The Best Case for Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8038
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote: As part of a cumulative case, it is:

(1) Arguably 1 Clement tells us of a belief in a historical man (descendent of Jacob, flesh-and-blood) who was killed recently (first-fruits) and interacted with the apostles and taught them (whether before or after death). All details are vague, which fits in well with the pattern we find in other letters, where we find similar vague expressions of belief in a historical man. It then becomes a question of when the key passages were written. I see that the key passages are all added by the Second Century redactor in your own analysis. If 1 Clement is dated to the 60s or 90s, then it becomes much more significant.
(2) We can compare elements of 1 Clement with similar elements in other letters, especially Paul's, to help us try to understand what is going on in those other letters.

We then go onto the next letter, like the Epistle of Barnabas, to gather further information and build up a cumulative case.
My 'best case' does not become better from redundancy. For example, Lucian adds nothing really new as evidence that we don't already have in Tacitus, so I pass over any detailed analysis of Lucian.

1 Clement does not contain anything not found in 1 Corinthians and also refers to 1 Corinthians. Thus it does not add anything to our case of real incremental value. Unless you can show otherwise?
But perhaps this genealogy + first fruits argument must at least be included somewhere even if just under the heading of Paul. So thank you for that.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by GakuseiDon »

Peter Kirby wrote:
GakuseiDon wrote:As part of a cumulative case, it is:

(1) Arguably 1 Clement tells us of a belief in a historical man (descendent of Jacob, flesh-and-blood) who was killed recently (first-fruits) and interacted with the apostles and taught them (whether before or after death). All details are vague, which fits in well with the pattern we find in other letters, where we find similar vague expressions of belief in a historical man. It then becomes a question of when the key passages were written. I see that the key passages are all added by the Second Century redactor in your own analysis. If 1 Clement is dated to the 60s or 90s, then it becomes much more significant.
(2) We can compare elements of 1 Clement with similar elements in other letters, especially Paul's, to help us try to understand what is going on in those other letters.

We then go onto the next letter, like the Epistle of Barnabas, to gather further information and build up a cumulative case.
My 'best case' does not become better from redundancy. For example, Lucian adds nothing really new as evidence that we don't already have in Tacitus, so I pass over any detailed analysis of Lucian.

1 Clement does not contain anything not found in 1 Corinthians and also refers to 1 Corinthians. Thus it does not add anything to our case of real incremental value. Unless you can show otherwise?
It's not redundancy if it can shed light on meanings and content in other letters. For example, if we wanted to understand the meaning of "according to the flesh" and "in the flesh" in Paul, then a Bayesian approach IIUC would be to build a reference class for prior probability using 1 Clement and other letters using the terms. Or if we want to examine whether the silence of Gospel details in Paul is "bizarre", therefore "unexpected" (to paraphrase Carrier), then again we can build a reference class containing 1 Clement, Epistle to Barnabas, 1 Timothy, etc, as per my thread on the silence in early literature.

As another example: let's assume that you are right, and the "flesh" and "first-fruits" statements are the work of a Second Century redactor. Either the redactor is writing after the Gospels were in circulation, or beforehand. If after, then it suggests that the Gospels were not authoritative enough for the redactor's purposes to bring 1 Clement into theological allignment with his/her own theology. If before, then it suggests that the redactor wrote at a time the Gospels were unknown. Either case could be useful, either for or against any particular view of historicity/mythicism, as one piece of the Jesus puzzle.
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8038
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by Peter Kirby »

Paul Tanner wrote:This is my first post on the “Biblical Criticism & History Forum”.
Quite a first post!

Thank you for your contribution, even though I don't have the time to go through it all right now.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8038
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by Peter Kirby »

GakuseiDon wrote:It's not redundancy if it can shed light on meanings and content in other letters. For example, if we wanted to understand the meaning of "according to the flesh" and "in the flesh" in Paul, then a Bayesian approach IIUC would be to build a reference class for prior probability using 1 Clement and other letters using the terms. Or if we want to examine whether the silence of Gospel details in Paul is "bizarre", therefore "unexpected" (to paraphrase Carrier), then again we can build a reference class containing 1 Clement, Epistle to Barnabas, 1 Timothy, etc, as per my thread on the silence in early literature.

As another example: let's assume that you are right, and the "flesh" and "first-fruits" statements are the work of a Second Century redactor. Either the redactor is writing after the Gospels were in circulation, or beforehand. If after, then it suggests that the Gospels were not authoritative enough for the redactor's purposes to bring 1 Clement into theological allignment with his/her own theology. If before, then it suggests that the redactor wrote at a time the Gospels were unknown. Either case could be useful, either for or against any particular view of historicity/mythicism, as one piece of the Jesus puzzle.
Well, perhaps this genealogy/flesh + first fruits argument must at least be included somewhere. So thank you for that.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Paul Tanner
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:50 pm

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by Paul Tanner »

neilgodfrey wrote: Even though it's the default position among most scholars, it seems, I don't think there is any justification for believing that the evangelists were interested in "recording historical facts". Humphreys' offers a series of explanations that some will appeal to if they believe this is what the evangelists were doing. But others will see Humphreys' theory as just another apologetically motivated attempt at gospel harmonization.
I agree that some will, “see Humphreys’ theory as just another apologetically motivated attempt at gospel harmonization,” but I think that it would be a mistake to do so.

In another context (http://vridar.org/2014/01/31/jesus-forg ... no-memory/), Neil writes, “The entire historical Jesus quandary and uncertainties surrounding Christian origins are all generated by the problems tossed up by the historical Jesus model. Mythicism is generated by a recognition that the historical model hasn’t worked.”

I think that Humphreys’ theory about the last days of Jesus is an important first step toward showing that the historical model can work.

When I say that Humphreys’ theory works, I have in mind the principles that are described in chapters 2, 3, and 6 of Richard Carrier’s book Proving History (PH).

I have read, vetted, and discussed a lot of different theories about the last days of Jesus. I have compiled a lengthy list of potential and actual objections to Humphreys’ theory. After all of this study, I have come to the conclusion that Humphreys’ theory is different from other theories because it actually works. I think it explains the evidence better than any other theory.

However, I am very aware of how difficult it is to reach agreements on topics like this.

On page 79 of PH, Carrier writes, “Thus, just as with our priors, we base our estimates for the consequents on what we know about the world, people, the culture and historical context in question, and everything else. This means that there are four ways to misuse the evidence. You can put things in [background knowledge] or [evidence] that shouldn’t be there, or fail to include things in [background knowledge] or [evidence] that should be there.”

I think that one of the most important reasons for the disagreements between the various sides in this debate is the fact that it has not been possible to come to agreements about what to include and what to exclude from background knowledge and evidence.

I encourage everyone to take a look at Humphreys’ book and see if it makes sense.
neilgodfrey wrote: Humphreys' theory, as I understand it, assumes the evangelists were in full knowledge of the same historical facts and that they were interested in recording accurately some details of those facts. It also assumes that despite the evidence that the evangelists knew of each others' work, or at least the work of one other, they chose not to explain to readers why their accounts differed so starkly from an earlier work. They chose to write just enough from a clearly theological perspective even though their account sounded like a complete contradiction to another account all but those in the know.
First, to be clear, the differences that are being discussed here are differences between John, on the one hand, and the Synoptics (i.e. Mark, Matthew, and Luke), on the other. The Synoptics seem to describe the Last Supper as an authentic Passover meal and John seems to imply that the Passover meal was scheduled for the evening after the execution of Jesus. This looks, prima facie, like a blatant contradiction.

It is certainly true that the gospel writers did not leave us with a detailed, technical explanation of their apparent or real differences regarding the timing of the Last Supper and execution of Jesus. However, I think that they did give us hints about what they were doing. On page 152, Humphreys writes, “If the synoptic gospel writers used a different calendar from the official one to describe the last supper as a Passover meal, we might expect them to have at least hinted at this. I believe that they did. Indeed, I believe that they gave a clear clue that their original audience would have had no difficulty in understanding.”

The most basic version of Humphreys’ argument for different calendars is based on John 11:55 and Mark 14:12.

John 11:55 says, “When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, many went up from the country to Jerusalem.”

This verse in John seems to reference a particular type of Passover.

Mark 14:12 says, “On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, ‘Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?’”

It is widely acknowledged that there may be a problem with this verse in Mark. The problem is that it appears to be self-contradictory. In the official first-century Jewish calendar, the Passover lambs were sacrificed on Nisan 14 and the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread was on Nisan 15. Humphreys remarks (on page 152) that, “So Mark appears to contradict himself. A modern-day equivalent would be for me to write: ‘On Boxing Day [December 26], when it was customary to prepare the dinner for Christmas Day [December 25].’” This remark accurately captures the basic problem that a lot of other scholars have noticed previously.

In the following pages of Chapter 11, Humphreys argues that this verse in Mark should be taken as evidence that the author of Mark was using a different calendar (from John). He argues that the reason why this verse in Mark looks self-contradictory is that scholars have been assuming that Mark was using a calendar in which the day was reckoned from sunset to sunset. He argues that Mark was actually using a calendar in which the day was reckoned from sunrise to sunrise. (I think that there are several additional indications that the writers of the Synoptics were using a different calendar with a sunrise to sunrise reckoning of the day when describing the events in the last week, but I will have to write about that later.)

This is obviously a highly abbreviated version of the argument. For the details, see Humphreys’ book The Mystery of the Last Supper.
User avatar
cienfuegos
Posts: 346
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:23 pm

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by cienfuegos »

maryhelena wrote:
Sheshbazzar wrote:

Bernard Muller's remaining 20% of doubt or reticence expresses his uncertainty.
I harbor no such doubts, uncertainties, nor indecision. Thus no reason for less than 100%.

outhouse here repeatedly asserts that there was a historical 'Jesus of Nazareth'.
My view, conviction, and assertion is 100% opposed.

When it comes down to it, we are representing the only two possibilities;
a.) There was a living earthly 'Jesus of Nazareth' that in his birth, life, and death 'fulfilled' dozens, if not hundreds of Scriptural prophecies.
or
b.) There was not.

50/50,
There was,
or
There was not.

outhouse and company have FAITH in the Gospel story, that there once was a real 'Jesus of Nazareth' that was crucified, and thus became the impetus of the Christian religious movement.

I have absolute faith that there was no such person, and that all that hold that view are deluded and in error.

outhouse john BELIEVES IN JESUS.
I do not.

Bernard Muller, at "80 % for Jesus on earth in the first century" evidently still does not know what it is he believes.

'Did you ever have to make up your mind?
You pick up on one and leave the other one behind
It's not often easy and not often kind
Did you ever have to make up your mind?
Did you ever have to finally decide?
And say yes to one and let the other one ride

Did you ever have to finally decide? '

I did.
You better go on home, son, and make up your mind;

Accept Jesus, and the pack of lies that faith is built upon,
or reject it.
If you love the truth, you will love one and will despise the other. No two ways about it.
:)

While I might not go the pack of lies route......I do think that making a decision either way is more productive than sitting on the fence. Once one has done the thinking involved and acknowledges that the assumed historical gospel related crucified Jesus cannot be verified on a historical basis - then one either makes a decision based on such speculation i.e. that such a figure existed historically - or one rejects the assumption and takes up the ahistorical position. Sure, if one has not investigated the matter then withholding a decision is warranted. I don't think withholding a decision is warranted if one has investigated the matter. Either decide for the assumed historical Jesus or go the ahistorical route. Historicity cannot be verified - however loud it's supporters beat their drums.....That really is all one needs to know in order to take a different approach to the question of early christian origins.

Withholding a decision does result in a continuing merry-go-around on the issues related to the historical Jesus assumption. Time better spent on an endeavor to search for a different paradigm for investigating early christian origins. To my mind that paradigm needs to be historically based. Work from history to the NT story - not from using interpretations of the NT story thinking that such interpretations are actual background history.

I think it's where either decision takes one that is important. The assumed historical Jesus position takes one nowhere. It has closed the door to any progress in understanding early christian origins. i.e it already has that history! The ahistorical position opens the door for research.
The danger is that when you commit yourself to a position it is extremely difficult then to avoid confirmation bias when dealing the evidence. You then need a methodology to guard against that, which itself is never 100% effective. You will always have confirmation bias, the more committed you are, the more susceptible you are to it. It's the way of the world. If it weren't then everybody would be able to see why I am always right.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2895
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by maryhelena »

cienfuegos wrote:
maryhelena wrote:
Sheshbazzar wrote:

Bernard Muller's remaining 20% of doubt or reticence expresses his uncertainty.
I harbor no such doubts, uncertainties, nor indecision. Thus no reason for less than 100%.

outhouse here repeatedly asserts that there was a historical 'Jesus of Nazareth'.
My view, conviction, and assertion is 100% opposed.

When it comes down to it, we are representing the only two possibilities;
a.) There was a living earthly 'Jesus of Nazareth' that in his birth, life, and death 'fulfilled' dozens, if not hundreds of Scriptural prophecies.
or
b.) There was not.

50/50,
There was,
or
There was not.

outhouse and company have FAITH in the Gospel story, that there once was a real 'Jesus of Nazareth' that was crucified, and thus became the impetus of the Christian religious movement.

I have absolute faith that there was no such person, and that all that hold that view are deluded and in error.

outhouse john BELIEVES IN JESUS.
I do not.

Bernard Muller, at "80 % for Jesus on earth in the first century" evidently still does not know what it is he believes.

'Did you ever have to make up your mind?
You pick up on one and leave the other one behind
It's not often easy and not often kind
Did you ever have to make up your mind?
Did you ever have to finally decide?
And say yes to one and let the other one ride

Did you ever have to finally decide? '

I did.
You better go on home, son, and make up your mind;

Accept Jesus, and the pack of lies that faith is built upon,
or reject it.
If you love the truth, you will love one and will despise the other. No two ways about it.
:)

While I might not go the pack of lies route......I do think that making a decision either way is more productive than sitting on the fence. Once one has done the thinking involved and acknowledges that the assumed historical gospel related crucified Jesus cannot be verified on a historical basis - then one either makes a decision based on such speculation i.e. that such a figure existed historically - or one rejects the assumption and takes up the ahistorical position. Sure, if one has not investigated the matter then withholding a decision is warranted. I don't think withholding a decision is warranted if one has investigated the matter. Either decide for the assumed historical Jesus or go the ahistorical route. Historicity cannot be verified - however loud it's supporters beat their drums.....That really is all one needs to know in order to take a different approach to the question of early christian origins.

Withholding a decision does result in a continuing merry-go-around on the issues related to the historical Jesus assumption. Time better spent on an endeavor to search for a different paradigm for investigating early christian origins. To my mind that paradigm needs to be historically based. Work from history to the NT story - not from using interpretations of the NT story thinking that such interpretations are actual background history.

I think it's where either decision takes one that is important. The assumed historical Jesus position takes one nowhere. It has closed the door to any progress in understanding early christian origins. i.e it already has that history! The ahistorical position opens the door for research.
The danger is that when you commit yourself to a position it is extremely difficult then to avoid confirmation bias when dealing the evidence. You then need a methodology to guard against that, which itself is never 100% effective. You will always have confirmation bias, the more committed you are, the more susceptible you are to it. It's the way of the world. If it weren't then everybody would be able to see why I am always right.
Danger? Yep, not for the faint of heart...... ;)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8038
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by Peter Kirby »

Have we danced this dance before? A search of the archives shows that the phrase "first fruits" has had some meaning to you for a while.
GakuseiDon wrote:who was killed recently (first-fruits)
The meaning and intent of the word as used by the early Christians cannot bear the heavy freight put on it above.

The heavy emphasis is on sacrifice to God, guarantee, excellence, and being first -- chronology, perhaps, but not chronological proximity. That's a very strong reading that basically assumes what needs to be proved, as otherwise one could not narrow down its meaning like that.

The important thing about the "first fruits of the resurrection" is that Christ's sacrificial death and resurrection guaranteed the same for his church. There's no implication that this occured 20, 30, 50, 100, or whatever years ago. There's nothing to say that the catalyst of the apostle's preaching wasn't the recent revelation of these mysteries, not necessarily a recent resurrection. Indeed we have several statements regarding the catalyst of the movement being a recent revelation. So it is still a contender, on its own. The death and resurrection is still not placed in a specific historical context, at least not on this basis. The reference to "first fruits" is simply not enough to do that.

The idea that Christ is "set apart to God before the remainder could be used," offered to God in sacrifice as a paschal lamb (another metaphor which also--incidentally--does not imply that the author believes that Christ was literally crucified on a historical Passover day), explains the use of the word.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 536: ἀπαρχή

ἀπαρχή, ἀπαρχῆς, ἡ (from ἀπάρχομαι:
a. to offer firstlings or first-fruits;

b. to take away the first-fruits; cf. ἀπό in ἀποδεκατόω), in the Sept. generally equivalent to רֵאשִׁית; the first-fruits of the productions of the earth (both those in a natural state and those prepared for use by hand), which were offered to God; cf. Winers RWB under the word Erstlinge (BB. DD. under the word First-fruits): ἡ ἀπαρχή namely, τοῦ φυράματος, the first portion of the dough, from which sacred loaves were to be prepared (Numbers 15:19-21), Romans 11:16. Hence, in a transferred use, employed a. of persons consecrated to God, leading the rest in time: ἀπαρχή τῆς Ἀχαΐας the first person in Achaia to enroll himself as a Christian, 1 Corinthians 16:15; with εἰς Χριστόν added, Romans 16:5; with a reference to the moral creation effected by Christianity all the Christians of that age are called ἀπαρχή τίς (a kind of first-fruits) τῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ κτισμάτων, James 1:18 (see Huther at the passage) (noteworthy is εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ Θεός ἀπαρχήν etc. as first-fruits] 2 Thessalonians 2:13 L Tr marginal reading WH marginal reading; Christ is called ἀπαρχή τῶν κεκοιμημένων as the first one recalled to life of them that have fallen asleep, 1 Corinthians 15:20, 23 (here the phrase seems also to signify that by his case the future resurrection of Christians is guaranteed; because the first-fruits forerun and are, as it were, a pledge and promise of the rest of the harvest).

b. of persons superior in excellence to others of the same class: so in Revelation 14:4 of a certain class of Christians sacred and dear to God and Christ beyond all others (Schol. ad Euripides, Or. 96 ἀπαρχή ἐλέγετο οὐ μόνον πρῶτον τῇ τάξει, ἀλλά καί τό πρῶτον τῇ τιμή).

c. οἱ ἔχοντες τήν ἀπαρχήν τοῦ πνεύματος who have the first-fruits (of future blessings) in the Spirit (τοῦ πνεύματος is genitive of apposition), Romans 8:23; cf. what Winer § 50, 8 a. says in opposition to those (e. g. Meyer, but see Weiss in edition 6) who take τοῦ πνεύματος as a partitive genitive, so that οἱ ἔχοντες τήν ἀπαρχήν τοῦ πνεύματος are distinguished from the great multitude who will receive the Spirit subsequently. (In Greek writings from (Sophocles) Herodotus down.)
ἀπαρχή , ῆς f first-portion (Jewish term for anything set apart to God before the remainder could be used); first; equivalent to ἀρραβών (Ro 8.23)

Newman, B. M. (1993). Concise Greek-English dictionary of the New Testament. (18). Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; United Bible Societies.
http://biblehub.com/greek/536.htm
Strong's Concordance
aparché: the beginning of a sacrifice, i.e. the first fruit
Original Word: ἀπαρχή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: aparché
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ar-khay')
Short Definition: the first-fruits
Definition: the first-fruits, the earliest crop of the year, hence also met., for example, of the earliest converts in a district; there is evidence in favor of rendering in some passages merely by: sacrifice, gift.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from apo and arché
Definition
the beginning of a sacrifice, i.e. the first fruit
NASB Translation
first convert (1), first fruits (6), first piece (1).
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
firstfruits.
From a compound of apo and archomai; a beginning of sacrifice, i.e. The (Jewish) first-fruit (figuratively) -- first-fruits.

see GREEK apo

see GREEK archomai
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by GakuseiDon »

Peter Kirby wrote:Have we danced this dance before? A search of the archives shows that the phrase "first fruits" has had some meaning to you for a while.
GakuseiDon wrote:who was killed recently (first-fruits)
The meaning and intent of the word as used by the early Christians cannot bear the heavy freight put on it above.

The heavy emphasis is on sacrifice to God, guarantee, excellence, and being first -- chronology, perhaps, but not chronological proximity. That's a very strong reading that basically assumes what needs to be proved, as otherwise one could not narrow down its meaning like that.
I agree, but remember in Ben C Smith's post there were more pointers than just "first-fruits". There are a number of statements in Paul that seems more consistent with Jesus coming after David as a descendant of David (which I know you think we can't rule out meaning something else) and give a recent time for Jesus' death. I'll go through some in 1 Cor 15 below.
Peter Kirby wrote:The important thing about the "first fruits of the resurrection" is that Christ's sacrificial death and resurrection guaranteed the same for his church. There's no implication that this occured 20, 30, 50, 100, or whatever years ago. There's nothing to say that the catalyst of the apostle's preaching wasn't the recent revelation of these mysteries, not necessarily a recent resurrection. Indeed we have several statements regarding the catalyst of the movement being a recent revelation.
What statements are those? It might be interesting to see the terminology used to indicate that the catalyst revelation of the movement was recent (assuming you mean the catalyst wasn't Paul's revelation.)

If we had to guess where Paul places Jesus' death from Jesus' statement, what do the indicators tell us? Take 1 Cor 15 for example. What does it seem to be telling us with respect to when Jesus died?

1 Cor 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
...
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept...
...
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed...


"Now" in 1 Cor 15:20 according to Strongs means "now" in the sense of "at this moment", i.e. a temporal indication. It's not just a revelation that is "now", but Christ rising from the dead. Christ has become the first-fruits of those that have died "in Christ", suggesting that a long enough time has elapsed (after either the revelation or Christ's death) for some to have started dying.

Paul uses "now" as well to talk about the revelation: Romans 16:

25 ... to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest...
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8038
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Best Case for Jesus

Post by Peter Kirby »

GakuseiDon wrote:What statements are those?
Perhaps I will collect them one day.
GakuseiDon wrote:But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept...
English Standard Version (ESV)
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died.

New International Version (NIV)
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

New Jerusalem Bible
In fact, however, Christ has been raised from the dead, as the first-fruits of all who have fallen asleep.

Weymouth New Testament
But, in reality, Christ *has* risen from among the dead, being the first to do so of those who are asleep.

Common English Bible
But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead. He’s the first crop of the harvest of those who have died.

Easy-to-Read Version
But Christ really has been raised from death—the first one of all those who will be raised.

Good News Translation
But the truth is that Christ has been raised from death, as the guarantee that those who sleep in death will also be raised.

New Century Version
But Christ has truly been raised from the dead—the first one and proof that those who sleep in death will also be raised.

New International Reader's Version
But Christ really has been raised from the dead. He is the first of all those who will rise from the dead.

Contemporary English Version
But Christ has been raised to life! And he makes us certain that others will also be raised to life.

(There are, of course, lots of translations using the words "But now.")

νυνὶ δὲ is the Greek here -- and yes also in the doxology at the end of Romans.

That it also has another sense is apparent from 1 Corinthians itself.

(examples cribbed from http://doctrine.org/but-now/ )
1 Corinthians 5.11 But (νῦν δὲ) actually, I wrote to you...
1 Corinthians 7.14 ... for otherwise your children are unclean, but now (νῦν δὲ) they are holy.
1 Corinthians 12:18 But now (νυνὶ δὲ) God has placed the members ...
1 Corinthians 12:20 But now (νῦν δὲ) there are many members, but one body.
1 Corinthians 13:13 But now (νυνὶ δὲ) faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

The "but now" (νυνὶ δὲ) sometimes just refers to the place where the author is in his argument. And that certainly fits here in 1 Cor 15:20, where the author is engaged in an extended argument concerning the resurrection.

That doesn't mean that it always has that function in the text. There is no argument taking place in the doxology at the end of Romans, for example.

That "now" doesn't modify the resurrection of Christ in 1 Cor 15:20 is not only possible but probable: first, because of the strange implication that Christ is actually being raised from the dead now, i.e., after some believers have lately fallen asleep, and second by the verb ἐγήγερται in the Greek perfect.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply