The reason people reject the resurrection

[JimL]

The simple matter of a particular tradition being passed on to Paul is a trivial matter, regardless of what the content is. The most probable explanation, requiring the least mental acrobatics, as to why Paul would claim that the creed in 1 Cor 15 was passed on to him by other Christians is that the creed was actually passed on to him by other Christians. The idea that Paul would lie about this simple fact is far more improbable than the alternative.

Actually Paul doesn't say it was passed on to him by other christians, he says as it is foretold in the scriptures. In what scriptures is the resurrection of Jesus fortold?

[JonathanL]

Actually Paul doesn't say it was passed on to him by other christians, he says as it is foretold in the scriptures. In what scriptures is the resurrection of Jesus fortold?

Scripture Verse: 1 Cor 15:3 ESV

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received

© Copyright Original Source

Please try again.

[Tassman]

Scripture Verse: 1 Cor 15:3 ESV

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received

© Copyright Original Source

Please try again.

"I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ". Galatians 1.12.

[JonathanL]

"I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ". Galatians 1.12.

And still in 1 Cor 15 Paul claims to have received what he calls "most important" from other people. The fact that Paul claims to have received the gospel first and foremost through a revelation from Jesus does not mean he did not later receive traditions from others. And as Paul himself notes in the very same chapter you're quoting from, he did later go and meet Peter/Cephas to "get information from him":

Scripture Verse: Galatians 1:18 NET

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and get information from him⁴¹,

© Copyright Original Source

⁴¹tn Although often translated “to get acquainted with Cephas,” this could give the impression of merely a social call. L&N 34.52 has “to visit, with the purpose of obtaining information” for the meaning of ἱστορέω (historeō), particularly in this verse.

So Paul's statement in verse 12 is clearly not meant to be taken as him claiming that he never had any traditions passed on to him by a fellow Christian, because in verse 18 he explicitly mentions going to Jerusalem with the intent of asking Cephas for information.

[Tassman]

And still in 1 Cor 15 Paul claims to have received what he calls "most important" from other people. The fact that Paul claims to have received the gospel first and foremost through a revelation from Jesus does not mean he did not later receive traditions from others. And as Paul himself notes in the very same chapter you're quoting from, he did later go and meet Peter/Cephas to "get information from him":

No he doesn't. He says: "Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days - Galatians 1:18 New International Version (NIV). As you yourself acknowledge. .

My understanding was that Paul went up to Jerusalem to meet the original apostles and discuss church governance due to ongoing disagreements. And three years after Paul's conversion seems rather a long time to catch up on important information about the man he's been preaching about for three years, wouldn't you say? It speaks more to Paul having already received it 'by revelation from Jesus Christ." as he explicitly says in Galatians 1:12.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Paul having the creed in 1 Cor 15 passed on to him via fellow Christians is such a trivial and non-controversial detail that unless you have strong arguments to the contrary there is absolutely no reason to reject Paul's statement on the issue. You might dispute the content of the creed being passed on to him, but objecting to Paul's statement about how this tradition was handed down to him on the basis that we only have his word for it borders on extreme hyperskepticism.

The fact is that we do not know. Paul was founding a new religious cult and the soteriological relevance of the resurrection is central to his beliefs. We therefore cannot entirely rule out the possibility that the appearance was a personal experience of some kind that he attributed to others in order to give it further authority.

As I wrote to another contributor this letter was to a group in Corinth and it unlikely that any of them would have travelled back to Judaea in order to corroborate his words by finding and interviewing any of those others he mentions in his text.

[JonathanL]

No he doesn't. He says: "Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days - Galatians 1:18 New International Version (NIV). As you yourself acknowledge. .

My understanding was that Paul went up to Jerusalem to meet the original apostles and discuss church governance due to ongoing disagreements. And three years after Paul's conversion seems rather a long time to catch up on important information about the man he's been preaching about for three years, wouldn't you say? It speaks more to Paul having already received it 'by revelation from Jesus Christ." as he explicitly says in Galatians 1:12.

The translation note that I provided in the post you're answering already explained that get acquainted with is not a good way to translate historeō, especially in this verse since it obscures the intent of the visit (and a disclaimer just in case anyone would get some misconceptions about this, except for being able to read greek letters phonetically I do not know any koine greek beyond that aside from a few words.)

And the context of the passage makes it pretty obvious that his intent with going and visit Peter is to ask him about the gospel Paul himself had received via a revelation of Jesus:

Scripture Verse: Galatians 1:11-19 ESV

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

© Copyright Original Source

Paul did not immediately consult with anyone (about the gospel which he had received, should be obvious from the context). But after three years he went up to Jerusalem to talk to Cephas/Peter and Paul clearly intends for this admission of his to be read in light of his claim that he "did not immediately consult with anyone". IOW He's saying that only after three years since the revelation did he go and consult anyone else about the gospel he had received from Christ, and prior to that he had not consulted anyone else about the matter.

The idea that Paul in Galatians 1 writes about going to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and "discuss church governance due to ongoing disagreement" does not have any support in the text.

[JonathanL]

The fact is that we do not know. Paul was founding a new religious cult and the soteriological relevance of the resurrection is central to his beliefs. We therefore cannot entirely rule out the possibility that the appearance was a personal experience of some kind that he attributed to others in order to give it further authority.

As I wrote to another contributor this letter was to a group in Corinth and it unlikely that any of them would have travelled back to Judaea in order to corroborate his words by finding and interviewing any of those others he mentions in his text.

There is no good reasons to believe Paul believed himself to be founding a new religious cult independently of the followers of Jesus in Judaea/Galilee. (And on that matter, there is no good reasons to believe that the view of Jesus as a divine god-man arose due to syncretism with Hellenistic ideas ala Bousset and others. On that topic see Hurtado who rather convincingly argues in his book "Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity" that the view that Paul's view of Jesus arose due to syncretism is simply untenable in light of the data/information we have today, and that contrary to what many people believe, a sort of binitarian worship where Jesus was incorporated into devotion towards God arose surprisingly and almost inexplicably among his earliest Jewish followers not many years after his death.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There is no good reasons to believe Paul believed himself to be founding a new religious cult independently of the followers of Jesus in Judaea/Galilee.

There is every good reason to do so.

However, as you have yet to respond to my longer post made to you yesterday, perhaps we should leave this for a later exchange.

[JonathanL]

There is every good reason to do so.

However, as you have yet to respond to my longer post made to you yesterday, perhaps we should leave this for a later exchange.

Responding to the post you made yesterday is going to require that I scour through Hurtado's ~700 page book that I referenced above for the relevant information. At the current time I'm not really sure if I have the energy to do so, so I fear a response to your post might not be forthcoming. That might change if I get a sudden influx of motivation, but it doesnt really seem likely at the current point in time.

But if you're personally interested in (atleast in my opinion) how Hurtado rather convincingly argues that the view that Paul "hellenized" Christianity is simply untenable, I would recommend picking up Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, and How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Both of them should be available on Kindle.

ETA: Another book of Hurtado's that I forgot to mention, which is relevant to the issue, is his One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism which is also availabe in kindle format.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There is no good reasons to believe Paul believed himself to be founding a new religious cult independently of the followers of Jesus in Judaea/Galilee.

On the contrary there are many good reasons to recognise that Paul was founding a new religious cult. As far as we can tell “Christianity” started out as a Judaic Messianic sect who believed that their leader, Jesus. was the Messiah who had died but would return via some divine intervention to establish the Kingdom of God i.e. a Jewish theocracy in Judaea.

Paul was not overly interested in the words and acts of Jesus nor had he ever been a disciple of the historical Jesus, but believed he had been called to his service in a personal vision after Jesus’ death. He therefore needed to assert his own personal authority in comparison with those original disciples.

He insisted that eyewitness knowledge about "Christ in the flesh" (II Cor. 5.16) was an inferior quality of knowledge, and no longer adequate to explain or understand the significance of Jesus.

Similarly, Paul was really not interested in the crucifixion as a historical event, as a response by Roman authority to social disturbance or political concerns. For Paul, the death of Jesus was a transcendent and spiritual event, and part of a divine plan.

Presumably, while Jewish groups in Palestine were preserving and communicating the teachings of Jesus, out in the wider Hellenistic world, Paul's little communities were virtually ignoring them. They regarded the basis of their membership as their faith and belief in the status of Jesus as the Son of God, and in the anticipation of his return to Earth when they, as faithful believers, would be given eternal life in the coming kingdom.

It is often easier for people to comprehend the concept of Supreme Beings if more accessible means are presented. Hence we have the idea of divine or spiritual beings as mediators between human adherents and the divinities that they revere. These intermediaries may take the form of angels, ancestors, deceased virgins, or saints, etc. Furthermore, Gentiles familiar with the demi-gods of pagan cults, and with no preconceived ideas about "Messiah" meaning the Anointed King of Israel, would find it very easy to think of the "Christos" as a divine being or an incarnate god. These people would surely have been far more interested in their own salvation and personal immortality than in the, rather strange and unwelcome, idea of a Jewish ruler destined to reign over a new Jewish-dominated world. [See Maccoby, H, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity1986]

(And on that matter, there is no good reasons to believe that the view of Jesus as a divine god-man arose due to syncretism with Hellenistic ideas ala Bousset and others.

Firstly Bousset was writing over 100 years ago pre the Qumran discoveries so it is rather unfair to criticise him in the light of more recent academic research and archaeological discoveries. Secondly, it is indisputable that there was syncretism between the original teaching of Jesus and his immediate followers and the later religious speculations of Paul which were couched in a form intelligible to a Gentile audience and which were conveyed in the Greek language, not in Hebrew or Aramaic.

On that topic see Hurtado who rather convincingly argues in his book "Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity" that the view that Paul's view of Jesus arose due to syncretism is simply untenable in light of the data/information we have today and that contrary to what many people believe, a sort of binitarian worship where Jesus was incorporated into devotion towards God arose surprisingly and almost inexplicably among his earliest Jewish followers not many years after his death.

I would like to see what sources Hurtado has employed to arrive at his conclusions.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Responding to the post you made yesterday is going to require that I scour through Hurtado's ~700 page book that I referenced above for the relevant information. At the current time I'm not really sure if I have the energy to do so, so I fear a response to your post might not be forthcoming. That might change if I get a sudden influx of motivation, but it doesnt really seem likely at the current point in time.

But if you're personally interested in (atleast in my opinion) how Hurtado rather convincingly argues that the view that Paul "hellenized" Christianity is simply untenable, I would recommend picking up Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, and How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?: Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus. Both of them should be available on Kindle.

ETA: Another book of Hurtado's that I forgot to mention, which is relevant to the issue, is his One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism which is also availabe in kindle format.

I have looked at your tome. I was struck by Hurtado's comment in Chapter Two wherein he writes "In some recent scholarship the sayings material thought to come from a collection commonly designated Q is proffered as reflecting circles of Jesus' followers in Palestine in the early decades of the first century. But Q survives only in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are commonly dated approximately 75-90 CE." Q does not survive “only in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke” because Q is a hypothetical document. It cannot survive anywhere as it has never been sourced.

It is an interpretative tool employed by some, but not all NT scholars. Mark Goodacre, among others, has written extensively questioning it. Furthermore, Hurtado comes to his subject with his own theological bias which must also be taken into account.

[JonathanL]

I have looked at your tome. I was struck by Hurtado's comment in Chapter Two wherein he writes "In some recent scholarship the sayings material thought to come from a collection commonly designated Q is proffered as reflecting circles of Jesus' followers in Palestine in the early decades of the first century. But Q survives only in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are commonly dated approximately 75-90 CE." Q does not survive “only in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke” because Q is a hypothetical document. It cannot survive anywhere as it has never been sourced.

It is an interpretative tool employed by some, but not all NT scholars. Mark Goodacre, among others, has written extensively questioning it. Furthermore, Hurtado comes to his subject with his own theological bias which must also be taken into account.

I do not think Hurtado is saying anything about whether Q is a real or hypothetical document here. It reads more to me like he's saying "if Q was actually a real source (written or oral) the only surviving trace we have left of it is what we have written in Matthew and Luke." I think attributing any sort of belief about Q's actual existence into Hurtado's statement here is reading too much into it.

[Tassman]

The translation note that I provided in the post you're answering already explained that get acquainted with is not a good way to translate historeō, especially in this verse since it obscures the intent of the visit

Well, contrary to your opinion, “to get acquainted with” is the translation of the New International Version (NIV). This modern translation was done by top bible scholars using the earliest, highest quality manuscripts available. It is highly regarded as one of the most authoritative translations of the bible.

And the context of the passage makes it pretty obvious that his intent with going and visit Peter is to ask him about the gospel Paul himself had received via a revelation of Jesus:

It is not at all “pretty obvious that his intent with going and visit Peter is to ask him about the gospel Paul himself had received via a revelation of Jesus”. This is an assumption. It doesn’t say that and there is no reason to think it - especially given that three years had passed. And it does not comport with his explicit statement in Galatians 1:12 “I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ”. NIV.

Paul did not immediately consult with anyone (about the gospel which he had received, should be obvious from the context). But after three years he went up to Jerusalem to talk to Cephas/Peter and Paul clearly intends for this admission of his to be read in light of his claim that he "did not immediately consult with anyone". IOW He's saying that only after three years since the revelation did he go and consult anyone else about the gospel he had received from Christ, and prior to that he had not consulted anyone else about the matter.

Yes, that’s the point. You are claiming that it took three years for Paul, who had been preaching Christ crucified all that time, to consult with those who were actually there and personally knew Jesus. This doesn’t speak to Paul’s visit to Jerusalem being to learn about Jesus. He already knew what he needed to know – he explicitly says so in Galatians 1:12.

[JonathanL]

As I wrote to another contributor this letter was to a group in Corinth and it unlikely that any of them would have travelled back to Judaea in order to corroborate his words by finding and interviewing any of those others he mentions in his text.

Just wanted to deal with this issue. As Hurtado notes:

Source: Hurtado, Larry W.. Lord Jesus Christ . Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.

After all, travel and communication were well developed in the Roman world:

people traveled on business as merchants, traders, and bankers, on pilgrimage to religious festivals, in search of health and healing at the healing shrines and spas, to consult the oracles which flourished in this period, to attend the pan-Hellenic games and the various lesser versions of these all over the empire, as soldiers in the legions, as government personnel of many kids, and even on vacation and as sightseers. . . . It was certainly not only the wealthy who traveled. Quite ordinary people traveled to healing shrines, religious festivals, and games. Slaves and servants frequently accompanied their masters on journeys. . . . Travel was usually by foot and so was cheap. Therefore people quite typical of the members of the early Christian churches regularly traveled. Those who did not, if they lived in the cities, would constantly be meeting people passing through or arriving from elsewhere. . . . So the context in which the early Christian movement developed was not conducive to parochialism; quite the opposite.528

The various circles of the early Christian movement made particularly impressive efforts to “network” with one another (whether for sharing faith and encouragement, appeals for help, criticism and debate, or denunciation) through letter writing, visits of leaders/representatives, and probably a lot of contacts made in the course of other activities such as Christian merchants conducting their business.529

And the footnotes are as follows:

528. Bauckham, “For Whom,” 32. See also Lionel Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (London: Allen and Unwin, 1974).

529. Bauckham, “For Whom,” 33-38; Abraham Malherbe, Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1977), 62-70; Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 82-143; Michael B. Thompson, “The Holy Internet: Communication between Churches in the First Christian Generation,” in The Gospels for All Christians, 49-70; Eldon Jay Epp, “New Testament Papyrus Manuscripts and Letter Carrying in Greco-Roman Times,” in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, ed. Birger A. Pearson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 35-56. John Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE-117 CE) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 418-24, discusses Jewish travel. The “networking” ethos of early Christian circles is reflected in the adaptation of the letter form as a literary vehicle for extended teaching (e.g., Romans and Hebrews among New Testament examples), and for delivery of apocalyptic material (esp. Revelation). The popularity of pseudepigraphical letters (e.g., James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter) further testifies to the strongly communicative nature of early Christianity (i.e., pseudepigraphical letters presuppose the popularity of letters as a well-known means of communication among early Christians).

© Copyright Original Source

I did not bother preserving the formatting of the text.

In any case, in light of what we know of travel in the 1st century Roman world, claiming that it was unlikely that any of the Corinthian Christians would have travelled to Judaea seems highly dubious. There could have been a couple of reasons for a member of the Corinthian congregation to visit the province of Judaea (perhaps a god-fearing gentile was interested in making a visit to the temple in Jerusalem?) and confirming what Paul passed on to them could have been done on the side. If nothing else, it's not inconceivable that Christians from other places that had visited Judaea (or perhaps even Christians from Judaea itself) could have passed through Corinth in one of their travels and the members of the congregation in Corinth could have asked any of those travelling Christians for corroboration.

Do we know that something like this happened? Not really.

Do we have any basis to make the claim that it was unlikely? In light of the knowledge we have about travel in the 1st century Roman world, not really.