Constructive criticism - Minimal facts method

[technomage]

Here's a nice starting point: Philippians 2:5-11. EDIT: Chrawnus beat me to it

Ah, you can steal his lunch money for it next week.

I thought it was Chrwnus I had discussed this with, but it was not--it was OBP. The passage in 2:6-11 is not a high-Christological passage. Quoting from my argument there....

Jesus is implicitly lowering his status, yes ... but was he God, or was he "in the shape of God," and "thought being equal with God was not a prize to be seized"?

This passage is the closest Paul comes to a high Christology, and I'll have to admit that depending upon the how those phrases are properly understood, it may be explicit high Christology. But there are far too many cases where Paul makes an explicit distinction between God and Jesus to accept that he held the position explicitly.

In all other passages (in the authentic Paulines--some of the deutero-Paulines may have a higher Christology), Paul is always careful to make clear distinctions between God and Jesus.

No, even if the one passage in Philippians could be counted, Paul spends far too much time treating Jesus as a subordinate and lesser being--not just a low Christology, but explicitly so.

In the context of the discussion with Tassman I was only attacking unconscious and accidental changes of content - not deliberate embellishments or changes that do not affect the content.

Changes--whether deliberate or accidental--change the content. The "Little Apocalypse" of Mark is a splendid example: as I presented elsewhere, Jesus never said the words the author of Mark wrote down. This was either added by the author of GoMark (I consider this to be the more likely possibility), or it accreted in the oral tradition (I consider this to be far less likely).

This seems to be more a change in practice than in doctrine - could you explain this if I'm misunderstanding?

I'm not quoting practice--I'm quoting doctrine, though I should have cited specific scripture ... and I'm going to have to plead exhaustion and skip doing that for now.

Not an oral tradition, but Muslims' memorization of the Qu'ran provides paralleles to how memorization is performed in oral communities.

No, it does not--precisely because they have a text to work from.

I also recall learning in english class that the Homeric poems were spread orally with relatively insignificant changes in content,

Nice theory, but we have only the assertion of the English teachers for this. I'm looking for concrete examples.

Then there are bards and minstrels, though I don't have specific examples off the top of my head.

I do, as I have a connection to that tradition. I do not have the texts available online (and many of them, I fear, are oathbound), but in the bardic tradition (despite the claims of some) is as mutable and as downright fickle as any other oral tradition.

Other examples of oral traditions that show positive evidence of change over a relatively short period of time: the Murranos of Spain, the Scots-English "Border Ballad" tradition, Wicca (even in the relatively brief period that it has existed), and the "Fairy Tale" traditions of Europe.

I'm saying there weren't significant unconscious or accidental changes in content or application.

And I'm saying that you can assert that, but you have no way to know it. None at all. Indeed, if the Christian oral tradition had survived from the death of Christ to the writings of GoMark unchanged, this would be a far greater miracle than many recounted in the text.

[technomage]

I don't remember ever discussing it with you. It could have been me, but I have no recollection of it.

I found it--it was with One Bad Pig, and I give a rehash of the topic in this post.

[Chrawnus]

Ah, you can steal his lunch money for it next week.

I thought it was Chrwnus I had discussed this with, but it was not--it was OBP. The passage in 2:6-11 is not a high-Christological passage. Quoting from my argument there....

technomage

Jesus is implicitly lowering his status, yes ... but was he God, or was he "in the shape of God," and "thought being equal with God was not a prize to be seized"?




This passage is the closest Paul comes to a high Christology, and I'll have to admit that depending upon the how those phrases are properly understood, it may be explicit high Christology. But there are far too many cases where Paul makes an explicit distinction between God and Jesus to accept that he held the position explicitly.

© source where applicable

I think most of the time, Paul is using theos, not in a descriptive way, but as a title for the Father. So Paul making a distinction between God and Jesus does not tell us that he's making a distinction between Jesus and the divine nature, it simply tells us that he's making a distinction between the person of the Father (Paul calls God the Father in atleast Rom 6:4 and 1 Col 1:3) and the person of Jesus Christ. It mainly functions as a title, the way Paul assigns the title Lord to Jesus Christ.

In all other passages (in the authentic Paulines--some of the deutero-Paulines may have a higher Christology), Paul is always careful to make clear distinctions between God and Jesus.

You mean like in Rom 8:9, where Paul identifies the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ?

Romans 8:9 NASB

However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

Or how about Romans 10:8-13 where Paul clearly claims that you need to confess that Jesus is YHWH, if you want to be saved (or atleast it's clear for those who are familiar with Joel 2:32)

And as I said, Paul is using God as a title/name, and not as denoting the being of God.

No, even if the one passage in Philippians could be counted, Paul spends far too much time treating Jesus as a subordinate and lesser being--not just a low Christology, but explicitly so.

I would like to see what you think constitutes examples of Paul treating Jesus as a subordinate and lesser being. As far as I can tell, Paul is including Jesus in the act of creation, and is placing him above all of creation (without exception). And if I recall correctly, according to Jewish theology, the act of creating the universe, and being transcendent and ruling over it, was characteristics that were unique to God alone, so by incorporating Jesus in those activities, Paul is essentially claiming that Jesus is equal to God.

[technomage]

Colossians 1:13-20 is another example of high Christology,

"Who is the image of the invisible God"

In Greek, the pun is much more clear. Paul contrasts an invisible God with a visible image--a likeness, not an identity--of the invisible God.

"the firstborn of every creature: " Paul explicitly lists Jesus as the firstborn of creation.

Now, in other passages, he lists all things as being created by God through Jesus ... I think that's in Romans.

No, Paul makes a very clear distinction--to Paul, Jesus is not God.

Another example is Colossians 2:8-10, where Paul claims that the "fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form"* in Jesus, and that "He is the head over all rule and authority".

*Meaning that the characteristics that make God God are all found in full in Jesus, and not merely some aspects of divinity.

That's not what it means.

Pleiroma is ... the usual explanation is that if a ship has been manned, the cargo loaded, the rowers and troups are on board, then the ship has pleroma. Look also at the word "dwelleth"--this is not saying that God and Christ are one, this is saying that God's attributes live in Christ (as God is said to live in his temple), and that Christ is full of those attributes (as a ship is full when loaded).

It should be noted that this passage is most certainly not antithetical to the concept of High Christology--but it cannot be used to introduce the doctrine.

[technomage]

I think most of the time, Paul is using theos, not in a descriptive way, but as a title for the Father.

That's an interesting thought ... but eisegetic. Insted, look at Rom 1:3-4.

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Christ was:
1. Made of the seed of David
2. Declared to be the Son of God.

That declaration is an aorist passive participle--Jesus did not declare Jesus to be the Son of God, God declared him to be. Such usage is compatible with any Christological view--from Adoptionism to High Christology--but taken in line with the rest of the authentic Pauline corpus, we are forced to the conclusion that Paul held a low Christological view.

Or how about Romans 10:8-13 where Paul clearly claims that you need to confess that Jesus is YHWH, if you want to be saved

Please, Chrawnus, I read Greek better than that.

(or atleast it's clear for those who are familiar with Joel 2:32)

And I read Hebrew better than that--and that's a pitiful comparison.

Paul is not equating these two passages. In one, you confess. In the other, you call upon. Please do not insult my intelligence again.

More later--the fibro is absolutely kicking me in the behind, and I'm utterly exausted.

[Chrawnus]

"Who is the image of the invisible God"

In Greek, the pun is much more clear. Paul contrasts an invisible God with a visible image--a likeness, not an identity--of the invisible God.

"the firstborn of every creature: " Paul explicitly lists Jesus as the firstborn of creation.

I explained the part about Jesus being firstborn over all creation in the part which you (conveniently) snipped from your response to my post. He's not saying that Jesus was the one who was created first in creation, he's saying that Jesus is above all of creation.

Now, in other passages, he lists all things as being created by God through Jesus ... I think that's in Romans.

No, Paul makes a very clear distinction--to Paul, Jesus is not God.

And as I said, Paul is using God (or theos, actually) as a title/name for the Father (which is evident from passages like Romans 6:4) and not as denoting being, so it's no wonder that Paul makes a distinction between Jesus and God. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

That's not what it means.

Pleiroma is ... the usual explanation is that if a ship has been manned, the cargo loaded, the rowers and troups are on board, then the ship has pleroma. Look also at the word "dwelleth"--this is not saying that God and Christ are one, this is saying that God's attributes live in Christ (as God is said to live in his temple), and that Christ is full of those attributes (as a ship is full when loaded).

It should be noted that this passage is most certainly not antithetical to the concept of High Christology--but it cannot be used to introduce the doctrine.

You're certainly correct that pleroma can be thought of that way (indeed it seems to be the primary meaning). However, it's far from likely that this is the intended meaning in the passage in question, because Paul is not saying that Christ is full of deity, he's saying that the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form in Christ. Pleroma can also have the meaning of fullness/completeness, and the passage makes far more sense if one translates pleroma with that meaning, instead of the meaning you proposed. Also, theotes does not denote the attributes of God, but the essence and nature of God, so what Paul is saying here is essentially that the essence and nature of God (i.e what makes God God) dwells in it's entirety in bodily form in the person of Jesus Christ.

Here's what Vincent's Word Studies have to say about the passage:

VWS

Colossians 2:9

Fullness
See on Col_1:19.
Godhead (θεότητος)
Only here in the New Testament. See on Rom_1:20, where θειότης divinity or godhood is used. Appropriate there, because God personally would not be known from His revelation in nature, but only His attributes - His majesty and glory. Here Paul is speaking of the essential and personal deity as belonging to Christ. So Bengel: “Not the divine attributes, but the divine nature.”
Bodily (σωματικῶς)
In bodily fashion or bodily-wise. The verse contains two distinct assertions: 1. That the fullness of the Godhead eternally dwells in Christ. The present tense κατοικεῖ dwelleth, is used like ἐστιν is (the image), Col_1:15, to denote an eternal and essential characteristic of Christ's being. The indwelling of the divine fullness in Him is characteristic of Him as Christ, from all ages and to all ages. Hence the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Him before His incarnation, when He was “in the form of God” (Phi_2:6). The Word in the beginning, was with God and was God (Joh_1:1). It dwelt in Him during His incarnation. It was the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, and His glory which was beheld was the glory as of the Only begotten of the Father (Joh_1:14; compare 1Jo_1:1-3). The fullness of the Godhead dwells in His glorified humanity in heaven.
2. The fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him in a bodily way, clothed the body. This means that it dwells in Him as one having a human body. This could not be true of His preincarnate state, when He was “in the form of God,” for the human body was taken on by Him in the fullness of time, when “He became in the likeness of men” (Phi_2:7), when the Word became flesh. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt in His person from His birth to His ascension. He carried His human body with Him into heaven, and in His glorified body now and ever dwells the fullness of the Godhead.
“O, for a sight, a blissful sight
Of our Almighty Father's throne!
There sits the Savior crowned with light,
Clothed in a body like our own.
“Adoring saints around Him stand,
And thrones and powers before Him fall;
The God shines gracious through the man,
And sheds sweet glories on them all.”
Watts
“What a contrast to the human tradition and the rudiments of the world” (Meyer). What a contrast to the spiritual agencies conceived as intermediate between God and men, in each of which the divine fullness was abridged and the divine glory shaded, in proportion to the remoteness from God in successive emanation.

© source where applicable

And just a heads up, I'm not personally knowledgeable in Greek, so I'll mainly be using commentaries and word studies to argue the Greek, and perhaps ask John Reece some questions in the language section of the forum.

[technomage]

I explained the part about Jesus being firstborn over all creation in the part which you (conveniently) snipped from your response to my post. He's not saying that Jesus was the one who was created first in creation, he's saying that Jesus is above all of creation.

THat may be what the doctrine states--it is not what the Greek states.

And as I said, Paul is using God (or theos, actually) as a title/name for the Father

That is your assertion ... it is not one that can be supported. Come to think of it, I'm not sure it can be falsified at all. It's an interesting idea, but I fear it's an eisegetic idea.

However, it's far from likely that this is the intended meaning in the passage in question, because Paul is not saying that Christ is full of deity, he's saying that the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form in Christ.

At that point, do you have the modern doctrine driving your interpretation, or have you correctly understood Paul as Paul understood the passage?

That can be a real problem with interpreting Bible passages when you're already a follower of a particular doctrinal viewpoint---whether that viewpoint is as a believer or a skeptic. You've no doubt seen people quote passages that they claim indicate some weird, heretical doctrine ... well, in this case, the only guidance we have is the knowledge of the Greek, and our pre-conceived ideas on the big picture are the only available guides we have.

Vincent's Word Studies

Again--is VWS following the Greek ... or the doctrine? We'd have to ask Paul ... and frankly, necromancy is forbidden to both of us.

Also, it should be noted that large quotation from sources is frequently frowned upon because of copyright issues. If you have time, you may wish to cut your quote down to two paragraphs (which is the usual limit here on TWeb).

I'm not personally knowledgeable in Greek

My knwledge is "baby-steps" knowledge, but I am aware of John's skills in this area, and defer to him.

[Chrawnus]

That's an interesting thought ... but eisegetic. Insted, look at Rom 1:3-4.



Christ was:
1. Made of the seed of David
2. Declared to be the Son of God.

That declaration is an aorist passive participle--Jesus did not declare Jesus to be the Son of God, God declared him to be. Such usage is compatible with any Christological view--from Adoptionism to High Christology--but taken in line with the rest of the authentic Pauline corpus, we are forced to the conclusion that Paul held a low Christological view.

Actually he was born of the seed of David, and, as you conveniently (again) fail to mention, is that Paul says that this is according to the flesh, which implies that Jesus existed before he was born "of the seed of David". (Unless you want to argue that Paul added the "according to the flesh"-part for no discernable reason.

Please, Chrawnus, I read Greek better than that.

I think the problem is not your language skill, but your reading comprehension skills.

And I read Hebrew better than that--and that's a pitiful comparison.

Paul is not equating these two passages. In one, you confess. In the other, you call upon. Please do not insult my intelligence again.

Even if the two acts of confessing and calling upon are different, you have to be blind not to notice that Paul is clearly associating calling upon the Lord (i.e YHWH) with confessing Jesus as Lord. In fact, Paul citing Joel 2:32 in verse 13 is his argument to why confessing Jesus as Lord will save you. What Paul is doing in this passage is equating the title of Lord in verse 9 (If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord), with the title of Lord in the Septuagint rendering of Joel 2:32, where Lord (Kurios) is used as an euphemism for YHWH.

And even if you are correct that there is no connection between the two passages (you're wrong about that, of course), it's still clear, if you read further from verse 14, to the verse 21, that Paul is identifying the Lord (an euphemism for YHWH) in the Septuagint version of Joel 2:32.

Romans 10:14-21 NASB

Rom 10:14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?
Rom 10:15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!"
Rom 10:16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?"
Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Rom 10:18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; "THEIR VOICE HAS GONE OUT INTO ALL THE EARTH, AND THEIR WORDS TO THE ENDS OF THE WORLD."
Rom 10:19 But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says, "I WILL MAKE YOU JEALOUS BY THAT WHICH IS NOT A NATION, BY A NATION WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WILL I ANGER YOU."
Rom 10:20 And Isaiah is very bold and says, "I WAS FOUND BY THOSE WHO DID NOT SEEK ME, I BECAME MANIFEST TO THOSE WHO DID NOT ASK FOR ME."
Rom 10:21 But as for Israel He says, "ALL THE DAY LONG I HAVE STRETCHED OUT MY HANDS TO A DISOBEDIENT AND OBSTINATE PEOPLE."

© source where applicable

Romans 10 is a part of a bigger section of Romans dealing with the Jews, which starts from chapter 9 and ends somewhere in chapter 11. So when Paul writes "How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?" he intends to identify the Jews as the ones whom he call "they", and not as mankind in general (i.e "they" are the Jews of whom Paul have been speaking since chapter 9). I.e Paul is claiming that the Jews do not believe in the one called Lord (YHWH) in the septuagint rendering of Joel 2:32, and because we both know that Paul was perfectly aware that the Jews knew and worshipped the person whom we Christians call our Father, the only option left, is that the Lord in Joel 2:32 is Jesus, and not the Father, atleast according to Paul.

More later--the fibro is absolutely kicking me in the behind, and I'm utterly exausted.

I'm sad to hear that. I'll be praying for you.

[technomage]

Paul says that this is according to the flesh, which implies that Jesus existed before he was born "of the seed of David".

Again, no. John most certainly implies this (indeed, he explicitly states it), Paul does not. You infer it because of your adherence to the doctrine.

Chrawnus, can I get you to try do me a favor--and I do say "try," because this may be beyond your capacity.

Re-read these epistles, closely, taking notes. For each verse where the word "kurios" appears in the authentic Pauline epistles, make a note of how Jesus and God are treated separately. (You can start with this page, but start with Romans, not Acts.) Now, not all verses mention both, but pay attention to those that do. Look at how many times Paul makes a distinction between Jesus and God.

ETA: While you are doing so, if you can, try to put the concept of a high Christology as much out of your mind as you can. Read the verses solely for what that individual verse says. In as much as possible, treat these passages as if you had never read them before. (I meant to add this paragraph, but I'm mentally pretty foggy. Sorry for the edit.)

Cases in point:
Rom 1:7: From God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:1: We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
ROm 5:11: ..also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

It goes on from there. Paul treated God and Jesus as two separate entities: frequently, God is the end, Jesus the means to the end.

Now, as I said, Pauline writings are not incompatible with a high Christology, but they are not originative of that doctrine.

Again, more later. I'll try to respond to some of the other points you make.

[Chrawnus]

THat may be what the doctrine states--it is not what the Greek states.

I'm not merely going by what the Greek states, I'm also going by what a Jew like Paul would have meant by the term firstborn. And to a Jew the term firstborn could also denote the meaning of rank, and not just chronological order.

That is your assertion ... it is not one that can be supported. Come to think of it, I'm not sure it can be falsified at all. It's an interesting idea, but I fear it's an eisegetic idea.

Most of the time when Pauls writes about God, he uses the form "ho theos", right? and if I recall correctly (though I have no way of checking right now) "ho theos" was used by Hellenistic Jews (or Jews who where atleast knowledgeable in Greek) as a title for God of Judaism as a way to distinguish him from all the pagan gods. So it definitely fits with the culture of the day (if my memory about "ho theos" being used as a title by Greek speaking Jews is correct that is.) I'll try and see if I can find some support for this idea in the dark and murky places of the interwebz.

At that point, do you have the modern doctrine driving your interpretation, or have you correctly understood Paul as Paul understood the passage?

That depends on if the word translated as fullness in this passage is referring to that which is being filled, or if it refers to what is filling. If it is the latter (which it seems to be, atleast if you're to believe the majority of the translators) then I am pretty certain that the interpretation I gave is pretty close to the mark.

That can be a real problem with interpreting Bible passages when you're already a follower of a particular doctrinal viewpoint---whether that viewpoint is as a believer or a skeptic. You've no doubt seen people quote passages that they claim indicate some weird, heretical doctrine ... well, in this case, the only guidance we have is the knowledge of the Greek, and our pre-conceived ideas on the big picture are the only available guides we have.

Sure, but merely pointing out bias is not enough, you have to show where my bias is affecting my interpretation.

Again--is VWS following the Greek ... or the doctrine? We'd have to ask Paul ... and frankly, necromancy is forbidden to both of us.

Also, it should be noted that large quotation from sources is frequently frowned upon because of copyright issues. If you have time, you may wish to cut your quote down to two paragraphs (which is the usual limit here on TWeb).

I believe VWS is in the public domain, so it shouldn't be a problem. I could ask John Reece what he thinks about Colossians 2:9 though.

My knwledge is "baby-steps" knowledge, but I am aware of John's skills in this area, and defer to him.

Sometimes the smart thing to do is to ask the experts.

[Juice]

I know the following post was intended for GioD but...

Well yes, any reasonable person would think so. But to set straight those who question Caesar’s authorship of his books – including ‘The Civil Wars’. Caesar's authorship of the three volumes of ‘The Civil Wars” and the rest of Caesar’s voluminous writings (e.g. The Gallic Wars) is not disputed: “I will now say nothing concerning the absurd opinion of those who assert that the following Commentaries on the Civil War were not written by Caesar himself. Even without the authority of Suetonius, the diction itself would be sufficient to convince the most skeptical that Caesar and no other was the author…”

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/jcsr/civ1.htm

I find it immensely ironical that you quote Vossius who asserts that diction alone should be sufficient to convince the “most sceptical” of authorship. Based upon that you should accept the authorship of the Gospels. Let the back pedaling begin…

Dionysius Vossius’ commentaries on the Civil Wars was published in 1697. If you consider his affirmation of Caesar’s authorship as authoritative, writing a mere 1,600 years later, surely you’ll consider the epilogue at the end of John (21:24) affirming it was written by a disciple as authoritative as well. What I am asking you, is how you can be so certain the Civil Wars was written by Caesar when it is written in the third person (not unlike the Gospel of Matthew at points) and the work is strictly speaking just as anonymous as the Gospels? What is your methodology for establishing authorship of ancient texts? You seem to accept Vossius’ methodology which appears to be based upon internal evidence and external attestation. Even though that external source is late, biased, and sometimes has questionable reliability (i.e. Suetonius). So I can’t see how you could then reject the authorship of John, for example, without applying a double standard.

Re JP Holding’s questioning of the veracity of the Rubicon crossing, there is no reason to assume that the journey between the Ravenna to Ariminum would not be via the shortest route, i.e. the across the Rubicon. It’s not overtly stated but it’s the most probable explanation. And as there are no miraculous components as per the resurrection story there is no comparison of the sort JP Holding and his acolytes try to make between the Rubicon crossing and the resurrection in terms of historical veracity.

As I stated earlier all you have is an inductive argument that Caesar crossed. Likewise in the minimal facts approach we build an inductive argument for the resurrection using facts that generally both sides can acknowledge as historical.

Certainly many did. But the Hellenisation of the entire Roman world was ubiquitous. I’ve already quoted Martin Hengel, on the influences of Hellenism on Judaism and he is considered a leading authority on the subject. He argues that all Judaism in this period was Hellenistic Judaism. If you disagree then you need evidence and links. I only know of the likes of JP Holding who could support your position and he is unqualified to make authoritative comment.

But if you are willing to concede that many Jews believed in a physical resurrection it is a moot argument at this point. We must turn, then, to the text at hand to determine if Paul was indeed one of those Jews that held to a physical resurrection. And I’ve made a case earlier that he was. Here, I’ll refresh your memory…

So far we have three lines of evidence to support Paul’s belief in a bodily resurrection of Jesus.

1. Formerly being a Pharisee Paul likely held to a physical resurrection.
2. Paul’s references to Jesus physical resurrection (Romans 1, etc).
3. Festus, a neutral party, reporting Paul’s claims that Jesus was alive after being dead.

To interpret Paul with the assumption that he was a Jew that did not hold to a physical resurrection because some other Jew(s) may have before looking at the evidence itself is a fallacy of grand proportions. Surely even you can see that.

Regardless, Paul specifically states in Galatians 1:11-24 that he was not taught the gospel by anyone in the flesh ("I did not consult with flesh and blood”) plus there is no indication that his Damascene encounter with the risen Jesus was a physical one – quite the reverse. Furthermore no eyewitness wrote anything about a physical resurrection or an empty tomb - not Jesus, not Peter, not Mary, not any of the Twelve. No-one! But we have Paul and he claims nothing more than 'revelation’ as do ALL the pre-gospel books including Hebrews.

In the same chapter of Galatians Paul also tells us he spent two weeks with Peter and also saw James, the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem. In chapter 2 of Galatians Paul says he went back to Jerusalem fourteen years later and this time met with James, Peter, and John. Paul presented to the disciples the Gospel he had received to ensure he was not “running in vain.” According to Paul they “added nothing” and Paul was given the “right hand of fellowship” and commissioned by them to preach the Gospel to the gentiles. Are we to believe that during Paul’s time in Jerusalem with the disciples the empty tomb never came up?

Further, your interpretation of Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus unnecessarily assumes two things:
1. That Paul’s experience with the risen Jesus was the same type of experience as the disciples experience. It may not have been. Paul was being called into service by Jesus. Jesus was not validating his claims by proving he had risen from the dead as he was with the disciples.
2. Because there was only a light and voice (which was heard by those with Paul by the way – so it could not have been a vision) this necessarily implies Jesus appeared as a spirit. These is no good reason to think that behind that bright light and voice there could not have been the physical body of Jesus.

Most importantly, if you accept the testimony of Luke in Acts regarding Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus you must also accept where Luke documents Paul’s preaching regarding the resurrection of Jesus. Let me quote some of it for you...

“The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people.” – Paul, as recorded by Luke (Acts 13:27-30)

Game, set, and match…

More to the point, they describe events not even hinted at by Paul such as an empty tomb plus flesh-and-bone post resurrection appearances (eating fish, walking through walls, being mistaken for a gardener, grasped by the ankles, wounds being poked etc) and furthermore they are contradictory concerning fundamental details. Paul never says the one body becomes the other. He speaks clearly of a resurrected spiritual body, i.e. an exchanging the old body for the new and uses the analogy of discarding an old garment and putting on a new one – among other similar analogies.

I’ve given you an analogy that helps us understand that the empty tomb is implied by Paul. "Buried" implies tomb in keeping with Jewsish burial customs. Raised and seen implies the tomb is empty. It is patently false to assert it is “not even hinted at by Paul.”

Also, discrepancies among details are not necessarily indicative of non historicity. If they are then we would have trouble inferring Caesar’s assassination as there are many discrepancies among the accounts in the details as well.

In the Empty Tomb Carrier argues that “psychikos and pneumatikos are adjectives, meaning something is made of, or is like, or shares the properties of the noun they are derived from, in this case psychê and pneuma respectively. Paul calls the resurrected a pneumatikos sôma (i.e. spiritual body) to distinguish this pneuma from "the" Pneuma, or Holy Spirit, which is not a sôma because it is everywhere, whereas a resurrected soul is not.”

Carrier’s argument fails. If Paul meant the body that was raised was a spiritual body in the sense that it was a spirit he could have simply used the word pneuma in 1 Corinthians 15 as he does in 1 Thessalonians 5:23…

“May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit (pneuma), soul and body ( sōma) be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful, and he will do it.” - Paul (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24)

Notice how Paul carefully distinguishes between body(sōma) and spirit (pneuma)? Using Carrier’s logic, we would expect Paul to have also used pneumatikos sôma in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 to describe one’s spirit. But alas Paul doesn’t. Thus Carrier’s argument fails.

Further, Paul gives us the context of how “spiritual body” is to be understood in 1 Corinthians 15:35-41. It all begins with the question someone has asked regarding the nature of resurrected body (v. 35). To answer this question Paul provides an analogy in v.37-38 to help his readers understand. Paul wrote, “When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body.

Are we to believe that Paul thought seeds planted in the ground turn into spirit plants? Paul believed that God orchestrates all things, even a seed turning into wheat for example.

This is Holding’s contention but he is wrong. “According to the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, the word anastasis is used over thirty times in extant pagan literature before the time of Christ. Are we to believe these are all in reference to "what is conceptually Jewish resurrection"? Holding's bluff has been called. There simply was no terminological distinction between "kinds" of resurrection in antiquity.” - Carrier, from his rebuttal of Holding’s argument that ‘Christianity Was Too Improbable to be False.’

Can you argue without quoting Carrier? At any rate, Carrier throws in a monumental Red Herring here. How many times anastasis is used in pagan literature is irrelevant. Further, interpreting Christian writings through the lens of pagan literature is fallacious. It’s the same type of fallacy as trying to understand what John meant by Logos through the lens of Philo without taking into consideration the context of how John uses it.

We have no reason to believe that the oral changes in the tradition, as it passed from person to person, were small. Quite the contrary! We know elaborate legends and embellishments can easily evolve in mere decades. There are numerous examples in history.

One example is the assassination of Caesar. There are clear embellishments. For instance, the number of stab wounds grows as well as the number of senators involved. Are we to believe this is an indication that the assassination of Caesar is probably not historical ?

The only evidence Paul considers necessary for belief in the resurrection are OT references and personal visions such as he himself experienced. At NO point does he refer to fleshly appearances as depicted in the later gospel accounts. This is perfectly consistent with there being no missing body from the tomb and the gospel accounts being embellished versions of the Pauline resurrection appearances of a 'spiritual body'.

Patently false as I’ve shown above.

[GioD]

Ah, you can steal his lunch money for it next week.

Because this has split off into a separate debate between you and Chrawnus, who is far more knowledgeable than me, I'm going to throw him under the bus and let him answer these points.

Changes--whether deliberate or accidental--change the content.

Changes in arbitrary details and in form (including what is included, length, rythme, wording, and order) are not relevant to the discussion and do happen in oral societies.

The "Little Apocalypse" of Mark is a splendid example: as I presented elsewhere, Jesus never said the words the author of Mark wrote down. This was either added by the author of GoMark (I consider this to be the more likely possibility), or it accreted in the oral tradition (I consider this to be far less likely).

Looking at the thread your main argument seems to be the feature of the phrase "Let the reader understand". However, why couldn't Mark have simply added this for emphasis?

No, it does not--precisely because they have a text to work from.

Doesn't matter. They still use the two main features anthropologists say oral societies use - rhythm and repetition.

I do, as I have a connection to that tradition. I do not have the texts available online (and many of them, I fear, are oathbound), but in the bardic tradition (despite the claims of some) is as mutable and as downright fickle as any other oral tradition.

Does this apply to the general story outline and key details? Or does it only apply to things like form, minor details, and ordering?

And I'm saying that you can assert that, but you have no way to know it. None at all. Indeed, if the Christian oral tradition had survived from the death of Christ to the writings of GoMark unchanged, this would be a far greater miracle than many recounted in the text.

Really? Because the period of time between the crucifixion and Mark's writing is one of the shortest of any oral traditions. Even between the crucifixion and John - granting the late date - is a remarkably short oral tradition. Any given Gospel is also much shorter than many orally transmitted tales. So it wouldn't be much of a "miracle" at all, would it?

Besides, I wasn't arguing that the form or even the small details went unchanged - just that the general outline and key details did.

[Chrawnus]

Because this has split off into a separate debate between you and Chrawnus, who is far more knowledgeable than me, I'm going to throw him under the bus and let him answer these points.

You're probably giving me far too much credit, but I'll try my best.

[technomage]

Because this has split off into a separate debate between you and Chrawnus, who is far more knowledgeable than me, I'm going to throw him under the bus and let him answer these points.

Ooh, you are cruel!

Changes in arbitrary details and in form (including what is included, length, rythme, wording, and order) are not relevant to the discussion and do happen in oral societies.

I'm speaking of change, accretion, and omission of content--no, I don't consider changes in form to be changes in the contexts of what we are discussing, and if I led you to believe I was, I apologize for my lack of clarity.

Looking at the thread your main argument seems to be the feature of the phrase "Let the reader understand". However, why couldn't Mark have simply added this for emphasis?

My main argument? Hardly. My main argument is that the passage is a classic example of apocalyptic literature. Heck, it is even marginally possible that "Let the reader understand" is a gloss that became an interpolation (there are a few like that, but I do not believe that this is one).

Doesn't matter. They still use the two main features anthropologists say oral societies use - rhythm and repetition.

Oh, good heavens--that's like comparing Model T's and Edsels because both use inflatable tires and radiator caps.

Repetition and rhythm are useful for oral societies, but they are far from the "main features" of such societies--and far from universal. Some cultures (such as the pre-Christian Irish) had an extensive oral corpus that didn't even involve rhythmic or repetitious speech--the Tain is a classic example, as its written in prose, not poetry.

Does this apply to the general story outline and key details?

Yes, and to complete stories entering and leaving the tradition.

Because the period of time between the crucifixion and Mark's writing is one of the shortest of any oral traditions.

GioD, are you aware of just how fast oral traditions can change--especially in times of societal stress? Look at the traditions of the Ojibwe, and how fast their stories mutated when their society was pulled apart by the Americans invading their territory and confining them to a reservation. Heck, look at the Irish after the advent of Christianity--the Welsh oral tradition survived much better than the Irish, but both had radical changes in very short periods.

Another example--look at the Cargo Cults of the Pacific, and how quickly their legendaria developed. And the invention and accretion of an oral tradition is not restricted to pre-literate societies. Look at the legends that developed surrounding George Washington--throwing the coin across the Delaware, chopping down the cherry tree, what have you. Those stories, while comparatively minor on the scale we are looking at, fulfill all of the academic requirements of "legend," and they developed within a decade after his death.

So it wouldn't be much of a "miracle" at all, would it?

Ah, I have my moments of hyperbole too, Giod. But yes--maintenance of an oral tradition for as little as a decade can bring massive and dramatic changes, especially in times of social stress.

[GioD]

My main argument? Hardly. My main argument is that the passage is a classic example of apocalyptic literature. Heck, it is even marginally possible that "Let the reader understand" is a gloss that became an interpolation (there are a few like that, but I do not believe that this is one).

Ah, I misunderstood that. But isn't Apocalypse a genre for whole books, not specific sections of a book? This is a legitimate question, not an attempt to refute.

Repetition and rhythm are useful for oral societies, but they are far from the "main features" of such societies--and far from universal. Some cultures (such as the pre-Christian Irish) had an extensive oral corpus that didn't even involve rhythmic or repetitious speech--the Tain is a classic example, as its written in prose, not poetry.

Even if R&R aren't universal to oral traditions, they're the type that would most probably have been used by the Gospel authors.

GioD, are you aware of just how fast oral traditions can change--especially in times of societal stress? Look at the traditions of the Ojibwe, and how fast their stories mutated when their society was pulled apart by the Americans invading their territory and confining them to a reservation. Heck, look at the Irish after the advent of Christianity--the Welsh oral tradition survived much better than the Irish, but both had radical changes in very short periods.

Another example--look at the Cargo Cults of the Pacific, and how quickly their legendaria developed. And the invention and accretion of an oral tradition is not restricted to pre-literate societies. Look at the legends that developed surrounding George Washington--throwing the coin across the Delaware, chopping down the cherry tree, what have you. Those stories, while comparatively minor on the scale we are looking at, fulfill all of the academic requirements of "legend," and they developed within a decade after his death.

How does this challenge what I said? As many oral tales as you wish could have been corrupted beyond recognition, that doesn't prove anything.

Plus, at least two of these occurred in sudden social change. Since Christianity was more or less born into persecution and had eyewitnesses and their affiliates to correct that which went wrong, this is only analogous in some respects.

Also, the GW story isn't a valid example because people weren't expected to memorize his whole life (with critiques!) and retell it again and again. Indeed, the fact that is survived at all just goes to show how different that is from oral cultures' (or at least those based on R&R)!