1 Cor 15 as evidence for historical Jesus

[_richardMdBorn]

He mentions in v 8 that Jesus appeared to him (Paul) so he obviously remembered this. But Price’s attempt to tell Paul what arguments are strong is a bit ridiculous. Most people, when faced with a claim that a person was resurrected and appeared to people, would place priority on those who knew in life the resurrected person. This is precisely what Paul did. The testimony of a close friend, Peter, is rightfully given priority, and then the twelve. If Paul had only cited his own case, the counterargument would have been, how do you know that it was Jesus. You didn’t know him in life. The testimony of Peter, James, the twelve, etc. is far more convincing since they knew Jesus well.

It's called a logical inconsistency. The strongest witness of the resurrection for Paul is Paul himself.

Many would say that an eyewitness of the resurrection who knew Jesus well is far more compelling. I think that calling Paul's testimony the strongest is VERY weak.

[_Trevor]

Many would say that an eyewitness of the resurrection who knew Jesus well is far more compelling. I think that calling Paul's testimony the strongest is VERY weak.

Unless of course you are Paul, and then you might be inclined to disagree. The important point is that it is an apparent logical inconsistency. Rather than mind reading Paul, as you seem inclined to do, we might accept that the logical inconsistency is something less likely for Paul to have written. That is what this kind of criticism is all about. You can make excuses for the text all you want. Many people agree that it is problematic. Those intent on making excuses for the problem are more likely to fall into the apologetic camp, I would think.

[_richardMdBorn]

Many would say that an eyewitness of the resurrection who knew Jesus well is far more compelling. I think that calling Paul's testimony the strongest is VERY weak.

Unless of course you are Paul, and then you might be inclined to disagree. The important point is that it is an apparent logical inconsistency. Rather than mind reading Paul, as you seem inclined to do, we might accept that the logical inconsistency is something less likely for Paul to have written. That is what this kind of criticism is all about. You can make excuses for the text all you want. Many people agree that it is problematic. Those intent on making excuses for the problem are more likely to fall into the apologetic camp, I would think.

I don't see any inconsistency, apparent or otherwise, in the passage. The testimony of someone who knew Jesus in life and claims to have seen him resurrected is much stronger than the the testimony of someone who did not know him in life. This is obvious.

[_Trevor]

I don't see any inconsistency, apparent or otherwise, in the passage. The testimony of someone who knew Jesus in life and claims to have seen him resurrected is much stronger than the the testimony of someone who did not know him in life. This is obvious.

One obvious inconsistency is the that which exists between his account of receiving the Gospel in Galatians and that of 1 Corinthians:

"The pair of words in verse 3a, "received / delivered" (paralambanein / paradidonai) is, as has often been pointed out, technical language for the handing on of rabbinical tradition.17 That Paul should have delivered the following tradition poses little problem; but that he had first been the recipient of it from earlier tradents creates, I judge, a problem insurmountable for Pauline authorship. Let us not seek to avoid facing the force of the contradiction between the notion of Paul's receiving the gospel he preached from earlier tradents and the protestation in Gal. 1:1, 11-12 that "I did not receive it from man." If the historical Paul is speaking in either passage, he is not speaking in both." (Price)

[_huckelberry]

I suspect that Richard sees no contradiction just where Price feels sure there is one. It is an interesting problem in perception. I find it very difficult to perceive a contradiction. But in for curiosity I have comtemplated the matter to see if the vague wisper of a contradicton would for my mind resolve into a clear view. There must be some problem in perspective,or lighting. It doesn't resolve.

It is likely i see somewhat similarly to Richard.Believers of a variety of sorts are all influenced by experiencing faith themselves as something both experienced directly from God based on Gods authority alone yet simultaneously something that takes forms received from people who present the story of Christ. I meet Jesus myself but I receive the story from those old writers.

I start out assuming Paul must have experienced the same combination in which a comment about reciving the gospels in Corintians would be as true as his comments in Galatians emphasising receinving it directly from God. But is this assumption I am making preventing me from seeing some clear alternative. That Paul really literally received no instructin, had no awareness of the Chritsitan belief before his own realization, could that be possible?

I may be influenced by that story in acts where Paul has contact with Christian believers immediately after his own experience so would have pleanty of time to absorb basics. They were not, as reported in Corintians, so complex as to require months of instruction. Perhaps I shoudnt rely on Acts.

Yet Paul mentions himself multiply times that he persecuted Christians. He would as a result be aware of the basic outline of what was believed. He was not a dull fellow even if a bit headstrong at times.

No I cannot conceive, yet , a method of pictureing Paul as ignorant of the Christian understandings of others. Yet as one rejecting those beliefs untill forced to change he would understand his belief as from some othr source than the tradition.

I have read through much of the article(ok confessing skimmed some parts which presents an invitation to somebody to point out the tie together I am missing). I note that there are two other significaant points that are brought up so that the matter of Galatians is not required to stand alone. First I note he confesses there is no manuscript evedence showing interpolation. He is quick to add that does not prove it didn't happen. I can see that. However as evidence results form varieties in copy traditions in different areas, Lack of evedence means interpolation is more likely early on after the original and less likely in the following centuries when the reason for it Price proposes would take effect. That is people in the secon or third centrury would not know when the tradition of resurection appearance first appeared and would believe they could be checked.

To my mind the strongest point made is that the large bunch of people at one time witnessing is a singular report not found elsewhere. I can understand that as suggesting questionable relabity or perhaps guilding the story. Maybe.

In fact putting on my skeptic glasses, however clear those may be, I imaging that it is possible to doubt Pauls report of resurection witness without pushing the report back in time any further than his letter. I am puzzled by all the effort to propose a much later date. After all for the idea of interpolation to add much to skepticism it needs be significantly later than the orignal letter.

What I suspect is happening here is that there is a desire to see Paul as genuinely inventing an new form of Christianity significantly different than what other Jesus followers were thinking. If he really is unrelated to them then he can be the source of the traditions which we receive as Christianity. The break between the New Testament and history is identified. To a skeptic that is an attractive proposal. After all anyone sufferaing from curiosity about what happened needs some theory for their belief or unbelief.

Persoanlly I think Paul was surrounded by too many Christians before him for him to be the source.

[_Trevor]

I may be influenced by that story in acts where Paul has contact with Christian believers immediately after his own experience so would have pleanty of time to absorb basics. They were not, as reported in Corintians, so complex as to require months of instruction. Perhaps I shoudnt rely on Acts.

Given the fact that it was likely written in the second century, I would say you are on to something there.