Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[polonius]

marco wrote:

[Replying to post 770 by Claire Evans]

>>There are many things regarded as articles of faith that have no basis in historical fact. <<

RESPONSE:

Yes. These are then properly termed historical fictions.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

I have to be honest and say it cannot be proven that Paul ever went to Spain. I cannot find in other source that said he did. No other source says that Paul was martyred in Spain. I do want at least two sources to corroborate one another.

Here is a second source for you, as well on a bit of historical background on the tradition that Paul went to Spain. Understand that I am making no claim myself that Paul went to Spain. But it is a very old and very well established tradition.

http://johnsonspain.tripod.com/id69.html

http://www.historicism.org/Documents/Jrnl/Spain.pdf

Thanks for this. It is hard to differentiate between tradition and what really happened. These sources are later like John Chrysostom, c. 349 – 407, Archbishop of Constantinople. People say that because there were monuments to Paul, that this is proof he went there. That is a logical fallacy.

So did Paul go to Spain or not? I don't know. No one can say for certain.

[Claire Evans]

The purpose of me posting that Clement quote was because someone asked me for a more recent source about Peter and Paul's martyrdom than the later ones he had. He may have been right or he may have been wrong but what he says is not gospel. So I'm going back to neutral here. Which quote are you referring to when you say, "that witnessing before the leaders thus departed this world"?

The quotation I used was my own literal translation of the Greek text of 1 Clement.

However, if you are dissatisfied with my humble efforts, I refer you to three different translations, namely those by Lightfoot, Hoole, and Staniforth:

J.B. Lightfoot
"having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance."

Charles Hoole
"and having preached righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extremity of the West, and having borne witness before rulers, he departed at length out of the world, and went to the holy place, having become the greatest example of patience."

M. Staniforth
"He preached in the East and in the West, winning a noble reputation for his faith. He, taught righteousness to all the world; and after reaching the furthest limits' of the West, and bearing his testimony before kings and rulers, he passed out of this world and was received into the holy places. In him we have one of the greatest of all examples of endurance."

No mention of "suffering martyrdom" in any of them.

Absolutely, but Clement then completely disregarded 2 Timothy. Why?

There is another argument and that is the there is forgery attributed to Clement:

CLEMENT OF ROME (about 30-96 A.D.). He is alleged to be the
first, second, third, or fourth, Bishop, or Pope, of Rome (CE. iv,
13); and to be the author of two Epistles to the Corinthians,
besides other bulky and important forgeries, thus confessed and
catalogued by CE:

"Many writings have been faslely attributed to Pope St.
Clement: (1) The 'Second Clementine Epistle to the Corinthians.'
Many critics have believed them genuine [they having been read in
the Churches]. ... But it is now admitted on all hands that they
cannot be by the same author as the genuine [?] Epistle to the
Corinthians. ... (2) Two Epistles to Virgins.' (3) At the head of
the Pscudo-Isidorian Decretals stand five letters attributed to St.
Clement. (4) Ascribed to Clement are the 'Apostolic Constitutions,'
'Apostolic Canons,' and the "Testament of our lord.' (5) The
'Clementines' or 'Pseudo-Clementines,' including the Recognitions
and Homilies," hereafter to be noticed. (CE. iv, 14-15; cf. 17,
39.)


http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/a ... 20Rome.htm

I have to be honest and say it cannot be proven that Paul ever went to Spain. I cannot find in other source that said he did. No other source says that Paul was martyred in Spain. I do want at least two sources to corroborate one another.

Well, if we are being honest, you will have to admit you haven't provided a single scrap of evidence that Paul was executed in Rome.

Acts is silent on the matter, as is 1 Clement. As for 2 Timothy, assuming it is not pseudopigraphical i.e. a forgery, all it evidences is that at a certain time Paul was apparently in Rome, not that he was executed there.

To claim, as you do, that 2 Timothy is evidence that Paul was executed in Rome, is palpably ludicrous.

We have this:

2 Timothy 1:16-17New International Version (NIV)

16 May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. 17 On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me.

No further journeys of Paul were ever recorded. Was he released? There is no indication of that. That could have been recorded. And what about Paul's death not being recorded? Luke could have already been dead when Paul was executed.

What is the case that 2 Timothy is a forgery?

And if you require two sources to corroborate any event, then you will be hard pressed to verify any event in the New Testament, and that includes the alleged resurrection. Copying and collusion does not correspond to corroboration.

That is true but it is preferred. Two witnesses on the stand corroborating one another in court is better than one lone testimony.

So I have to try and differentiate between tradition and what really may have happened.

Clearly, you will have to try harder, much harder.

Hope I have done just that.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 759 by Claire Evans]

History was actually pretty good back then-if you couldn't find the incident, you could find the policy. The policy of Romans guarding bodies. After all, when, in the US we execute someone, for example, we post two marines to guard that criminal's body right?
****
Except, why would Romans WANT to guard the body of a dissent?
If you knew Rome at the time, they were more likely to cut a criminal's head off and use it as a soccer ball.


So, there are some things we know about back then that your research into the subject could clarify.

Because Pilate heard of the claim that the disciples would claim a resurrection and Pilate wanted to prevent that so he tried to prevent the theft of the body. He wanted the matter to go away. He was already on shaky ground.

Notice this Claire:

Matt.27:
[54] Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

The author of Gospel Matthew was perfectly capable of indicating the guard to be a Roman when he meant Roman. In no way and in no manner does he ever indicate that the guard at the tomb was Roman.

Nor did Pilate mention a temple guard.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 759 by Claire Evans]

History was actually pretty good back then-if you couldn't find the incident, you could find the policy. The policy of Romans guarding bodies. After all, when, in the US we execute someone, for example, we post two marines to guard that criminal's body right?
****
Except, why would Romans WANT to guard the body of a dissent?
If you knew Rome at the time, they were more likely to cut a criminal's head off and use it as a soccer ball.


So, there are some things we know about back then that your research into the subject could clarify.

Because Pilate heard of the claim that the disciples would claim a resurrection and Pilate wanted to prevent that so he tried to prevent the theft of the body. He wanted the matter to go away. He was already on shaky ground.

Notice this Claire:

Matt.27:
[54] Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

The author of Gospel Matthew was perfectly capable of indicating the guard to be a Roman when he meant Roman. In no way and in no manner does he ever indicate that the guard at the tomb was Roman.

Nor did Pilate mention a temple guard.

Matt.27:
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

Well, yes he actually did. You have a watch he pointed out to them. And they very much DID have a watch. The temple police.

[Student]

[Replying to Claire Evans]
Claire, I agree that there are questions regarding the veracity of 1 Clement, however I did not introduce it as evidence, you did here.

I simply pointed out that 1 Clement did not support what you claimed it did i.e. that Paul was executed in Rome.

If you now wish to withdraw 1 Clement as evidence (that Paul was executed in Rome), I have no objection.

With regard to the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus), there are also numerous objections to their veracity which, in my opinion, strongly suggest that they are second century forgeries. However debating the authenticity of the Pastorals is well outside the topic of this thread.

[Student]

Well, if we are being honest, you will have to admit you haven't provided a single scrap of evidence that Paul was executed in Rome.

And if you and others are being honest, you'll have to admit that Claire has provided, via Clement, relatively early first century data to support the argument that Peter and Paul were persecuted and killed.

If one were to be honest, one would have to admit that 1 Clement is not ascribed to a date [relative or otherwise] in the early first century CE.

Being honest, one would admit that it is actually dated late first / early second century [80CE to 140CE].

While 1 Clement does mention that Peter and Paul were pursued/persecuted it does not claim that they suffered violent deaths, not unless one relies upon the defective Roberts-Donaldson translation. [While I am prepared to debate the merits / demerits of the Roberts-Donaldson translation, it falls outside of the topic of this thread]

As it transpires however, even though Claire introduced 1 Clement as proof of Paul's execution in Rome, she now questions its authenticity, and consequently its reliability as evidence.

[Goose]

If one were to be honest, one would have to admit that 1 Clement is not ascribed to a date [relative or otherwise] in the early first century CE.

You are misunderstanding what I wrote. I wasn’t claiming an early first century date for 1 Clement. I’m well aware of its later first century dating. Granted I may have poorly worded it. Perhaps I should have inserted a comma?

“...relatively early, first century date...�

Relatively early meaning relatively early, historically speaking, to the events in question.

Being honest, one would admit that it is actually dated late first / early second century [80CE to 140CE].

Probably around 95 CE.

�[1 Clement] is generally recognized as having been written near the end of the �rst century, possibly around 95 CE during the reign of
Domitian—before, that is, some of the books of the New Testament itself had been produced (e.g., 2 Peter).� – Bart Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, 2003, pg 167.

While 1 Clement does mention that Peter and Paul were pursued/persecuted it does not claim that they suffered violent deaths, not unless one relies upon the defective Roberts-Donaldson translation. [While I am prepared to debate the merits / demerits of the Roberts-Donaldson translation, it falls outside of the topic of this thread]

It doesn’t need to claim they suffered violent deaths for us to infer the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. Surely we can make this inference if you can infer “Pillars of Hercules� from "extreme limits of the west.�

[Student]

If one were to be honest, one would have to admit that 1 Clement is not ascribed to a date [relative or otherwise] in the early first century CE.

You are misunderstanding what I wrote. I wasn’t claiming an early first century date for 1 Clement. I’m well aware of its later first century dating. Granted I may have poorly worded it. Perhaps I should have inserted a comma?

“...relatively early, first century date...�

Relatively early meaning relatively early, historically speaking, to the events in question.

I did not misunderstand what you wrote; you might claim that what you wrote is not what you intended, but that is your error, not mine. I responded to what you wrote, no more, no less. Simply acknowledging your error would have sufficed. Now however, from my perspective, all I see is prevarication.

Being honest, one would admit that it is actually dated late first / early second century [80CE to 140CE].

Probably around 95 CE.

�[1 Clement] is generally recognized as having been written near the end of the �rst century, possibly around 95 CE during the reign of
Domitian—before, that is, some of the books of the New Testament itself had been produced (e.g., 2 Peter).� – Bart Ehrman, Lost Scriptures, 2003, pg 167.

Various scholars attribute different dates [and authors] to 1 Clement. I indicated the range of dates that have been proposed without endorsing any particular one.

While 1 Clement does mention that Peter and Paul were pursued/persecuted it does not claim that they suffered violent deaths, not unless one relies upon the defective Roberts-Donaldson translation. [While I am prepared to debate the merits / demerits of the Roberts-Donaldson translation, it falls outside of the topic of this thread]

It doesn’t need to claim they suffered violent deaths for us to infer the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. Surely we can make this inference if you can infer “Pillars of Hercules� from "extreme limits of the west.�

The "furthest limits of the west" meaning the Pillars of Hercules, is not my inference. Eratosthenes and Strabo, both defined the "Pillars of Hercules" as the westernmost boundary of the inhabited world. See also Maxwell Staniforth, Early Christian Writings; The Apostolic Fathers; p. 25, n6. Also Kümmel says "from the standpoint of the Romans, τὸ τέ�μα τῆς δυσεως can only be Spain."[Introduction to the New Testament; p266]

As for your counter proposal, that we might infer from 1 Clement that both Peter and Paul were martyred, I can only repeat that 1 Clement is silent on the precise nature of their deaths e.g. regarding Paul, "when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place". Hardly the graphic description of a violent death.

Consequently I decline your invitation to exchange inferences.

[tfvespasianus]

Recall that this imbroglio began, in part, with statements like:

‘I suppose the claim that Paul was beheaded by Nero isn't an irrefutable fact.’ Which I am assuming was at least tinged with sarcasm hinting that the author believes that it is an irrefutable fact.

and

‘It is true that Paul's death wasn't recorded and no secular sources corroborate it. However, what is recorded is that Paul was in Rome 67 AD in jail. The first persecution of the Christian Church took place that same year. It is logical to deduce that Paul, being very active with the Church, would have been executed under Nero.’

Which appears to be walking it back a bit, but ‘would have’ instead of ‘could have’ is still indicative of an amount of certainty. At the very least, I don’t think that Paul was executed in Rome under Nero’s orders is a certainty. Moreover, we have to admit that the sources are problematic and fragmentary. Considering this, it’s good to see the overall tenor is one of making claims of diminishing specificity on the part of the apologists, but would still assert that we can’t know much for sure and that the evidence is in the state that it is leads to more questions.

Take care,
TFV