1 Corinthians 15 - Reasonable 'seeings' in the little creed?

[sometimesketic]

The following ideas were expressed by a t-webber who goes by the name of Tassman on a thread about the evidence for the historical Jesus in the Apologetics forum. As they consist of an interpretation of certain words in the 'little' creed of Paul's letter to the Corinthians I brought the question here.

The ideas:

Gerd Lüdemann: "...the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion... not later than three years after the death of Jesus." - G. Lüdemann, The Resurrection of Jesus, J. Bowden, trns., Fortress, (1994), p38
Michael Goulder: "[Paul's testimony about the resurrection appearances] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion." - M. Goulder, The Baseless Fabrication of a Vision from G. D'Costa, ed., Resurrection Reconsidered, Oxford: Oneworld, (1996), p48
D. G. Dunn: "This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated within months of Jesus' death." - J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, (2003), p825

All the above scholars typify modern (non-apologetic) biblical scholarship and NONE believe that a literal, bodily resurrection occurred. They all argue for Jesus’ resurrection being a form of visionary experience which lead in time to the embellished belief that god raised Jesus literally from the dead.

They reflect the view of most biblical scholars employing historical/critical methodology that Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform miracles nor rise bodily from the dead. And the reported “sightings” of a risen Jesus were nothing more than the visionary experiences of some of his disciples rather than physical encounters.

This also is the most reasonable interpretation of the “seeings” in the little creed of 1 Corinthian 15.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...85#post3296685

The 'little' creed in 1 Corinthians 15:

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 brothers 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.
(1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ESV)

Does the text agree with the conclusions raised by said t-webber or not? Would you be so kind as to explain your conclusions?

[Rational Gaze]

I refer you to:
http://religiousyetsane.blogspot.com...from-dead.html

In short, the appearances referred to are described in Acts, Paul's letters, and the four Gospels. Now, if the disciples were making it up, then this raises the obvious question: why resurrection? Why not assumption or resuscitation as was the norm for other Jewish heroes? Resurrection was reserved for the end of time, so why would Jews invent appearances of the resurrected Christ, rather than say, the resuscitated Christ or assumed Christ? Assumption is being taken up into heaven in case you don't know what that means.

Hopefully, this should answer your questions, and at least make clear my views. Any questions, just ask.

[RBerman]

I wonder what "he was raised" means in Dunn's view, if Jesus wasn't actually appearing to anyone at the moment he was raised.

[Rational Gaze]

I wonder what "he was raised" means in Dunn's view, if Jesus wasn't actually appearing to anyone at the moment he was raised.

Hallucinations probably, or some other hypothesis that doesn't actually explain the facts.

[sometimesketic]

I wonder what "he was raised" means in Dunn's view, if Jesus wasn't actually appearing to anyone at the moment he was raised.

The 'little' quote from Dunn's first volume of 'Jesus Remembered' from pg. 855 (nb. the footnote 129 - Lüdemann contrasted with Funk) fails to represent Dunn's fuller view of the matter on pg. 855-856. (nb. the footnote 138 - 'a light from heaven') and pg. 856 - 'all the other appearances are recorded as appearances on terra firma.'
As to your question about 'what "he was raised" means in Dunn's view' - I'd highly recommend reading the volume, in particular pg. 878-.... 'Resurrection as Metaphor.' - 'This point has been missed by those who want to see 'the resurrection of Jesus' as a way of saying something else, which could actually be said more easily and with less intellectual embarrassment than that 'God raised Jesus from the dead'.

I'd be really interested in a translation & intepretation of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (as per my o.p) , in particular that which I underlined.

[sometimesketic]

I refer you to:
http://religiousyetsane.blogspot.com...from-dead.html

In short, the appearances referred to are described in Acts, Paul's letters, and the four Gospels. Now, if the disciples were making it up, then this raises the obvious question: why resurrection? Why not assumption or resuscitation as was the norm for other Jewish heroes? Resurrection was reserved for the end of time, so why would Jews invent appearances of the resurrected Christ, rather than say, the resuscitated Christ or assumed Christ? Assumption is being taken up into heaven in case you don't know what that means.

Hopefully, this should answer your questions, and at least make clear my views. Any questions, just ask.

Thank you Rational Gaze. Here's something you might enjoy reading - Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Lüdemann's Hallucination Hypothesis by Dr. William Lane Craig. It's in a better format on Reasonable Faith. (You'll need to register to read it - ARTICLES: Scholarly -> Historical Jesus -> (scroll down the list)

[RBerman]

Hallucinations probably, or some other hypothesis that doesn't actually explain the facts.

The "He appeared" would be the hallucination part. But what does "He was raised" mean apart from the various appearances, according to this view?

[sometimesketic]

R.Berman. Have you listened to the debate between William Lane Craig's debate with Gerd Lüdemann - Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?

[RBerman]

No, I don't listen to debates in general, or WLC in particular.

[sometimesketic]

No, I don't listen to debates in general, or WLC in particular.

Everyone gets their kicks somewhere.

[Ridderbos]

These scholars, in my view, are hardly biblical, since they deny what Paul is overtly affirming. It is preposterous to say that he was referring to visionary appearances, given the various real appearances of Jesus recorded in Scripture, and given Paul's warning that if Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead, then our faith is in vain. It is sheer unbelief that denies these things.

[headheart]

These scholars, in my view, are hardly biblical, since they deny what Paul is overtly affirming. It is preposterous to say that he was referring to visionary appearances, given the various real appearances of Jesus recorded in Scripture, and given Paul's warning that if Jesus was not raised bodily from the dead, then our faith is in vain. It is sheer unbelief that denies these things.

Posts: 1 (5.10.2011)

I'm only interested in a good translation and commentary of the underlined words in the following passage from 1 Corinthians 15: (ref: Opening Post)

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 brothers 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.
(1 Corinthians 15:3-8 ESV)

This is Biblical Languages not the Pirate's of the Caribbean.