, but the second is obviously false, not just with regard to Christianity, but generally so. We have all kinds of thoughts and ideas in our minds that are completely true and accurately describe reality. All Christians say is that God had the idea of all the universe in His mind and made it, just how you might write a piece of music. If you consistently use that definition, then your second statement is false. If you use the second definition both times, then your first statement is false on the grounds stated above with reference to the straw-man fallacy. If you use both definitions, then your argument is a non sequitur. The statements are then about different things and are not related to each other logically. That is equivocation.
Robert:
Without reality, there can be no facts, no conformity with reality, and hence no truth to study or derive knowledge from. Under supernaturalism, scholarship, like all else, is an illusion.
This first statement is true, but irrelevant with regard to Christianity. The second statement does not describe Christianity. Maybe you should make a blog called “Debunking Buddhism”. The idea that everything we perceive is an illusion is a Hindu and Buddhist claim, not a Christian one. You’re getting your religions confused.
Robert:
Only under naturalism can reality be ascertained for what it actually entails. Thus only naturalistic learners and studiers can engage in actual scholarship. But more importantly, in reality the dead do not rise from their graves. And Paul would have agreed.
This is just your opinion. You’ve given no argumentation that is true of Christianity, and it doesn’t entail that only naturalists can engage in scholarship. This is just your opinion. How much weight do you give people’s opinions when they argue against you? Be consistent, Robert, and people respect you for it. You can’t apply standards to others that you won’t follow yourself. That’s hypocritical.
You seem to think that just because you believe reality is naturalistic, that everyone else has to see reality that way, too. That’s begging the question. You can’t insist on the truth of your worldview as a premise in critiquing someone else’s. Everyone can see how silly that is. Do you think that the Christian worldview is self-contradictory? Show us by at least accurately representing it.
Robert:
Christianity defines its god as a transcendent, primordial consciousness. But consciousness is merely a process resulting in awareness of existence.
You’re equivocating again. “Consciousness” in the first sentence means “A being that is conscious”. Christians do not think that God is a process. You know that, so please start dealing with what Christians actually believe. “Consciousness” is a word that can mean more than a process, and does, frequently, in use. Look it up in any dictionary. Yours is only one definition, so you have to actually prove that Christians either all are using your definition or that all the other definitions are, in fact, wrong.
Robert:
For process to occur, causality is required. Time and space are necessary for causality to happen, but that which is transcendent lacks time and space.
Since God is not a process, this statement is not really relevant, but it does illustrate another example where you just assert your worldview with no argumentation and expect it to show there’s no God. Time and space are necessary for naturalistic causation. However, the Scripture verse this is in reference to is Genesis 1:1, which states, in its own words, that God “caused” the universe to be made. Supernatural causation is part and parcel of Christianity. I don’t know why you think you can just say that causation must be naturalistic and think that’s an argument.
Robert:
In a transcendent void without duration, location, coordinates, dimensions, or any sort of existence, consciousness cannot obtain. But God is defined as a consciousness that exists in such a non-existent transcendent void. Consciousness cannot happen without process and causality. Thus "God" could not have caused existence. (emphasis mine)
Um, I’d agree that in a realm with no existence, consciousness couldn’t obtain, but since Christianity doesn’t assert (and never has) such a realm, then your statement here is about some other sort of religion. Whatever sort of realm God exists in is one that contains existence.
Again, you’re using “consciousness” in two different ways. You can’t just assert a naturalistic definition and insist that Christians use it too. If I disagree with your definition, what then? Have you got anything better?
Incidentally, just so we’re clear, Christians don’t believe God caused “existence”. God existed first, then He caused the rest of what exists to exist. You gotta get that straight.
Robert:
The Abrahamic religions assert their god imagined existence and wished it to instantiate, and "poof" existence. Thus in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam existence is the imagination of "God." But this cannot be, for consciousness is not capable of causing matter, energy, or space to obtain. Consciousness at the most common denominative rung on the metaphorical ladder of complexity is a process of awareness. This presupposes existence having metaphysical primacy over consciousness.
Your second statement does not follow from your first, which is also misleading in itself. If God brought into reality that which He had thought of first, then it does not follow, as you seem to think it does, that what is brought into reality is imagination. If you can’t see that, I don’t know what else to say.
Human consciousness may not be able to cause matter, energy, or space to obtain, but that says nothing of whether God can. You keep equivocating on this word. Give us an argument, not just your opinions.
As for your last comment above, Christians agree with it, and believe that God’s consciousness could not obtain unless He exists. We believe He does exist, so there’s no problem.
Robert:
That which is real exists independent of any consciousness.
And God exists independent of any consciousness.
Robert:
But the Abrahamic religions wrongfully assert nothing exists independent of the consciousness of God. To correct that fallacy, it must be understood that consciousness can imagine and that imagination cannot create reality or existence. Hence, responsibility for existence cannot be ascribed to Yahweh-Jehovah-Allah.
Actually, Christianity asserts that nothing except God Himself exists independent of His consciousness. Beings that have consciousness, as God and humans both do, can create or form reality and existence. Hence, material existence can be ascribed to God.
(Just a note for future reference, Yahweh and Jehovah are not different names, but different pronunciations of the same name YHWH, found in the Old Testament. You would know that if you’d learn a little more about Christianity.)
Vinny,
When you first posted the "What are Critical Scholars Saying" quote there appeared to be confusion between the distribution of scholars and the source for Habermas' texts and dating. I tried to clarify this. You said usually he isn't forthcoming in the articles you've read save the one you quoted. Ok...Saying 75% of scholars accept the empty tomb is NOT the same as saying only conservative Christian scholars accept the empty tomb. For instance Dom Crossan accepts that there was an empty tomb (see his debate with NT Wright). He also thinks Jesus rotted in a shallow grave. At any rate I agreed that he isn't clear all the time. What can we do about the 3:1 ratio?
You then said : "Perhaps you could provide the source for your assertion that "Habermas' data was based largely on non-Christian NT scholars."
What other source than Habermas himself should I have provided here?
If 75% of the scholars in Habermas’ sample are conservative Christians and 75% of the scholars accept the empty tomb, it is extremely close to saying that only conservative scholars accept the empty tomb. There are no doubt a few liberal scholars like Crossan who believe that the empty tomb story might be rooted in some actual historical event that can be explained by natural causes, however Habermas cannot be counting very many of these unless there are an equal number of conservative Christian scholars who don’t believe in the empty tomb (which is extremely unlikely since this would disqualify them as conservatives). Otherwise you cannot come out with the same 75% ratio for conservative vs. liberal and empty tomb believers vs. empty tomb doubters.
As far as sources go, I would like to see a paper by Habermas that lays out exactly which skeptical scholars support him on which points. Then I would be able to check those sources for myself to see whether he is citing them accurately or whether he is making the same kind of mistake he did when he cited A.N. Sherwin-White in Why I Believe the New Testament is Historically Reliable: "The sort of thoroughgoing propaganda literature that some critics believe the Gospels to be was actually nonexistent in ancient times. Sherwin-White declares, 'We are not acquainted with this type of writing in ancient historiography.'" The problem was that Sherwin-White used the word “unacquainted” thereby rendering the meaning exactly opposite to the one Habermas claimed. My source for that is page 189 of Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament by A.N. Sherwin-White.
Vinny,
Since we don't know the distribution, there is no reason to continue the discussion at this time. If I run across something (I just ordered one of his books) I'll let you know.
I noticed that the greek aorist verb ôphthê used in 1 Cor. 15:5-8 to denote the appearance of Christ to Cephas, the twelve, the 500 bretheren, James
and all the apostles, and Paul in verses 5-8 are in the indicative mood and passive voice.
Jeffrey A. Rydberg-Cox, Overview of Greek Syntax states regarding aorist verbe in the indictative mood that *The aorist or imperfect
indicative stands in the protasis of past contrafactual conditions. The aorist or imperfect indicative with an stands in the apodosis.*
Rydberg also says that *The imperfect indicative stands in the protasis of present contrafactual conditions.*
Rydberg points out that *The passive voice denotes that the subject is acted upon.*
A contrafactual is A statement or other linguistic construction expressing an idea that is presupposed to be false, as I would go in the sentence I would
go if I could.
Protasis refers to the clause expressing the condition in a conditional sentence, in English usually beginning with if.
Apodosis is the clause expressing the consequence in a conditional sentence, often beginning with then, as “then I will” in “If you go, then I will.”
Since ôphthê as used in 1 Cor. 15:5-8 asserts contrafactual conditions standing as protasis without corresponding apodosis, the appearances cannot
be taken literally. Instead the author clearly meant the perception of Christ to be an invitation to religious drama by virtue of employment of the passive
voice wherein the subjects are acted upon. The reader too, by faith, can partake of the ôphthê of Christ and become the corresponding apodosis of
religious drama. The other use of protasis was as a component of ancient Greek drama
followed by epitasis, catastasis, and catastrophe. The ancients were well acquainted with Greek drama and grammar.
They would have implicitly understood the grammatical metaphor of aorist-indicative-protasis to the opening action of a religious drama.
Earl Doherty notes that "In a study of the meaning of ophthe here, the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. V, p. 358) points out that in this type of context the word is a technical term for being "in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception." In other words, the "seeing" may not refer to actual sensory or mental perception. Rather, it may simply be "an encounter with the risen Lord who reveals himself...they experienced his presence." If what we have here is more an experience of Christ’s "presence" than a full-blown hallucinatory vision, this would make it easier to accept that so many individuals and even large groups could imagine they had undergone such an experience.
The Source of Paul's Gospel
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament analysis is consistent with the fact that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus.
Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus Is It Reliable? by
Jeffery Jay Lowder
Post a Comment