Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mangoe@tove.cs.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Attempts to Prove the Resurrection Message-ID: Date: 11 Jun 91 03:39:40 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 36 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Jeff Lindborg writes: >Many historians, and myself, contend that Paul was largely responsible for >the foundation of the Christian religion. The death of Christ stirred >little... very little evidence of Jesus can be found outside of the Bible, >let alone accounts of his body disapearing. The foundation for "Paulianity" arguments, as I understand it, is the rather obvious discrepancy between christianity as Paul talks about it and what the gospels relate Jesus saying. The comments above are a little strange considering that there's no extra-scriptural evidence at ALL for Paul, as far as I know. I just don't find these "lack of evidence" arguments compelling, given that one would tend to expect little evidence. The gospels and the epistles pretty clearly divide up into several lines of transmission. The synoptics from one line, ending in Luke, who pretty clearly has some sort of Pauline connection. Paul's letters form another. The Gospel and epistles of John are a third, and tradition (and all indications) hold these to be separate from the synoptic/pauline line. The first letter of Peter seems to arise separately from all of these, and indeed, its style testifies to a very primitive model. If you put this all together, I think it shows pretty clearly that Paul is the inheritor of the apostolic tradition rather than the inventor. -- C. Wingate + "How blest are they who have not seen, + and yet whose faith has constant been, mangoe@cs.umd.edu + for they eternal life shall win. tove!mangoe + Alleluia!" [I should note that Paul's letters are earlier than the Gospels, and have a less complex literary history. Thus one could argue that where there are differences (and I think the differences are often exaggerated), Paul has at least as good a claim to credence. In fact I think you can find all the important parts of "Paulianity" in the other major traditions. --clh]