tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post114931807381363004..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Keith Parsons responds to Jason PrattVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1149601471049724112006-06-06T06:44:00.000-07:002006-06-06T06:44:00.000-07:00Initial notes are now complete; running about 55K ...Initial notes are now complete; running about 55K text file size. (For comparison, Keith Parsons' letter runs about 13K.)<BR/><BR/>Trimming down commencing.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Steven: it would of course be stupid to claim that Paul was familiar with Gospels that had not yet been written.<BR/><BR/>I will remind you, however (in case it needs mentioning, which it seems it might), that nothing in what I wrote concerning Keith Parsons' letter, made any such claim at all. In fact, I don't even recall grounding a point on Paul _having to be_ (in principle) familiar with Christian tradition! (Beyond the virtually tautological claim that Paul might at least possibly be familiar with tradition he says he is familiar with.)<BR/><BR/>I _did_ make a point, later in my letter, that would seem to be simply common sense: if there was an empty tomb, then Paul (as prosecutor for the Sanhedrin) would have known about _that_. In which case, as I put it, any attempt at trying to tease out some kind of alternate meaning to the dead body itself being raised in 1 Cor 15 (and elsewhere) becomes simply moonshine.<BR/><BR/>I also specifically said, however, that I would _NOT_ go to Paul to establish the empty tomb as a historical fact. I would go somewhere else.<BR/><BR/>It's important to remember this in order to fairly evalutate what I wrote; and also to keep from implying (as Dr. Parsons seems to have accidentally done) that I was trying to argue something along the lines of 'Paul's audience would have already known about the stories, therefore Paul would have not had to elaborate on them, _THEREFORE_ Paul knew about the stories.' Which I agree would be a ridiculous argument. (Gosh, I wonder why I haven't tried using _that_ one before, duhhhh.....)<BR/><BR/>The proper (and very limited) inference is: _if_ Paul's audience already knew about the stories, _then_ Paul would not necessarily have had to do more than tangentially refer to them. This has <B>absolutely nothing</B> to do (_my_ emphasis) with establishing that either Paul _or_ his audience knew any such stories.<BR/><BR/><BR/>As to whether Paul knew traditional material which echoes material eventually found in the Gospels: that's a whole other kettle of fish, which could be gone into at booklength. (Meaning I'm not going to do it here.) Personally, I find the divergences to be far more striking and interesting than the convergences (especially in working toward developing a coherent largescale historical theory); but the convergences also significantly outnumber the divergences.<BR/><BR/>Jason PrattJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1149321799038312622006-06-03T01:03:00.000-07:002006-06-03T01:03:00.000-07:00'the disciples had supposedly seen Jesus raise oth...'the disciples had supposedly seen Jesus raise others from the dead,'<BR/><BR/>Indeed Matthew 10 makes clear that the disciples themselves supposedly had the power to raise people from the dead.<BR/><BR/>So why they should be baffled by a claim that somebody had risen from the dead is beyond me, and beyond reason.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1149321356538003442006-06-03T00:55:00.000-07:002006-06-03T00:55:00.000-07:00' To say that Paul knew such stories but did not e...' To say that Paul knew such stories but did not elaborate on them because his readers were already aware of them would simply be an argumentum ad ignorantiam.'<BR/><BR/>Quite right. And it is stupid to claim that Paul knew the Gospel stories.<BR/><BR/>The churches in Thessalonica and Corinth denied the general resurrection. They believed that Jesus rose, but thought that the dead , in general, were lost, and that dead corpse would not rise.<BR/><BR/>Was Paul's heart burning with the words of his Lord and Saviour in Matthew 22<BR/><BR/> 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." <BR/><BR/> 33When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.<BR/><BR/>Crowds of people heard this astonishing teaching, yet neither Paul nor the churches in Thessalonica nor in Corinth used it to settle the issue of whether the dead were lost.<BR/><BR/>So Paul and the early Christian churches could not have been aware of this Gospel story, which means you need evidence before you can assume that Paul was aware of any particular Gospel story.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.com