How Did Paul Know Jesus Was Resurrected?

[Ulan]

Even if just noticing a crucified Galilean peasant, thousands could have been actual eyewitnesses witness, combined or adding those who heard people talking about it.

And yet, we have for example gMark, a text that tries to explain why there were no witnesses to this event. Except some women, from far away.

[outhouse]

It's not important, because it's a stupid argument. Why would you assume there to be a witness (i) 40 years after the fact when nearly everyone was dead (ii) denying the death of a person he or she had obviously zero interest in those 40 years ago. In case this person didn't exist, there would be absolutely no reason to expect such a negative statement. This whole "weak evidence" is based on faulty logic.

Your missing the big picture.

You do not make up a fictional character, and place him in front of half a million people on the biggest stage in the world at that time, when some people could still be alive to refute such.


And it was not 40 years later. Paul starts writing soon after crucifixion. Mark was a compilation or written and oral traditions compiled possibly 35-37 years later. BUT the traditions existed by all credible accounts long before he compiled them.

Its quite obvious ALL written text if it carries historicity, deals with previous events. What makes this case unique is it is places within a lifetime of said events. NOT typical Jewish mythology that generally places the myths hundreds of years in the past.

So we are dealing with a martyred crucified man later identified as Galilean, even if fictional.

[Ulan]

However, this still only concerns Paul's 7 attributed letters that don't know anything about a Galilean (or a preacher or teacher). Which means it doesn't explain your statement I objected to.

That is fine.

But it has nothing to do with the community effort. The social anthropology does not point to an isolated scribe, it all points to Pater Familias in the Diaspora that were communities within themselves. IT took a community just to survive, let alone be able to read and write.

You use the term "Pater familias" all the time, but always in a wrong way. It means "male head of a household", literally "father of the family".

In context we are talking about the original epistles, in themselves.

Which may not be completely original, and even if we accept them as completely original, they don't provide all the context you claimed. But that's where you need those half a million witnesses in order to compensate for what Paul doesn't tell us. Or, if these letters are community efforts, we even have to compensate for everything all those people obviously didn't know.

(see for example Trobisch's three "collection" stages).

Why would I use an obscure scholars opinion?

Is he obscure? Anyway, you should use his opinions because he is one of the few scholars who actually went through all Pauline manuscripts in detail and has a very good idea about their development.

[outhouse]

Even if just noticing a crucified Galilean peasant, thousands could have been actual eyewitnesses witness, combined or adding those who heard people talking about it.

And yet, we have for example gMark, a text that tries to explain why there were no witnesses to this event. Except some women, from far away.

But your specific example deals with one short moment in a single day.

Of which we both believe is not a historical event and clearly a mythological one.


It also is addressing said family for rhetorical purposes, to build divinity as such as having a royal burial instead of a peasants body thrown in a pit. BY all likelihood.


And they claim he carried a cross through crowded streets of witnesses, not just death.



BUT again reality here is that if he was crucified, his apostles ran for Galilee starting the traditions of hos own denying him and turning him in. So the authors had this to deal with while building divinity to compete against the living Emperors divinity as "son of god"

[outhouse]

You use the term "Pater familias" all the time, but always in a wrong way. It means "male head of a household", literally "father of the family".

.

Yes, maybe I should use Roman Familia since I focus on the household.

Thank you good catch.

[Ulan]

It's not important, because it's a stupid argument. Why would you assume there to be a witness (i) 40 years after the fact when nearly everyone was dead (ii) denying the death of a person he or she had obviously zero interest in those 40 years ago. In case this person didn't exist, there would be absolutely no reason to expect such a negative statement. This whole "weak evidence" is based on faulty logic.

Your missing the big picture.

You do not make up a fictional character, and place him in front of half a million people on the biggest stage in the world at that time, when some people could still be alive to refute such.

As I said, it does not matter if that stage doesn't exist anymore, because it has been destroyed, including many of the people who lived there and visited the place (the city was destroyed during Passover). A place that has seen thousands of crucifixions.

And it was not 40 years later. Paul starts writing soon after crucifixion.

Which, as we have now stated many times, does not matter a single bit, as there is absolutely zero mention of this alleged event (a Galilean crucified in Jerusalem) we need these witnesses for. Paul claims revelation, and that's the only witness he calls for.

Mark was a compilation or written and oral traditions compiled possibly 35-37 years later. BUT the traditions existed by all credible accounts long before he compiled them.

And, what are those credible accounts between Paul (who doesn't know a thing of what you want to prove here) and Mark? Anyone there?

[outhouse]

Which may not be completely original, and even if we accept them as completely original, they don't provide all the context you claimed

.

By all standards, they cannot original or even close. Buy how far is up for debate. I would say due to the importance of such in said communities, they are somewhat close with possible compilations of collected sources, and slight interpolations and redactions combined with the typical scribal errors.

But that's where you need those half a million witnesses in order to compensate for what Paul doesn't tell us. Or, if these letters are community efforts, we even have to compensate for everything all those people obviously didn't know.

I don't need the witnesses for Pauline text. In context we were debating the community effort. Not much of a stretch knowing these people did not live in isolated households, and lived in larger family units then today as a small community. 2 or 3 pater familias made a community, in some cases 1 could have if large enough.

[outhouse]

As I said, it does not matter if that stage doesn't exist anymore, because it has been destroyed, including many of the people who lived there and visited the place (the city was destroyed during Passover). A place that has seen thousands of crucifixions.

But from 2 thousand years we are getting some very good data from Passover traditions while the temple stood in great detail.

We have the trampled man, which now the traditions was recorded as the trampled Passover ish. We also have the Roman Guard who urinated in front of a crowd and started riots leaving tens of thousands dead.

The only difference with these undisputed events, is the fact with the Galilean we have the sheer volume of text these other traditions do not, all from about the same time period as if it was a historical event. Again looking at Jewish track record s when they created theological mythology, their characters were all placed hundreds of years previously. Not decades and not as rock stars on the biggest stage in existence.

So there is NO reason to think this data was fabricated. No replacement hypothesis explains the evidence like the Martyred Galilean at Passover.

[outhouse]

Is he obscure? Anyway, you should use his opinions because he is one of the few scholars who actually went through all Pauline manuscripts in detail and has a very good idea about their development.

Yes very obscure.


Paul is one of he most studied characters in the NT text. I don't think you could substantiate "few scholars" Many have devoted their whole lives to Pauline study. Paul being loved and hated has drawn quite the attention.


Due to lack of evidence and being able to know the complete context of this time period. Scholars all build different Pauls based on how one interprets the evidence. I just view Davids work at the extreme end of the scale.

[Secret Alias]

The light is 'obscure' to a blind man. The right answer out of reach for a fool. Trobisch is not some 'obscure scholar.'