The following is, what I feel, a strong case for why the dissatisfaction with the minimal facts approach is justified. It is argued forcefully that the key terms Paul uses, as preserving our earliest testimony for the resurrection (of course, I would push for the speeches found in Acts) can only render a physical resurrection (soma for body and anastasis for resurrection. The linguistic analysis done here (Gundy, Wright and many others) is overwhelming.
Now, Matthew Ferguson (a classics scholar who runs the celsus blog) puts an argument forward (specifically I spoke with someone who clearly was using his arguments) that the details of a physically interacting Jesus were progressively added as each gospel was written, while the simple account Paul preserves merely talks about visions. This relies on the Greek for 'appear' having multiple meanings, one being in line with a vision.
Of course, our linguistic data rules out a spiritual resurrection being understood here though. So, the argument makes a careful distinction. It states that the disciples and Paul inferred a physical resurrection, but from mere visions. The appearances were not of an on objecticely interacting Jesus, though they inferred a physical resurrection from this.
Now, I think this argument is weak, but I also think it is about as good as the skeptic could put forward.
It forces us to defend the genuineness and authenticity of the gospels as well, sinnce the detailed accounts of the gospel narratives are needed to counter the claim that these were brief visions.
To admit that Paul affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus, but take the tact of arguing that his visionary experience is equated with the experiences of the disciples, runs in to the problem of addressing the empty tomb. If the skeptic wishes to suppose Paul is not implicitly confirming knowledge of the empty tomb, they must then explain how belief in the bodily resurrection can be maintained despite an occupied tomb.
What are your thoughts, everyone? Anyone think Paul understood the disciples' experiences to have been the same as his own (which was admittedly not of a physically interacting Jesus)?
Now, Matthew Ferguson (a classics scholar who runs the celsus blog) puts an argument forward (specifically I spoke with someone who clearly was using his arguments) that the details of a physically interacting Jesus were progressively added as each gospel was written, while the simple account Paul preserves merely talks about visions. This relies on the Greek for 'appear' having multiple meanings, one being in line with a vision.
Of course, our linguistic data rules out a spiritual resurrection being understood here though. So, the argument makes a careful distinction. It states that the disciples and Paul inferred a physical resurrection, but from mere visions. The appearances were not of an on objecticely interacting Jesus, though they inferred a physical resurrection from this.
Now, I think this argument is weak, but I also think it is about as good as the skeptic could put forward.
It forces us to defend the genuineness and authenticity of the gospels as well, sinnce the detailed accounts of the gospel narratives are needed to counter the claim that these were brief visions.
To admit that Paul affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus, but take the tact of arguing that his visionary experience is equated with the experiences of the disciples, runs in to the problem of addressing the empty tomb. If the skeptic wishes to suppose Paul is not implicitly confirming knowledge of the empty tomb, they must then explain how belief in the bodily resurrection can be maintained despite an occupied tomb.
What are your thoughts, everyone? Anyone think Paul understood the disciples' experiences to have been the same as his own (which was admittedly not of a physically interacting Jesus)?
Comment