|
|
|
jimrobb
New Member
38 Posts |
 Posted - 02/18/2005 : 10:54:34
|
I've decided, upon receiving advice from SFN old hands, to move this biblical higher criticism discussion to its own thread. I am starting it by repeating a post from my blog, Skeptics Club that I only reference in the Tsunami thread. Some of the points raised in the other thread I will respond to in other posts:
Did Paul Write a Fifth Gospel? Skeptics, doubters, and those with impish natures, enjoy taking swipes at the four gospel books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Here are some of the things they say:
- The gospels were written decades after Jesus' life, so memories must have faded. Therefore, the miracles, claims of being God's son, etc., are unreliable.
- The gospels are just rewrites of a common, earlier source document now lost to us. Therefore, they are to be less trusted, since that one source may have gotten the whole thing wrong.
- The gospels were written by believers (true). Therefore, they cannot give an objective and accurate account of Jesus' life.
And so on and so forth. All interesting points. Can't do anything about that last issue, but I believe I can convincingly answer the first two with another text.
The (likely) earliest and most undisputed gospel text is. . .Paul's Letter to the Galatians! Really! Crack open the big black book and read Galatians through, especially the autobiographical first two chapters. [Read for yourself] Reading Galatians is fun, because while some scholars continue to throw stones at the four gospels' historicity, everybody accepts this letter of Paul.
In the letter's first section, Paul tells the story, also reported in Acts, of how he led an early campaign to eradicate the Christian sect. He states that three years after converting to the faith, he travels to Jerusalem and spends time getting to know Peter, Jesus' primary disciple, and James, the brother of Jesus. This probably occurred around 37 A.D., or only about seven years after the crucifixion. Doubtless, Peter and James regaled Paul with story after story of the works and words of Jesus. He heard it all from eye-witnesses. No "Q" document necessary. No redactions. No interpolations. Think about it. Paul knew virtually all of Jesus' crew.
A few verses later in the letter to the Galatians, Paul explains that some years later, he called Peter a hypocrite to his face. That was because Peter was caving in to a group of Jewish Christians who insisted that new converts had to follow the strict dietary laws of the Jews, even though Peter himself no longer maintained these practices. Point being. . .Paul knew the most important disciple of Jesus very well indeed. Was on intimate terms with him.
So when Paul says later in Galatians, "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me," he's speaking of a person he knew everything about--from the most knowledgeable sources. In fact, if you go through Paul's undisputed letters and just piece together the claims he makes about Jesus Christ, you can see the outlines of a fifth gospel account. But this "gospel" was written just a very few years after the events it describes. When Paul says the Young Master arose, he didn't get that thirty-two sources removed. He heard it from the guy who found the empty tomb.
No one thinks Paul is a liar. Virtually no one disputes the absolute authenticity of the letter to the Galatians. So either Paul is revealing that Peter, James, and all of Jesus' close followers are pathological liars. Or we better listen up.
|
Jim Robb  |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 11:20:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobb
But this "gospel" was written just a very few years after the events it describes.
Where is the evidence to support this claim?quote:
When Paul says the Young Master arose, he didn't get that thirty-two sources removed. He heard it from the guy who found the empty tomb.
Seven years after the event, and more years still before Paul wrote it down. Do you think memory is like a video camera? It's not. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 12:14:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobb
Did Paul Write a Fifth Gospel? Skeptics, doubters, and those with impish natures, enjoy taking swipes at the four gospel books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). Here are some of the things they say:
- The gospels were written decades after Jesus' life, so memories must have faded. Therefore, the miracles, claims of being God's son, etc., are unreliable.
- The gospels are just rewrites of a common, earlier source document now lost to us. Therefore, they are to be less trusted, since that one source may have gotten the whole thing wrong.
- The gospels were written by believers (true). Therefore, they cannot give an objective and accurate account of Jesus' life.
Hi, jr. The above list, it seems to me, is a perfectly valid list of claims-- one need not be impish in nature to be skeptical of the supernatural claims made by people who were writing almost 2000 years ago!
quote:
The (likely) earliest and most undisputed gospel text is. . .Paul's Letter to the Galatians! Really! Crack open the big black book and read Galatians through, especially the autobiographical first two chapters. [Read for yourself] Reading Galatians is fun, because while some scholars continue to throw stones at the four gospels' historicity, everybody accepts this letter of Paul.
Indeed, jr. It is commonly accepted that Paul wrote before the earliest Gospel, Mark. Indeed, while the dates are disputed most place Paul ca. 40-50 CE while Mark is typically placed in the early 70's CE.
But as Dave hinted, Paul's writings in Galations suggests that the book itself was composed even later than the-seven-years-later argument you propose. Galations 2:1 tells us "Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas." This was his second visit, if I understand him, and he's writing about it in the past tense. Thus, at the very earliest, he's rehashing second-hand stories that he heard some 14+ years ago about events that happened some 20+ years previously. Hardly reliable.
And in any case, flags should immediately be raised when we read things like "If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal 1:9) and "I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie." (Gal 1:20). when someone tries that hard to tell you that he's right and the other guy is wrong, you may want to consider the possibility that the other guy may have a point.
Curiously-- though this isn't a point you brought up-- neither Paul nor Mark reveal much about Jesus' early life. Those only show up later.
There's much more to be said about the whole Paul-Gospels thing, but I don't have the resources in front of me. In the next few days, though, I'll have more to say...
|
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 02/18/2005 12:15:58 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 12:38:09 [Permalink]
|
| I think some make a pretty decent case that Paul doesn't say anything about any earthly Jesus. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
jimrobb
New Member
38 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 19:45:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Paul's writings in Galations suggests that the book itself was composed even later than the-seven-years-later argument you propose. Galations 2:1 tells us "Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas."
Sorry to have misled on that point. No, Galatians was apparently written between 44-55. Didn't mean to suggest otherwise. What I meant was that Paul interviewed Jesus' primary disciples just a few years after the events described in the gospels. And I also agree that Paul reveals little about the biographical details of Jesus--he left that to his disciple, Luke (this is the most likely scenario--there are others).
Thus, while Paul mainly discusses Jesus' death and rising from the dead, as well as his spiritual encounters with Jesus afterwards, these details were gleaned from first-hand witnesses. When Paul says Jesus rose from the dead, it seems certain that Peter and James told him so themselves. While their claims merit separate and careful investigation, it is extemely important that we have a reliable reporter of what those first-hand witnesses said. At least for what Paul says, there's no question of reliance on an oral tradition, unnamed, possibly inaccurate documents, monks meddling with texts, etc.
As far as I'm concerned, Paul's testament adds an entire new dimension to the historicity debate. |
Jim Robb |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2005 : 22:02:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobb
Thus, while Paul mainly discusses Jesus' death and rising from the dead, as well as his spiritual encounters with Jesus afterwards, these details were gleaned from first-hand witnesses. When Paul says Jesus rose from the dead, it seems certain that Peter and James told him so themselves. While their claims merit separate and careful investigation, it is extemely important that we have a reliable reporter of what those first-hand witnesses said. At least for what Paul says, there's no question of reliance on an oral tradition, unnamed, possibly inaccurate documents, monks meddling with texts, etc.
And why is Paul deemed a "reliable reporter?"quote:
As far as I'm concerned, Paul's testament adds an entire new dimension to the historicity debate.
What would add to the debate is records from the Romans, Jews or any other independent party from the late 20s CE which said something about this Jesus guy who's stirring up trouble.
I think you're naive to think that Paul's writing hasn't been discussed to death in relation to the historicity of Jesus, or that it adds anything unique. L. Ron Hubbard started a successful religion more-or-less single-handedly, in almost as short a time. Who's to say that Peter and the rest weren't intent on creating a messiah from scratch, and Paul was just their chump? We've still got people who believe that mixing Coke and Pop Rocks killed Mikey, despite them being able to try it themselves. Paul couldn't go back in time to witness Jesus' death first-hand. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jimrobb
New Member
38 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2005 : 08:14:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert in another thread
Paul did not think of Jesus' resurrection in physical terms. Paul described a "vision" of Christ which was strictly spiritual in nature.quote:
Nowhere in the accounts given in Acts are we actually told that Paul saw the risen Jesus. All he saw was a blinding light and a voice which his companions either did not hear or understand. The experience of Paul was nowhere near the tangible Jesus of the resurrected Jesus in the gospels.
But...quote:
The precedent of the Pauline epistle strongly suggests that the appearances witnessed original followers of Jesus amount to nothing more than the type described by Paul, i.e. visions. We have absolutely no reason to believe that Paul understood Jesus' appearances to the apostles as anything different from his own experience. [2] This view finds another adherent in the ex-nun turned author, Karen Armstrong:
"It is interesting to note that Paul makes no distinction between his own vision of Jesus and those apparitions to Peter and the others. Where the gospels show Jesus as physically and inconvertibly present to the apostles, able to eat drink and be touched, Paul, who was writing much earlier, shows the events as entirely similar to his own violent vision, which he compares to an abnormal childbirth. The apparitions to Peter and James and the rest were probably visions like Paul's on the road to Damascus, rather than physical manifestations of the risen Lord. Paul does not suggest that they were any different." [3]
If, as we have seen is very likely, the actual resurrection appearances of Jesus were nothing more than hallucinatory visions brought on by psychological factors, it becomes clear why there were skeptics among the original followers of Jesus as to stories and claims of seeing the risen Christ.
So, either "Paul is revealing that Peter, James, and all of Jesus' close followers are pathological liars," or maybe he isn't speaking in literal, physical terms about the risen christ and neither were they. Be mindful of constructing false dilemmas.
First-class work, H. I agree with you that Paul's own vision of Christ was "spiritual" in nature. That is, while he saw the vision, others saw light and heard noise. This does not nullify his testimony, but it does assign it to a type distinct from that evidentally experienced by Peter, James, and the others.
Karen Armstrong and you suggest that because Paul experienced a vision, and because he lists his experience right alongside that of the early disciples, he he therefore suggesting that he understood their experience to be like his in type. Right? Well, I do see how you could read the text that way, but I believe it's a stretch.
Take, for example, Paul's take-it-or-leave-it statement in 1 Corinthians, "If there's no resurrection, there's no living Christ. And face it--if there's no resurrection for Christ, everything we've told you is smoke and mirrors, and everything you've staked your life on is smoke and mirrors." [Read for yourself] This and many similar passages in Paul make it clear that he had absolutely no doubt that Jesus rose physically from the dead. This is the point behind the point, isn't it? And if the body went missing, and Peter, James, and others told him they later saw the Young Master in person, this would seem to be consistent with what else he was told.
None of this, of course, constitutes "proof" of a resurrection. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that Paul writes in his early letters that his understanding of Jesus' life, death, and afterdeath match what we've seen in the later gospels. |
Jim Robb |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2005 : 06:14:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobb
When Paul says Jesus rose from the dead, it seems certain that Peter and James told him so themselves.
Where in the epistles is there support for this hypothesis of yours?
Paul denies it in Galatians 1:12.quote:
While their claims merit separate and careful investigation, it is extemely important that we have a reliable reporter of what those first-hand witnesses said.
On what grounds do you call Paul a reliable reporter?
Is he likely to be objective? He was in a conflict with at least one of these "witnesses" after all.
Where does Paul claim that these people are first-hand witnesses?
What and where does he report of their testimony? quote:
As far as I'm concerned, Paul's testament adds an entire new dimension to the historicity debate.
I'm sorry but I dont understand what you mean. The christian writer closest to the supposed events does not write much about them.
What does Paul say about Jesus physical life on earth?
Which people came into contact with Jesus according to Paul?
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
jimrobb
New Member
38 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2005 : 20:26:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
On what grounds do you call Paul a reliable reporter? Is he likely to be objective?
Thanks, Starman. Good question.
I tend to believe Paul for lots of reasons. First, and paradoxically, I believe him because he was in conflict with other apostles. He most was in harmony with the Jerusalem-based apostles, as all early sources agree. But he differed at points, most especially in his opposition to the need for Greeks to be converted to Jewish faith as a precursor to becoming Christians. This honest conflict, boldly reported by Paul, underlines for me his integrity. He didn't go along with anything that seemed wrong to him. When he says that Jesus rose from the dead or his religion is worthless [Read for yourself], this strikes me as deeply felt. |
Jim Robb |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 02:50:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobb
I tend to believe Paul for lots of reasons.
Are you sure that the main reason is not emotional?quote:
First, and paradoxically, I believe him because he was in conflict with other apostles. He most was in harmony with the Jerusalem-based apostles, as all early sources agree.
Which sources do you mean here? Are there any contemporary or earlier sources? The later gospel writers had most likely read Paul. quote:
But he differed at points, most especially in his opposition to the need for Greeks to be converted to Jewish faith as a precursor to becoming Christians. This honest conflict, boldly reported by Paul, underlines for me his integrity. He didn't go along with anything that seemed wrong to him.
Reported? Integrity? Honest conflict?
Pauls letters are political propaganda within the christian sect. Paul tells people that he is right and that Peter is wrong on some issues.
How can you call this reports? How do you know that the conflict was honest? How could this underline his integrity? Does Paul admit any errors (after his conversion)?quote:
When he says that Jesus rose from the dead or his religion is worthless, this strikes me as deeply felt.
Well its true isnt it? If Jesus didn't rise from the dead Christianity of the Pauline or the (several) modern versions are false, are they not?
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
jimrobb
New Member
38 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 22:36:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
If Jesus didn't rise from the dead Christianity of the Pauline or the (several) modern versions are false, are they not?
Yes, quite true. If Jesus never arose, I'm left with a fantastic set of principles, excellent poetry, stirring biography, etc. But I won't have an answer for the evil I have done. I won't have a hope of heaven. That would be sad.
quote:
Are there any contemporary or earlier sources? The later gospel writers had most likely read Paul.
Didn't mean to mislead here. Paul first reports the conflicts with Peter and the others. The writer of Acts later affirms this version of events (the general conflict, not every event mentioned).
quote:
Are you sure that the main reason is not emotional?
Starman, of course I'm not sure. No one can know themselves that well, I believe. Emotion is, of course, not always irrational. For some people, emotions are their most honest feature! |
Jim Robb |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 23:08:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobb
But I won't have an answer for the evil I have done. I won't have a hope of heaven. That would be sad.
I'm not sure it's as much sad as it is short-sighted. After all, whether Jesus died on the cross or not, the "answer" to the evil you have done is to apologize for it and move on. And "heaven," at least in terms of a continuing existence of sorts after death, is possible for those who are remembered by friends, family and others.
I understand that everyone wants more than that, but are such desires reasonable? I mean, I want to be able to fly like Superman, but it's not "sad" that I can't. If I expected to be able to fly, then perhaps reality would be disappointing, but I don't. In other words, I'm wondering if maybe your expectations aren't set a wee bit high... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2005 : 08:12:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobb:
Yes, quite true. If Jesus never arose, I'm left with a fantastic set of principles, excellent poetry, stirring biography, etc. But I won't have an answer for the evil I have done. I won't have a hope of heaven. That would be sad.
What's sad is that it seems you need this hope of heaven to give meaning to your life. If people directed the time energy they use trying to influence their fantasized next life on improving things in this life, the planet would be so much better off. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2005 : 03:32:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobbquote:
Originally posted by Starman
Are you sure that the main reason is not emotional?
Starman, of course I'm not sure. No one can know themselves that well, I believe. Emotion is, of course, not always irrational. For some people, emotions are their most honest feature!
...
If Jesus never arose, I'm left with a fantastic set of principles, excellent poetry, stirring biography, etc. But I won't have an answer for the evil I have done. I won't have a hope of heaven. That would be sad.
While emotions are not always a negative thing, they will often cloud your judgement. Whether you want something to be true or not does not change the fact, but it might very well make you incapable of finding out how things really are.quote:
Paul first reports the conflicts with Peter and the others. The writer of Acts later affirms this version of events (the general conflict, not every event mentioned).
My point is that the writer of Acts most likely had read and accepted the letters of Paul. If Paul won the conflict with the other christian (Peter) faction, this later writing can hardly be regarded as an independent affirmation.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
jimrobb
New Member
38 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2005 : 20:52:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
What's sad is that it seems you need this hope of heaven to give meaning to your life. If people directed the time energy they use trying to influence their fantasized next life on improving things in this life, the planet would be so much better off.
Yeah, but the person you describe ain't me. I'm frankly working my tail off trying to improve life for myself and others within my reach. I'm happy, not dreading death or fearing life. But I believe we humans are hard-wired to believe in eternity. Whether or not that's true, I do believe in life after death, and most people around the world seem to share that belief in one form or another. The core of Christian faith is resurrection. Jesus rose, leading the way for us. At least that's the Bible's message. And that's one part of the Bible everything in me seems to agree with. |
Jim Robb |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2005 : 21:02:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimrobb
But I believe we humans are hard-wired to believe in eternity.
"What is" is not necessarily "what ought to be." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
