From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Revisionist History   [was: Re: Jesus is a Prophet, not Son of God
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:00:15 GMT

In article <Bxu7C2.MG6@acsu.buffalo.edu> bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <Bxs8r4.3LD@acsu.buffalo.edu> bobweiss@acsu.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss) writes:
>>>	There is a notable differance that Ivan is overlooking. Richard's 
>>>point was that the disciples gave their lives for the message of the 
>>>gospel; and that if the message was false, they would have known it.
>>>Richard's point is not simply that these men perished for what they
>>>believed. His point is that these men were in a position to know the
>>>veracity of what they said.
>
>>The problem is that Richard's chain of logic depends upon two
>>things which are highly tenuous.
>>1) The "fact" that the disciples gave their lives.
>>  In fact, we only really know well that Paul and Peter gave their
>>  lives, and Paul was not in a position to know that Jesus had
>>  not risen.
>	The historical evidence (from Josephus, Eusebius, Tacitus, etc.) 
>that has come down to us is that all of the apostles were martyred, with
>the exception of John.
I don't remember Josephus saying any such thing. Eusebius is a Church historian
writing somewhat later and probably from tradition. I don't know Tacitus
well. I trust that you will be posting excerpts from the texts to
show that in fact they say this is the case.

>>2) The proposition that the disciples gave their lives for the proposition
>>that Jesus died and was resurrected. Clearly Paul believed this,
>>but as I say, he was in no position to know. Whether or not Peter
>>was in fact teaching this is at best debatable. It is even more debatable
>>whether or not retracting that proposition would have saved his life.
>>I suspect not. I seriously doubt that those who were involved in
>>killing Peter were interested in such fine theological distinctions
>>as whether or not a Jewish magician and Messianic pretender had
>>been resurrected after being nailed to a tree.
>	To dismiss the fact that Peter was traveling and preaching
>the gospel, Eric would have to provide a reason (other than
>ecclesiastical) for Peter to be in Rome; a reason for Peter's
>arrest during the Neronian pogroms; a reason for Peter's execution
>taking place with other Christians.
I'm not questioning the claim that Peter was preaching the Gospel, but
what precisely the Gospel consisted of is substantively open to question.
It is far from clear that it included--in this case--resurrection.
If it didn't, then I fail to see how Peter could have died for
such a proposition. Since you haven't established that Peter was
teaching any such thing, well....

In any case, as I said before, I strongly doubt that recanting
teaching the resurrection--assuming Peter was in fact teaching it--
would have saved him from death. When is it that you are contending
that he died again? Precise years, please.
-Ekr




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."