skepticdude

Acts 15 records a dispute between the apostles and Judaizers over what exactly Gentiles need to do to get saved. Why didn't they quote Jesus, who would be the final authority on how anybody gets saved?

Apostle Paul spends much time in Galatians trying to refute the Judaizers by quoting the Old Testament. Why didn't he just quote Jesus to prove them wrong?

The Book of Hebrews says much about how the death of Jesus caused a change in covenant, and quotes the Old Testament numerous times to support this, but never quotes Jesus! Wouldn't Jesus be a higher authority on the significance of his death, than Psalm 40, or some other OT text?

If the gospel sayings of Jesus were circulating in Paul's day, and if Paul's gospel is perfectly harmonious with Jesus's gospel, how could Paul have possibly thought it "better" to resolve theological disputes about the gospel by restricting himself to quotations of the old testament...which he himself said was a ministry of death that was passing away and being replaced by Christ's new covenant?


Doesn't this silence scream out, strongly implying that the sayings of Jesus we now have in the gospels, either didn't exist at the time, or were largedly regarded unimportant by those critically important earliest Christians?

mountainman

Dear skepticdude,

This is an excellent observation. At a stretch we might entertain the notion that the apostles and Pauls, etc, thought that the sayings of Jesus had such undisputed authority in antiquity that they did not need to belabor the point. Either that, or perhaps the authority of the sayings of Jesus was already a political reality when the books of the apostles were finally edited in their earliest publication.

Where does this silence leave us? What's next?

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

I think that Doherty has made that point. Of course, his conclusion is that there were no sayings because there was no historical Jesus.

Is there another option? Could Jesus have been a deaf mute who never said anything? Or could he have spoken and avoided saying anything about commandments, salvation, prayer, how his disciples should live. How would this person build a following, at a time when oratory was the key to organization?

Elijah

I think it would depend on when you think a sayings text was first put together and distributed for them to have that ability to quote him. They could of said, “let me paraphrase what I remember Jesus saying” or “as he is remembered preaching” but it wouldn’t matter to the audience they are trying to convince because it would be just another man’s opinion, not any authority. The scripture is what is considered the authority.

There also may not have been anything terribly original about anything that Jesus was saying. He may not have been considered then, the quote machine he was made out to be later.

ercatli

According to historians, there were orally compiled sayings of Jesus around at that time. However probably few or none had been written down and certainly none had yet become authoritative so they couldn't be quoted with authority.

They were dealing with Jews so quoted what they recognised as authoritative. See also above.

He didn't, just on some occasions. He refers to or quotes Jesus' teachings in 1 Corinthians 7, 9 & 11, Romans 8 & Galatians 4, and quotes early creeds about Jesus life in several other places. The gospel sayings were probably only in limited circulation, different ones in different places.

Only to someone who wants to find that conclusion. No-one would draw such a shaky conclusion based on silence and ignorance of the original situation about any other historical matter.

The strongest conclusion anyone could draw is that the matter is curious and perhaps difficult to understand. Why does Paul refer so much to Jesus' death and resurrection, and so much less to the rest of his life? That would be an interesting matter to discuss, but there would be little point in discussing it with someone who wasn't prepared to consider the historical evidence in a fair and factual manner. (Not saying that's you, but unfortunately you have given that impression.)

So now I have a question or two. Why do disbelievers, who claim to base their beliefs on evidence, so often ignore what the mainstream expert historians say when trying to prove the impossible, that Jesus didn't exist? (Again, not saying that's you, just asking a question.) And why do some people think that such speculation as you have offered changes anything the historians tell us?

Best wishes.

Toto

I've read those historians, and they are unimpressive.

You must be new here. Check out the Jesus Project.

rlogan

Another data point. All of them, really - explained positively by no historical Jesus.

You can hit every data point on the head with the "no historical Jesus".

"Curious" say the adherents. That all the data works that way.



You have Christ cults first. Possibly as early as late 1st century IMHO. Later you have gospels developing. Through the 2nd century.

Eusebius and the state authorities in the 300's CE made it difficult to ascertain the exact chain of events. But it was Christ before Jesus.

But it seems to me Josephus knew of no Christ cults nor a Jesus of any notable relation to the gospels. No guy getting crucified for being a preacher gathering any kind of notable following.

Sheesh. Yes, yes - the whole point of Jesus is how thousands followed him, superman on earth, biggest son of God ever to hit Galilee - and oh yes, yes Jesus was just a completely insignificant person nobody noticed.

ercatli

Not exactly a refutation, is it? Which historians have you read?

Actually no, I joined more than 2 years ago, but have almost never posted. I looked at the link but it didn't prove a lot to me. There are, I have read, about 10,000 scholars who can be accepted as competent in this area, so anyone, believer or sceptic, can always find someone to support their view. The fair thing to do is to quote the consensus of experts.

They could all be explained by postulating that you are just a brain in a vat, or that God is having a big joke on us, or that Jesus was shy, or just about any crazy hypothesis we could think of. But if we care about evidence like we all say we do, we'll conform our hypotheses to the best available historical facts. Do that, and your ideas just don't fly. But I wouldn't want to get in the way of a good story, would I? : )

gurugeorge

Indeed; please let us know when you have some historical facts about Jesus.

ercatli

Here are a few. I have more if you need them.

Prof M Borg, Oregon State University: "some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated." and "We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world."

Prof J Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary and Dead Sea Scrolls expert: "Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E."

Jeffery Jay Lowder, possibly known to some of you here: "I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed."

Prof E P Sanders, Duke University: "Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died." and "the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism."

Michael Grant, author of more than 50 books on the Roman Empire: "the picture they [the gospels] present is largely authentic .... information about Jesus can be derived from the gospels."

Prof G Stanton, Cambridge University: "Few doubt that Jesus possessed unusual gifts as a healer, though of course varied explanations are offered."; E P Sanders: "I think we can be fairly certain that initially Jesus' fame came as a result of healing, especially exorcism."

M Grant: "Jesus introduced a very singular innovation. For he also claimed that he himself could forgive sins.". "Jesus lived his last days, and died, in the belief that his death was destined to save the human race." Please note that Michael Grant was not a believer.

C Tucket, Oxford University: "The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers .... seems part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-christian evidence [Tacitus, etc] can provide us with certainty on that score."

With the exception of J J Lowder, these are not fringe scholars pushing some way-out ideas, but are among the most respected names in the business.