Paul and the Resurrection: Testing the Apostolic Testimony

By Joshua A. Pagán

For the contemporary believer, Paul's role in the historical setting of the Resurrection is far more than a matter of theological curiosity. The Christian justification for rational belief in the Resurrection is in large part anchored in Paul's justification for rational belief in the authenticity of his own experience. In Paul we find the earliest and best attested documentary evidence for a historical investigation of the miraculous event. Moreover, his epistles are an indispensable source of independent corroboration of the gospel narratives.

Opponents of Christianity have formulated a variety of hypotheses to account for Paul's experience on the Damascus Road. Some propose that Paul was deceptive; others argue that he was deluded; and still others contend he came to believe a legendary development. Yet according to the Christian hypothesis, Paul's claim to have encountered the risen Jesus is dependable, and his testimony can be shown to withstand the scrutiny of critics. In this innovative, interdisciplinary study, PagÁn combines the analytic tools of history and philosophy to explore and evaluate competing explanations of Paul's belief in the Resurrection of Jesus.

• Language: English
• Publisher: 1517 Publishing
• Release date: Mar 10, 2020
• ISBN: 9781945978975

Book preview

Paul and the Resurrection: Testing the Apostolic Testimony

© 2020 New Reformation Publications

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher at the address below.

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (NASB) are from the New American Standard Bible® (NASB), Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. www.Lockman.org.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The NIV and New International Version are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

Published by:

1517 Publishing

PO Box 54032

Irvine, CA 92619-4032

Publisher’s Cataloging-In-Publication Data

(Prepared by The Donohue Group, Inc.)

Names: Pagán, Joshua A. (Joshua Aaron), author.

Title: Paul and the Resurrection : testing the Apostolic testimony / by Joshua Pagán.

Description: Irvine, CA : 1517 Publishing, [2020] | Includes bibliographical references.

Identifiers: ISBN 9781945978951 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781945978968 (paperback) | ISBN 9781945978975 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Epistles of Paul—Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Jesus Christ—Resurrection.

Classification: LCC BS2650.53 .P34 2020 (print) | LCC BS2650.53 (ebook) | DDC 227.07—dc23

Cover art by Brenton Clarke Little

For my wife, Lori.

"An excellent wife, who can find?

For her worth is far above jewels."

—Prov. 31:10

Contents

Introduction

Why Paul?

Was Paul Deceptive, Deluded, Developed, or Dependable?

Part One: Selection of Historical Data

The Criteria of Authenticity

The Fact to Be Explained

Part Two: Presuppositions of Method

The Question of Interpretive Framework

Miracle and Historical Skepticism

Hume and Humean Skepticism in the Contemporary Scene

Troeltsch

The Theist’s Response

Historical Method

Part Three: Comparative Evaluation of Hypotheses

Hypothesis I: Deception

Evaluation

Hypothesis II: Delusion

Evaluation

Hypothesis III: Development

Evaluation

Hypothesis IV: Dependability

Meeting Objections

Responding to Defeaters with Cumulative Evidence

Summary

Works Cited

Introduction

Why Paul?

With the exception of only Jesus, no biblical personality has inspired a greater volume and diversity of research than Paul of Tarsus. The apostle’s life and works have been explored under almost every conceivable category of analysis. As Stephen Westerholm rightly observes,

Within the academy, anthropological readings of the apostle are heaped upon feminist, which are heaped upon historical, which are heaped upon liberationist or Marxist, which are heaped upon psychological, which are heaped upon rhetorical, which are heaped upon sociological, which are heaped upon theological.¹

What motivates this cumulative heap of readings? Some would propose that Paul continues to earn scholarly interest because of the fierce controversies that have always surrounded him. Indeed, Paul’s ability to provoke contention—be it in his day or our own—can hardly be denied. His own writings would certainly indicate as much:²

From the Jews five times I received forty stripes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods; once I was stoned; three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeys often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils of my own countrymen, in perils of the Gentiles, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren. (2 Cor. 11:24–27)

When Paul was not in conflict with the non-Christian world, he was often found embroiled in matters of ecclesial discord:

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, or I am of Apollos, or I am of Cephas, or I am of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. (1 Cor. 1:10–17)

Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed. (Gal. 2:11)

The interreligious strife and theological disagreements that attended Paul during his lifetime did not cease with his martyrdom. It has been noted that Paul has found no congenial interpreter and probably never will. From Marcion to Karl Barth, from Augustine to Luther, Schweitzer or Bultmann, he has ever been misunderstood or partially understood, one aspect of his work being thrown into relief while others have been misunderstood and neglected.³ The terms Pauline Christianity, Paulism, and Paulanity have become associated with an ongoing debate that centers on Paul’s influence in the formation of the canon and formulation of doctrinal orthodoxy. Higher critical study of the Pauline corpus was foundational to the intellectual movement that brought about theological modernism,⁴ and his writings remain at the center of conversations between scholars of the liberal and conservative persuasions. Esteemed by Protestantism as the great champion of Reformation soteriology, he has been reinterpreted under the New Perspective on Paul as a critic of Covenantal Nomism.⁵ Extolled by some as a forerunner of modern social egalitarianism who declared, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:28), he has been reviled by others as a misogynistic anti-Semite whose intolerant attitudes are antithetical to the ethos of modern society.

Arguably the most derisive of Paul’s opponents have emerged apart from the broader Christian community and theological academy. Among the most well-noted of his detractors was Thomas Jefferson, who alleged that Paul was the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus.⁶ Friedrich Nietzsche offered a more severe critique in proposing that it is Paul, rather than Jesus, who should be regarded as the true inventor of Christianity:

The glad tidings [of Jesus] were followed closely by the absolutely worst tidings—those of St. Paul. Paul is the incarnation of a type which is the reverse of that of the Saviour; he is the genius in hatred, in the standpoint of hatred, and in the relentless logic of hatred. And alas what did the dysevangelist not sacrifice to his hatred. . . . He did more: he once more falsified the history of Israel, so as to make it appear as a prologue to his mission.⁷

Although Bertrand Russell did not accuse Paul of doctrinal corruption, he did lament his influence upon the regrettable Christian view of human sexuality:

The Christian view that all intercourse outside marriage is immoral was, as we see in the above passages from St. Paul, based upon the view that all sexual intercourse, even within marriage, is regrettable. A view of this sort, which goes against biological facts, can only be regarded by sane people as a morbid aberration. The fact that it is embedded in Christian ethics has made Christianity throughout its whole history a force tending towards mental disorders and unwholesome views of life.⁸

It cannot be denied that Paul was and remains a source of sharply divided opinion. Yet the intellectually honest academic must admit that his appeal as an object of study goes beyond a timeless capacity to provoke theological infighting or offend the religious and social sensibilities of his readers. Rather, it is simply the monumental outcome of Paul’s ministry and mission that continues to energize scholarly exposition and criticism.

Paul’s place in the founding of the church and propagation of its message can hardly be overestimated. Epistles attributed to his authorship comprise nearly half of the New Testament and are almost universally regarded as the earliest textual sources of the canon. His letter to the church