Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Legendary Development Hypothesis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Legendary Development Hypothesis

    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)?

  • #2
    I should add, the heart of Ferguson's argument is to equate Paul's experience with the disciples, but also to argue that there is a pattern of legendary embellishments accumulating from Paul to John.

    The fact that he makes a big deal of Paul's preserved testimony of the resurrection appearances being simple and lacking the same details we find in the gospels involves two rather glaring oversights. One, Paul is writing a letter and refers to the resurrection and merely brings up the resurrection appearances in the context of quickly responding to an issue raised by followers at Corinth. Secondly, he is passing along an already codified creed, the only creative liberty with which he takes is taking his own name to the list of witnesses.

    There is some real mental gymnastics taking place when Ferguson wants to argue that the transition from Paul's letters to the gospel narratives constitutes legendary development due to the narratives having more detail. Narratives will naturally contain a lot more details...they're narratives.

    Comment

    Related Threads

    Collapse

    Topics Statistics Last Post
    Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
    14 responses
    42 views
    0 likes
    Last Post tabibito  
    Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
    21 responses
    129 views
    0 likes
    Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
    Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
    78 responses
    411 views
    0 likes
    Last Post tabibito  
    Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
    45 responses
    303 views
    1 like
    Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
    Working...
    X