Historical Evidence for the Resurrection (Again)

[liamconnor]

(Preliminary: this thread is not about "The Bible". It is about an historical situation--i.e. the origins of the early church--i.e. the claimed resurrection. No document will be judged "better" or "more reliable" simply on the grounds that "it's in the Bible". We will use the same thing used in all historical investigations--common sense and historical methodology)

It seems that folks on this thread still do not understand how history is done and what amounts to historical evidence; analogies between N.T. studies and present day courtroom scenes are made— since we cannot cross examine so-called eyewitnesses of the N.T., clearly Christianity is a sham. As if we could cross examine ANY historical figure!

As Aristotle pointed out to us, every science yields its own degree of knowledge and to require more is not an indication of the science’s weakness but of your own. History is conducted by analyzing and comparing documents; the degree of knowledge it yields ranges from implausible to beyond reasonable doubt. One can always doubt an historical claim; whether one can do so reasonably is another question. Anybody claiming on a thread entitled “Historical Evidence for the Resurrection� that “eyewitness testimony is not evidence� simply does not know what he is talking about and should refrain from commenting on such threads. There is just no point in debating with such a person on the level of history—stick to geometrical problems.

To reinforce the initial preliminary, I quote DI

The reason that Christianity is a "sham" is because it doesn't merely claim to be history, it claims to be the TRUTH. And it even accuses everyone who refuses to believe in it of having "rejected God" and having chosen evil over good etc.

This is an historical investigation. Please drop all questions about the ancient documents' "divine status"; all assumptions that you know what "Christians believe" or even what "Christianity has believed" about the Bible are to be suspended. We will treat them as we treat Josephus or an anthology of ancient Roman historians.

To begin this thread, I analyze what is probably the earliest Christian creed we have, from 1 Cor. 15. I ask that we do some real, mature history: the kind of history done with all ancient documents.

I care very much for structure, and so here is how I’ve structured my argument: 1) I give the proposition with a defense; 2) I voice a common objection; 3) I meet that objection in a rejoinder; 4) I give my conclusion.

1 Cor 15:1—8: (I have italicized what is probably not part of the original creed—that is, certain phrases which disrupt the rhythm of the Greek, and are “Pauliocentric�. These are most likely editorial or introductory remarks from Paul. I have also emboldened two key words. Everything in plain print I (as well as numerous scholars) believe to be original to the oral tradition.)

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,


that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas,
then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James,
then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1Co 15:1-8 NAS)

Proposition #1 Paul recalls to the Corinthians a list he received of persons whom he claims saw the risen Jesus.

Defense: The two terms in bold are in this context technical terms signifying both the transmission of oral tradition and its reception—Jews highly valued the importance (almost sanctity) of oral tradition; Paul was no different, even when the tradition was regards Jesus and not Torah (Cf. Gal 1:14). The Corinthians received what Paul handed over to them; what Paul handed over to them Paul claims he himself received.

Objection: Paul is lying.

Rejoinder: 1) This is conjecture without any historical warrant: you are just making stuff up. 2) If Paul were lying, he would surely have left out all names, and said that most if not all of the recipients of this encounter were dead. That is how good liars work—leave no room for investigation or keep the circle very, very small. Instead, Paul gives leads for readers to investigate: Peter, James, and just less than 500 whom the Corinthian church could’ve inquired into (i.e. we know they sent him a letter; we know he had visited them). 3) And yet we have no paper trail calling Paul out for a lie. We know that the Corinthian church was not shy of criticizing Paul—yet they never cried out “Liar� regards his list of witnesses. What we do have is at least three independent attestations of one apostle, James (1 Cor, Acts and Josephus). Outside of the Corinthian correspondence we have named apostles who are resident at the letter’s designation (Rom 16:7). People traveled back then more than today; they didn’t have the telephone or the internet; traveling is how information was conveyed—someone somewhere was always traveling with some news. A lie on the level of Paul in 1 Cor. (as well as in other letters where he names apostles) would have exposed him as a sham and the probability of that sham appearing in history is overwhelming--the very fact that Paul's letters continued to circulate as authoritative is evidence that no one called "liar"--and we know from his own letters (GAlatians and Corinthian correspondence) that people were willing to impugn him publicly.
So, 1) We have ZERO paper trail of Paul lying about this list 2) the list itself is vulnerable to investigation—it gives names and is made up of at least 500 individuals.

Conclusion: 1) Paul delivers a list of persons who claim they saw the risen Jesus, and this list includes two explicitly named individuals, and perhaps eleven or twelve implicitly named individuals (that no one in Corinth would've asked "who are these twelve?" is preposterous). 2) This list is prior to Paul’s writing to the Corinthians: scholars (of ALL types) agree that the letter was composed about 50 AD (twenty years after the dead of Jesus); hence the creed itself is prior to 50 AD. 3) The list is comprised of eyewitnesses of post-crucifixion appearances. This list, in light of the considerations above, counts as eyewitness testimony. It is not FROM those eyewitnesses; but then we are not in a courtroom--we are doing history. Most of your historical beliefs are based on eyewitness testimony at multiple removes.

Next Question (after hearing reasonable responses): When did Paul receive this creed and from whom? Is there a paper trail of this transmission?

[Goose]

Your grasp of history on the other hand has been to assert that Attila the Hun attacked Rome with an army of elephants. Your qualifications for making any claims concerning history and historical facts one way or the other have already been established as being marginal at best.

What then should we make of one who quoted the non existent 25th, 26th, and 42nd chapters of Ecclesiastes?

[Goat]

Goose, is there any other documentation that supports the existence of James and Peter?

Off the top of my head. Luke mentions them both. There's good evidence they both wrote a letter. James is mentioned by Josephus. Peter is mentioned by Clement.

Goose is right.

It is embarrassing that some of you don't know this. Are you doing your homework at all?

From Josephus:

"when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or some of his companions]; and, when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: (Ant 20:200 JOE)"

Well, yes, Ant 20 did say that. HOWEVER, it is likely to be a copiers gloss when it comes to the phrase 'who was called Christ', since Josephus would never use than term, since he was promoting Vespasian as being the anointed one... indeed the way the Josephus stopped from being killed when he was captured was telling Vespasian he was going to be the King of the Jews. And, if you read the ENTIRE passage, and look at the 'who was called Christ' as a copiers gloss, you will see that he is specifically talking about a DIFFERENT Jesus. The entire paragraph is as follows

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Josephus was not talking about Jesus son of Josephs, he was taking about Jesus the son of Damneus.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 81 by Goat]

I notice that in the passage you quoted it says Jesus was brought out to be stoned. No mention of a crucifixion. Odd don't you think?

[Goose]

History is not just documents. It involves exercising what historians call “the historical imagination� which is not very different from the scientific method: 1) a hypothesis, “if a happened, we should expect b,� 2) the experiment (or here the analysis of documents) “but we don’t find b�. The conclusion, “it is unlikely that “a� happened.

That explains it, you have no idea of how modern history is done, you are unable to evaluate the quality of data, a concern that competent historian share with scientists.

Speaking of how history is done. Have you managed to figure out how an eyewitness account written decades later can by a contemporary if accounts written decades later are not "contemporaneous"?

By all rights, the best that you should say is that, "very limited noncontemporaneous data of dubious origin might be taken to indicate that ..." Your failure to understand this is, of historic proportion.

Now why would we say that when Paul was a contemporary?

[Kenisaw]

Goose, is there any other documentation that supports the existence of James and Peter?

Off the top of my head. Luke mentions them both. There's good evidence they both wrote a letter. James is mentioned by Josephus. Peter is mentioned by Clement.

Goose is right.

It is embarrassing that some of you don't know this. Are you doing your homework at all?

From Josephus:

"when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or some of his companions]; and, when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: (Ant 20:200 JOE)"

Homework done my man. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing something. Thanks Goose for your answer by the way.

The answer to the question is: NO, there isn't any other source. Why? Because Luke was written 30 years after Paul did his thing, and was still being edited in the 2nd century AD. The unknown author was clearly an admirer of Paul's writings, and sourced some of his material from Paul, along with Mark (which also sourced Paulian writings). In other words, Paul is still the source of James and Peter.

Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" was written in 93 AD, and according to scholars the mentioning of James is referring to James the Just, not James the Great OR James the Less. Scholars also agree that Josephus knew of Paulian writings as well as Mark when he wrote.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 83 by Goose]



I'm curious, Goose. Does anything written claimed to be from an eyewitness mean whatever they wrote must be true?

You still never answered the question if your accepting the resurrection as true basically boiled down to very old stories saying "I saw it."

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to liamconnor]

I have issue with your conclusion.

Paul does list two people (James and Peter) for which there seems to be consensus that he could have met, given that all three were supposedly in Jerusalem at various points between 35-44 AD (James traditional date of death is 44 AD). We must point out that neither James or Peter are mentioned outside of Biblical or apocryphal writings. So we have Paul's word for the existence of these two people. He goes to list unnamed numbers, for which we have no accounting for. He lists the twelve apostles (a safe assumption that thus is the 12 he writes of), for which again we have no independent verification of. In fact, Paul wrote about half the NT, and is the lone source for a lot of things.

You assume that you have all these eyewitnesses to the event known as the resurrection. However, we have only Paul's word that all these people saw anything. That is here-say. There is no independent verification that these people existed, if they saw anything, or if they ever spoke to Paul. There's no archaeological evidence supporting the existence of these people or of any event they claim they witnessed.

There's no evidence that humans can raise from being dead and that their bodies can physically leave Earth and go to some place of reward.

I find your conclusion absurd. Paul is obviously lying, or he has some kind of delusion or mental condition that made him see things that did not actually happen.

We must point out that neither James or Peter are mentioned outside of Biblical or apocryphal writings.

If we were to assess your statement here in the same manner that YOU assess the Bible, what should we say...

when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or some of his companions]; and, when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: (Ant 20:200 JOE)

...it seems the only possible answer is, "Kenisaw should never be read as reliable again".

Is that correct?

So if we analyze your response to me, here's what we find:

You do not contradict my statements that there is a total lack of archaeological evidence for anything claimed. You do not contradict my statements that there is a total lack of evidence for human resurrection. You do not contradict my statements that there is no independent verification for all these unnamed numbers of witnesses. You do not contradict my statements that claims attributed to anyone outside of Paul himself are here-say...

Then, regarding my statement about only biblical sources for the existence of Peter and James, you list a quote from Josephus, who scholars agree sourced Mark and Paulian writings for information, and therefore IS by extension a biblical source...

Seems your discussing these things historically isn't working out any better than discussing the supernatural aspect of it...

[PghPanther]

(Preliminary: this thread is not about "The Bible". It is about an historical situation--i.e. the origins of the early church--i.e. the claimed resurrection. No document will be judged "better" or "more reliable" simply on the grounds that "it's in the Bible". We will use the same thing used in all historical investigations--common sense and historical methodology)

It seems that folks on this thread still do not understand how history is done and what amounts to historical evidence; analogies between N.T. studies and present day courtroom scenes are made— since we cannot cross examine so-called eyewitnesses of the N.T., clearly Christianity is a sham. As if we could cross examine ANY historical figure!

As Aristotle pointed out to us, every science yields its own degree of knowledge and to require more is not an indication of the science’s weakness but of your own. History is conducted by analyzing and comparing documents; the degree of knowledge it yields ranges from implausible to beyond reasonable doubt. One can always doubt an historical claim; whether one can do so reasonably is another question. Anybody claiming on a thread entitled “Historical Evidence for the Resurrection� that “eyewitness testimony is not evidence� simply does not know what he is talking about and should refrain from commenting on such threads. There is just no point in debating with such a person on the level of history—stick to geometrical problems.

To reinforce the initial preliminary, I quote DI

The reason that Christianity is a "sham" is because it doesn't merely claim to be history, it claims to be the TRUTH. And it even accuses everyone who refuses to believe in it of having "rejected God" and having chosen evil over good etc.

This is an historical investigation. Please drop all questions about the ancient documents' "divine status"; all assumptions that you know what "Christians believe" or even what "Christianity has believed" about the Bible are to be suspended. We will treat them as we treat Josephus or an anthology of ancient Roman historians.

To begin this thread, I analyze what is probably the earliest Christian creed we have, from 1 Cor. 15. I ask that we do some real, mature history: the kind of history done with all ancient documents.

I care very much for structure, and so here is how I’ve structured my argument: 1) I give the proposition with a defense; 2) I voice a common objection; 3) I meet that objection in a rejoinder; 4) I give my conclusion.

1 Cor 15:1—8: (I have italicized what is probably not part of the original creed—that is, certain phrases which disrupt the rhythm of the Greek, and are “Pauliocentric�. These are most likely editorial or introductory remarks from Paul. I have also emboldened two key words. Everything in plain print I (as well as numerous scholars) believe to be original to the oral tradition.)

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,


that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried,
and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He appeared to Cephas,
then to the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to James,
then to all the apostles;
8 and last of all, as it were to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. (1Co 15:1-8 NAS)

Proposition #1 Paul recalls to the Corinthians a list he received of persons whom he claims saw the risen Jesus.

Defense: The two terms in bold are in this context technical terms signifying both the transmission of oral tradition and its reception—Jews highly valued the importance (almost sanctity) of oral tradition; Paul was no different, even when the tradition was regards Jesus and not Torah (Cf. Gal 1:14). The Corinthians received what Paul handed over to them; what Paul handed over to them Paul claims he himself received.

Objection: Paul is lying.

Rejoinder: 1) This is conjecture without any historical warrant: you are just making stuff up. 2) If Paul were lying, he would surely have left out all names, and said that most if not all of the recipients of this encounter were dead. That is how good liars work—leave no room for investigation or keep the circle very, very small. Instead, Paul gives leads for readers to investigate: Peter, James, and just less than 500 whom the Corinthian church could’ve inquired into (i.e. we know they sent him a letter; we know he had visited them). 3) And yet we have no paper trail calling Paul out for a lie. We know that the Corinthian church was not shy of criticizing Paul—yet they never cried out “Liar� regards his list of witnesses. What we do have is at least three independent attestations of one apostle, James (1 Cor, Acts and Josephus). Outside of the Corinthian correspondence we have named apostles who are resident at the letter’s designation (Rom 16:7). People traveled back then more than today; they didn’t have the telephone or the internet; traveling is how information was conveyed—someone somewhere was always traveling with some news. A lie on the level of Paul in 1 Cor. (as well as in other letters where he names apostles) would have exposed him as a sham and the probability of that sham appearing in history is overwhelming--the very fact that Paul's letters continued to circulate as authoritative is evidence that no one called "liar"--and we know from his own letters (GAlatians and Corinthian correspondence) that people were willing to impugn him publicly.
So, 1) We have ZERO paper trail of Paul lying about this list 2) the list itself is vulnerable to investigation—it gives names and is made up of at least 500 individuals.

Conclusion: 1) Paul delivers a list of persons who claim they saw the risen Jesus, and this list includes two explicitly named individuals, and perhaps eleven or twelve implicitly named individuals (that no one in Corinth would've asked "who are these twelve?" is preposterous). 2) This list is prior to Paul’s writing to the Corinthians: scholars (of ALL types) agree that the letter was composed about 50 AD (twenty years after the dead of Jesus); hence the creed itself is prior to 50 AD. 3) The list is comprised of eyewitnesses of post-crucifixion appearances. This list, in light of the considerations above, counts as eyewitness testimony. It is not FROM those eyewitnesses; but then we are not in a courtroom--we are doing history. Most of your historical beliefs are based on eyewitness testimony at multiple removes.

Next Question (after hearing reasonable responses): When did Paul receive this creed and from whom? Is there a paper trail of this transmission?

We can drop all the divine status as requested and you end up with stories being told to other people who all claim the same confirmation bias within the stories and by the writers of those stories.........

......how is that objective historical documentation of those events?

It would be like reading a book on the Roswell UFO crash written by a person that believes it was a UFO from another planet and interviewing and telling the same stories from other who all believe it had live aliens on board...............where is the military's documentation within a book like that of it being a weather balloon?

Its all confirmation bias claimed as actual events.........

And that is the same you have with the Bible............its not documented history with an objective or even counter account of the events........its all confirmation bias reported as accurate.

Where within the Bible is the Roman government documentation of all these claimed events to add some sense of a balance to a confirmation bias within the text?

and if you as a believer are down to the desperation of trying to validate to nonbelievers what you claim as truth by ignoring that and just looking at these accounts from a purely historical account as an attempt to get a foothold into reality of the eventual divinity claims you must get to........ what good does that do you?

Its like fighting to claim that Christ actually existed as a real human being............okay fine maybe he might have but that doesn't provide any credibility to the stories claimed about him.

On the other hand if Christians are so desperate to validate their claims by just trying to first establish that Christ even existed in history then you are on the losing end of a debate before you even start out because of all the confirmation bias as a historical claims in those manuscripts not to mention it does your faith and salvation nothing if Christ is only historical but not divine.....

As Paul said you would have to end up being the most pitied people on Earth.....

Claiming historical credibility of Christ in canonized Biblical manuscripts is playing tennis without a net and does your faith no validity in its eventual divinity claims which is a logical progression you must end with after laying down any historical claims to begin with.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 81 by Goat]

I notice that in the passage you quoted it says Jesus was brought out to be stoned. No mention of a crucifixion. Odd don't you think?

It was James that was stoned in that passage. It did not mention an execution of anybody named Jesus.

However, like I said, there were some very strong reasons Jospehus would not refer to another person as 'Christ'. First of all, there was the audience, who would not know that 'anointed' or literally 'wetted' had special meaning to the Jewish religion. Next, using a term that would associate someone with the King of the Jews other than his patron who he claimed would be the prophesied King of the Jews would be against the claim he made to get out of being executed when he was captured, and would put his life at risk.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 73 by liamconnor]

I have read through the arguments and thus far I have found that none of them deal with the OP;

Intellectually dishonest of you. I specifically replied to your own conclusion. You didn't like the answer, but that doesn't mean it wasn't accurate and in line with scholarly consensus.

the responses fall under a few categories: 1) Mere philosophical assumptions under the veneer of historical debate. We might translate these as “blablablabla, blabla blablabal, WE ALL KNOW THE DEAD DON’T RISE.� In other words not a single response is really an argument: it is just an implied assumption about the supernatural.

It is inaccurate to say that "the dead don't rise" is an implied assumption. There is precisely zero data or empirical information showing this to have ever happened or be possible. Until any theist anywhere on this planet provides any scrap of empirical evidence for such an outrageous claim, there is no reason to consider it even remotely plausible. And we both know there isn't any such evidence, don't we...

2) Criticisms of the documents of early Christianity in a manner and to a degree that no ancient document could withstand. (e.g. Plutarch, Lucian, Caesar etc. etc.). I cannot stress this enough: as far as eyewitness testimony goes, discrepancies among the documents, temporal distance from the events recorded—the N.T. compares quite well. Impressively well. Skeptics who scoff at the "twenty years" between Paul and the so-called resurrection are really commending it. A twenty year gap between even and historical recording is incredible.

Nonsense. Does anyone accept Plutarch's ramblings about Apollo and souls as true? No. Are his biographies about various famous Greeks and Romans considered? Yes, because they are similar to other writings of the times in the claims they make, and for some of the famous there is archaeological evidence for them. Even in these writings Plutarch is not entirely uncontroversial (his Spartan writings for example). Plutarch is taken with a grain of salt, as he should be.

The major problem with your eye-witness testimonies is that the biblical eye-witnesses are claiming supernatural events. No matter how much you want to distance yourself from the supernatural, you can't when it comes to the Bible, because the Bible IS at it's heart a supernatural story. An eyewitness statement in Plutarch about Alexander the Great's personality may not be true, but it can be considered plausible because lots of humans have good self-control (one of the claims he makes about Alexander). It's not an extraordinary claim, unlike the biblical ones.

As far as I can see, the Christian documents' one fault is that they include a unique miraculous event, along with numerous miraculous reports (not all unique even when compared with secular historians of the ancient world). Which means these criticisms do not belong on a thread entitled "Historical evidence for the resurrection..."

If you want to consider the historical accuracy of the claim, you cannot separate the supernatural aspect of it. Especially in a work (the Bible) that is loaded with supernatural aspects. The main character (Jesus) is a god, it doesn't get more supernatural than that.

Other secular historical claims of the ancient world are not treated any different when they make claims about gods or souls or ghosts or anything related to the supernatural. They are put under the same scrutiny and not considered plausible either. Can you list any other secular historical claim with a miraculous or supernatural event or report that IS considered plausible? I didn't think so.

Once more, a historically reasonable assessment of the Pauline letters mentioned needs to be more disciplined. Some of the questions asked are deplorable. For instance, the very existence of Peter and James are doubted. I leave alone the fact that James is mentioned by Josephus; let’s just use common sense:

"More disciplined" says the guy who thinks 500 unnamed people constitutes proof that a resurrection occurred. Fantastic...

Paul writes to the Corinthian church. His letter (as all letters back then) is read aloud to an audience. He mentions James. He mentions Peter. He says that he has heard from people associated with a person named Chloe that people in Corinth have aligned themselves with Peter. Now, which case is more plausible…?

Case 1: a) Paul has made up the name Peter and Chloe; b) he made up a situation in which certain Corinthians aligned themselves with this made up Peter; c) the Corinthians hear this letter, hear about some guy named Peter they’ve never heard before, as well as Chloe, and are accused of aligining themselves with this person (Peter) whom they have never heard of. And d) though a completely fabricated event goes to the Corinthian church, we have no letters asking about this made up Peter (who might as well be a unicorn), or Chloe. Paul, the worst liar in the world—and by worst, I don’t mean morally; I mean methodically. He was, as we say, “a bad liar�—and yet he goes unnoticed by history…

He goes unnoticed by history...you mean like the guy who could cure disease, and bring back sight, and bring the dead back to life, and feed multitudes with a few fish and a hunk of bread, and turn water into wine....that kind of unnoticed?

Or case 2: a) Peter had visited Corinth and people there created factions with some calling themselves “Peter’s�; b) that at least some Corinthians required information before abandoning their Graeco-Roman heritage (a separation which would’ve cost a good many social damages); they wished to know a little more about these so-called “eyewitnesses�. They would’ve asked numerous questions—no less than you or I?

They would want to know names and details.

IF there was a letter, and IF it was really read to the Corinthians, and IF people listened to it, how do you know anyone took it seriously? You can go to any major town in any country in the world and find people preaching on street corners. You think that's something that just started in your lifetime? You take those people seriously? Of course you don't...Paul's letters, by the way, were written to the church, not to the general population anyway.

The same can be done with James; it can be done with every element of 1 Cor. 15. The idea that the members of the Corinthian church would abandon their ancestral traditions for a new upstart Jewish movement (innovations back then were NOT impressive but were rather suspect) on nothing more than one guy’s insistence, without requiring names and testimonies, is ridiculous. If you can believe that, you can believe in the resurrection without evidence.

There's no evidence that the Corinthians changed their beliefs on just one guys letter, especially a letter than wasn't even written for the general population...

History is not just documents. It involves exercising what historians call “the historical imagination� which is not very different from the scientific method: 1) a hypothesis, “if a happened, we should expect b,� 2) the experiment (or here the analysis of documents) “but we don’t find b�. The conclusion, “it is unlikely that “a� happened.

Right. Things like independent sources and archaeological evidence and so forth. For which you have none, and this has been pointed to you by people better than me on this website for the last couple of months.

Now I know that a good many still can’t do history; and so will say “What is more likely, that a dead guy came back to life and floated off into the sky?� I confess exasperation: I have done all I can to show that my OP’s and posts are far more sophisticated than such responses. I really don’t know what to do other than ignore these kinds of naive and impulsive reactions.

I suppose you ignore them just like you ignore the supernatural component in a document that exists specifically for supernatural claims. At least, that has been your history so far on this website...