tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8826114290316924044..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Initial Thoughts On The Miller/Cavin Resurrection DebateRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47860780238858597652015-04-10T00:28:30.142-04:002015-04-10T00:28:30.142-04:00Thanks for all your work on this, Jason!Thanks for all your work on this, Jason!Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57573259559665138432015-04-09T20:43:37.780-04:002015-04-09T20:43:37.780-04:00I want to expand on the third-to-last section of m...I want to expand on the third-to-last section of my original post. I don't know just what Cavin thought he was proving with his argument that I address there. But I want to go along with his suggested scenario for the sake of argument.<br /><br />Let's grant that it's more likely that Irenaeus was wrong in attributing the fourth gospel to the apostle John than it is that a man would rise from the dead. But what if the numbers are 40% and 30%? There's a 40% chance that Irenaeus was wrong and a 30% chance that a man rose from the dead. It's still likely that Irenaeus was right rather than wrong. And the 30% number for a resurrection is just that: <i>a</i> resurrection. That's a prior probability number, and it's just one portion of the prior probability for Jesus' resurrection. A Christian could grant the 40% and 30% figures mentioned above, yet maintain both the traditional view that Irenaeus was right about Johannine authorship and the traditional belief that Jesus rose from the dead. The 30% figure is just a portion of a prior probability, so the overall probability of Jesus' resurrection can get to 50% or higher even if the 30% figure is granted. What is Cavin's argument supposed to prove, then?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84950381598705978432015-04-09T20:17:30.600-04:002015-04-09T20:17:30.600-04:00Cavin refers to how the resurrection appearance to...Cavin refers to how the resurrection appearance to Paul involved his seeing a "bright light" (1:30). He goes on to suggest that the other apostles had a similar experience. But the same Luke/Acts that mentions light also tells us that Jesus had a more ordinary body prior to his ascension, that the earlier resurrection witnesses did things like carrying on conversations with the resurrected Jesus and eating and drinking with him (Luke 24, Acts 1:2-9, 10:41), and that Paul saw Jesus himself (Acts 22:14), not just a light, and had a discussion with Jesus (9:4-6). The other people surrounding Paul experienced objective events associated with Paul's experience, so it wasn't something subjective and limited to Paul (9:7-18). Why does Cavin leave out those details? Similarly, Paul says in his letters that he saw Jesus himself (1 Corinthians 9:1), not just a light.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45341635444984839622015-04-09T20:04:00.263-04:002015-04-09T20:04:00.263-04:00Cavin claims that the appearance to more than five...Cavin claims that the appearance to more than five hundred (1 Corinthians 15:6) should have been mentioned in the gospels if it occurred. But the gospel of Mark is aware of resurrection appearances (16:7), yet narrates none of them. The appearance to James was well known (1 Corinthians 15:7; see, also, his status as an apostle, who had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus, in Acts and Galatians), yet none of the gospels mention that appearance to James. Paul knew of the appearance to more than five hundred, yet only mentions it once and less often than the appearance to him. Later sources who had 1 Corinthians and used it, even viewing it as scripture, say more about appearances to individuals and smaller groups than they say about the appearance to the more than five hundred (e.g., Ignatius). Even after 1 Corinthians was widely accepted as scripture, Christians tended to discuss the more than five hundred witnesses less often than they discussed individuals like Paul and Peter as resurrection witnesses. The same is true today. Christians sometimes bring up 1 Corinthians 15:6, but more often bring up individuals or smaller groups. When people are deciding what to include in a document like a gospel or a letter, they take a lot of factors into account other than the number of people involved (one individual in contrast to more than five hundred, for example). If Peter is a more prominent leader than any of the more than five hundred and his life interests people more than the lives of any of the more than five hundred, for example, people may ask about and discuss Peter more. <br /><br />Cavin should spend more time trying to explain what's reported in 1 Corinthians 15:6 and less time objecting that it isn't reported elsewhere. If Cavin wants us to believe that 1 Corinthians 15:6 was as widely accepted as Paul suggests, yet none of the gospel authors knew about it or none believed it, let's see Cavin present an argument to that effect.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30879578481203482922015-04-09T19:40:11.746-04:002015-04-09T19:40:11.746-04:00In the debate (1:27-30), Cavin makes much of the f...In the debate (1:27-30), Cavin makes much of the fact that we don't know where Paul got the information he discusses in the opening verses of 1 Corinthians 15. But, like so many of Cavin's other arguments, his evaluation of 1 Corinthians 15 is focused in the wrong place. The <i>origin</i> of Paul's information is less significant than his <i>maintaining</i> it. Cavin briefly refers to Galatians 1-2 and speculates that Paul might not have made much of an effort to look into the information he had on the resurrection, even though he met with individuals like Peter and James. But most of Cavin's attention is focused on the origins of Paul's material in 1 Corinthians. What about how that information was maintained after it originated? <br /><br />For roughly two decades leading up to the writing of 1 Corinthians, Paul believed what he outlines in the opening of 1 Corinthians 15. During that time, he repeatedly, and in a wide variety of circumstances, interacted with individuals like Peter and James and churches like those in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome. He kept up with developments enough to know that most of the more than five hundred resurrection witnesses were still alive, though some had died (15:6). He knew enough about the other apostles' backgrounds to contrast his history to theirs (15:9). He knew enough about the other apostles' labors to comment on how his efforts compared to theirs (15:10). He knew enough about the other apostles' teachings to affirm that all of them were in agreement about the gospel message Paul had just summarized (15:11). Not only were Paul and the other apostles maintaining the information described in 1 Corinthians 15, but so were Christian communities like the one Paul was writing to in Corinth. <br /><br />The idea that Paul and these other people would have gone through these experiences I've just described for so many years, but without any significant reason for believing that the information in 1 Corinthians 15 was true, doesn't make sense. You can't write a passage like 1 Corinthians 15 without having a lot of knowledge about a lot of highly significant evidential issues pertaining to the resurrection. To suggest that the appearance to more than five hundred was just a rumor Paul heard one time, that he'd never had any discussions with Peter about the resurrection, or that those discussions always just happened to avoid all significant evidential issues, for example, is implausible. Why would Paul follow the lives of the more than five hundred resurrection witnesses enough to know approximately how many were still alive, at a particular point in time about twenty years after Paul's conversion, if he was unconcerned about the details or hadn't looked into these matters in a long time, for example? Or how would Paul have known that the other apostles were teaching the same message he was if he'd never heard from them about these subjects? These are the kinds of issues critics like Cavin ought to be addressing. To focus, instead, on issues like where the information in 1 Corinthians 15 originated, while ignoring matters like the ones mentioned above, is an exercise in misdirection.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86278194052341324472015-04-09T19:37:43.015-04:002015-04-09T19:37:43.015-04:00Steve Hays has written responses to some of Cavin&...Steve Hays has written responses to some of Cavin's material on the resurrection in the past. See, for example, Steve's e-book, <a href="http://calvindude.org/ebooks/stevehays/This-Joyful-Eastertide.pdf" rel="nofollow">This Joyful Eastertide</a>. And <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/02/immortal-or-indestructible.html" rel="nofollow">here's</a> one of his posts responding to Cavin.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.com