Paul's letters, written just fifteen years to twenty-five years after the death of Jesus's, provide an outline of all the events of Jesus's life found in the gospels--his miracles, claims, crucifixion, and resurrection. This means that the Biblical accounts of Jesus's life were circulating within the lifetime of hundreds of who had been present at the events of his ministry.The Reason for God p. 101.
I guess that Keller gives himself some wiggle room by only claiming that Paul "provides an outline," rather than asserting that Paul corroborates that Jesus was a miracle worker or that he made "claims." Without having Paul on board, the apologist has to deal with the possibility that the Biblical accounts weren't circulating earlier than forty to sixty years after the events. That leaves aside the question of how long it took for the gospels to get into general circulation after they were composes. If we were to go by unambiguous external references to the gospels, we would find it hard to establish that the stories of Jesus as a miracle working rabbi were circulating much earlier than a century after the events.
Posts
What if you determined that Paul viewed Jesus as a miracle-working, recently deceased Rabbi? Do you think that dramatically increases support for Jesus as divinity?
ReplyDeleteDoOrDoNot,
ReplyDeleteNot really, however, I do think it dramatically increases support for the founder of Christianity being a first century itinerant Galilean preacher. As it is, I don't think we can rule out the possibility that the gospel stories weren't a part of the earliest Christian message, but were instead a later attempt to historicize the exalted Christ that Paul preached. In that case, even if some of the stories were based on an actual person, it might be proper to consider Paul the actual founder of Christianity.
Paul's letters, written just fifteen years to twenty-five years after the death of Jesus's, provide an outline of all the events of Jesus's life found in the gospels--his miracles, claims, crucifixion, and resurrection.
ReplyDeleteI just made a blog post about the various places where Paul doesn't quote Jesus when he should have. This bolded part is one instance in Paul's letters where he contradicts the gospel narratives:
Mark 6:3
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles!
-vs-
1 Cor 1:22-23
22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles
It seems like Paul didn't know anything about a miracle working, wisdom preaching Jesus.
An interesting exercise is to watch 'The Passion of the Christ' and see if it can be summed up by Paul's statements 'Not all the Israelites accepted the good news.'.
ReplyDeleteThe Jews had Jesus literally in their hands.
Paul writes 'What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some did not have faith?'
Oh, and they had also been given Jesus to preach to them, and they rejected him.
I don't see how any of this can be honestly put forth as intelligent arguments. For example:
ReplyDelete1 Cor 1:22-23 does not suggest that Paul was unaware of Christ's wisdom OR miracles. Paul is merely distinguishing between what Jews of the time were insisting upon against what Paul and other Christians were concerned with preaching. Even while Christ walked the earth, His miracles and wise teachings were not as important as His purpose, His prime directive, if you will, which was to be a sacrifice for our sins in order to save us from God's wrath. And that was Paul's main message as well.
As to what Christ said or did, it was indeed common knowledge throughout the land, as evidenced by Roman and Jewish historians of the time who noted the claims themselves. It was not necessary for Paul to mention them at all considering that and the fact that none of the epistles were written to anyone who did not already have exposure to the Christ story.
Keep in mind also, the the nations of Israel had God Himself among them throughout their forty years in the desert, witnessing miracles often, and still they had periods where they rejected Him. In Christ's time, even in His darkest hour, there were believers. There is no case to be made that EVERYONE rejected Him.
And Vinny, I would encourage you to look at Neil's minimal facts that he presents at his blog, Eternity Matters (under 4Simpsonsblog at the top of my "Right Ones" blogroll) wherein he presents the case that there are several facts with which even atheist scholars agree regarding the Christ story and for which the Christ story is the only logical explanation. As an example, few doubt that the apostles preached Him resurrected. One can't get any earlier to the event than that. The story wasn't "made up" decades later like you'd wish were true.
'Even while Christ walked the earth, His miracles....'
ReplyDeleteYou mean Jesus raised the dead, scolded people for not believing despite Lazarus being raised from the dead, and then claimed that raising the dead was not a reason to believe and that Christians should respond to Jewish demands for miraculous signs by pouring scorn on such demands?
This is just crazy logic.
'As an example, few doubt that the apostles preached Him resurrected.'
ReplyDeleteYes. Paul says flat out that Jesus 'became a life-giving spirit', and contrasts the resurrection with the creation of Adam, where dead matter was made alive.
MA,
ReplyDeleteI don't have to read your buddy's description of the "minimal facts" approach because I have read Habermas for myself Real historians don't reach conclusions by cherry picking only those facts that support their presuppositions and declaring "No historical theory can be valid unless it fits these four facts and no others." Real historians also have to consider those fact that are inconvenient for the theory that they wish were true, like the overwhelmingly accepted fact that people who die stay dead. Of course Habermas wouldn't know what real historians do because his survey was composed primarily of conservative Christian theologians and New Testament scholars. The fact that they supported his belief in his magic book is no more impressive than Mormom scholars believing that the Book of Mormon describes historical events or Muslim scholars believing the Koran describes historical events.
MA,
ReplyDeleteLet's look at your buddy's minimal facts:
(1) Jesus lived and died on a Roman cross.
So what? Lots of people died on Roman crosses. Maybe one of them did provide the inspiration for the character in the gospels. As Steven Carr has pointed out, this is no more significant than the fact that a real person provided the inspiration for Popeye.
(2) The apostle believed they saw appearances of the resurrected Christ.
So what. Joseph Smith believed that the Angel Moroni appeared to him and Bernadette Soubirous believed that the Virgin Mary appeared to her at Lourdes.
(3) Paul converted to Christianity.
Wow! A skeptic became a Christian. I used to be a Christian and I became a skeptic. I guess that proves that none of its true.
MARSHALL ART
ReplyDeleteAs to what Christ said or did, it was indeed common knowledge throughout the land, as evidenced by Roman and Jewish historians of the time who noted the claims themselves.
CARR
Translation.
Not a single Roman or Jewish historian wrote a document 'of the time' of Paul, mentioning anything whatever to do with Jesus.
MA
It was not necessary for Paul to mention them at all considering that and the fact that none of the epistles were written to anyone who did not already have exposure to the Christ story.
CARR
Translation.
Paul says flat-out that what the Corinthians have received so far was 'milk', because they were not ready for 'meat'.
So all the teachings of Jesus,,the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, the parables, the miracles, etc etc were mere 'milk' that Christians had to get through before they got to the juicy stuff...
How can that be?
How could all that oral tradition about what Jesus had preached been passed on to the Corinthians, and Paul wrote it off as 'milk'?