spin wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 12:50 amFurther clarification...
The discussion is not about if Paul himself was an eye witness, but that if Paul actually had eye witness accounts his argument in 1 Cor 15:12-19 would be almost complete irrelevant. It would have been, as I'd basically put it before, "If you don't believe in the resurrection for you, look at what you learn from the eye witness: Jesus was raised, so resurrection is real."
Assuming that Paul had visions of the Risen Jesus similar to those presented in Acts of the Apostles: I just don't see those eye witness accounts making his arguments in 1 Cor 15:12-19 irrelevant. Since this has a connection to the topic of "Why Paul never quotes Jesus", I'll explain why further below. The key question about Paul is right at the end. This is a little long-winded, so apologies for that.
I'll note here the danger of using the orthodox 'newspaper reporter Jesus' position as the opposing position for an argument. As I explained earlier, the 'newspaper reporter Jesus Christ' position is that there were people following Jesus around, and were so impressed by his words and his miracles, that they concluded that Jesus must have been the Christ. Paul, impressed by these things and having a vision of the Risen Christ, becomes a Christian. So (as the argument goes) it would be natural for Paul to quote the words of Jesus Christ and recount the vision as evidence for Jesus to be the Christ.
But that 'newspaper reporter Jesus' doesn't work. Up until at least the end of the Second Century, it is the
theological arguments around Jesus that are important, and not the words and miracles of Jesus. This includes Second Century writers who are obviously 'historicist' Christians, as I've pointed out many times. As I've quoted Doherty on this topic from his JNGNM:
As one can see by this survey, if one leaves aside Justin Martyr there is a silence in the 2nd Century apologists on the subject of the historical Jesus which is virtually equal of that found in the 1st century epistle writers. (Page 485)
And that's because it was the theological arguments that were important in the first few centuries. It wasn't Jesus's words and miracles that showed he was Christ, but the finding of him in scriptures. I'm guessing that this is one factor for why Paul and others didn't quote Jesus's words and miracles. They were irrelevant to the theological arguments being made.
spin wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 12:50 amAs this is not his basic argument, he has to rely on rhetoric, rather than any eye witness statements. It's as though there were no eye witnesses stories in the account and 15:12 and its reference to what was proclaimed follows straight on from 15:1-2 and its remark about Paul's proclamation.
I think that the eye-witness accounts (assuming something similar to those in Acts of the Apostles) are all but irrelevant to the argument Paul is making in 1 Cor 15. As I've already noted (and I think we are agreed) Paul is making a
theological argument.
I think a lot of counter-orthodox people on this board like Spin and Neil (no disrepect to either) are still in the thrall of the orthodox 'newspaper reporter Jesus Christ' position, in that it appears the expectation is that Jesus's words and miracles would have been of primary interest to the orthodox position. But that is coming from a position of 2000 years of Christianity.
Put yourself into the shoes of a Jew in Paul's time. He is told that Jesus said some wise things. But so what? Others have said wise things. That doesn't make him the Christ. He is told that Jesus performed miracles. But so what? Other people have performed miracles. That doesn't make him Christ. He is told by Paul that Paul had a vision of Jesus. But so what? Others have appeared in visions. That doesn't make him Christ. So what convinces my hypothetical Jew that Jesus was Christ? It was the
theological arguments. That is what we are told in Acts of the Apostles, and I think that it is non-controversial that this was represented as the primary method of converting the Jews:
Acts
17.1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2. And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3. Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
4. And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.
...
11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12 Therefore many of them believed...
...
24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus...
... 28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.
If you reread 1 Cor 15 in light of the above, you can see that Paul is making an argument based on Jesus being Christ as
according to scriptures.
Now put yourself into the shoes of a Corinthian Christian believer who believes (1) that Christ was raised from the dead, and (2) that there is no general resurrection from the dead.
What benefit is there for Paul to tell them that he had had a vision of the Risen Christ? They
already believe that Christ had been raised from the dead. Isn't it irrelevant to Paul's theological argument?