Vinnie

I have often asked for stratification of Achilles sources or such and this is what was meant for those not familiar with Crossan's work:

Numbers 6,7,8 and 9 are the most questionable IMO.

For the mythicists here, what other works would you put in the first stratum? What works might you remove?

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

I think that many people - not just mythicists - would dispute the postulation of hypothetical sources including a Q, a passion narrative, an apocalyptic 'scenario', and a miracles collection. Part of this dispute would concern whether the actual documents depended on each other; for example, if John knew Mark, it becomes more difficult to claim that John drew his passion and miracle materials from a source other than Mark.

The Gospel of Thomas is frequently given a date in the last third of the first century by people who think it is independent of the canonical four, such as Ron Cameron and Stephen Patterson (quoted on my web site). People who think that GTh depended on the NT would date it to the first half of the second century. Also, as with other sayings collections in antiquity, the issue of stratification of the units within the document is an important one. Bill Arnal has written on the probability of layers in Thomas.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is dated before the Jewish war by Doherty, Spong, and most conservatives. Among other considerations, the author of Hebrews speaks of the temple cult as if it is ongoing in his own day.

Some people date the Didache as early as the 50s or 60s.

Alvar Ellegard in his Jesus argues that 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas should be placed contemporary with Paul. Edmundson in The Church in Rome in the First Century appears to have argued so independently for 1 Clement. Like Hebrews, 1 Clement refers to the Temple in the present tense.

best.
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

PK, I wasn't really interested in a general overview of the various views of scholars but thanks for providing it. None of this is new news. I have to ask how many people "many people" is to you? The 2ST is the most prominent theory though there are notable dissenters (Goodcare, Sanders, etc.)

To give some more information on my purpose here I am an HJ proponent and I have been debating mythicists here and I want to know of the stratification of sources the various mythicists are claiming Jesus didn't exist under.

In order to state Jesus did not exist on the basis of the record I absolutely take it for granted that one must at least have a basic stratication of the texts. For instance, the mythicist claim is dependent upon early silence is it not? Unless the texts are date and stratified this claim is meaningless, correct?

Would anyone dispoute 1-5 and 10? I am willing to leave the rest as "unsettled" for present purposes. They will not be major factors in where I am taking this. I find Thomas to contain a very early layer of material (that which oiverlaps with Q and in numerous instances, seems to preserve the earlier reading)

I am looking for stratisfaction...woops...wrestling slip I mean stratification of Jesus sources. We might as well start with the fundamentals if we hope to resolve anything.


And if the mythicist claim is based upon the silence of early sources the mythicists here should be eager to define their first-stratum material.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

The number of critics of the Q hypothesis is not to be underestimated. Scholars who doubt Q include Basil Christopher Butler, Lamar Cope, David L. Dungan, John Drury, Morton Scott Enslin, William Reuben Farmer, A. M. Farrer, Eric Franklin, Mark Goodacre, Michael Goulder, H. B. Green, Edward C. Hobbs, Ronald V. Huggins, Jonathan Knight, Thomas R. W. Longstaff, Allan J. McNicol, David B. Peabody, Harold Riley, James Hardy Ropes, E. P. Sanders, Philip L. Shuler, and John Wenham. (I have not read all these authors; they are mentioned by Goodacre and Carlson on their web sites.)

Now, this is not to say that the Two Source Hypothesis is not the consensus theory, because it is. But it is a general comment that, where a document is hypothetical, there will be doubters. This applies not just to Q but also to the "Signs Gospel" (miracle catenae) and "Cross Gospel" (passion narrative). I would say that the burden of proof lies with the person who wishes to use a hypothetical document to draw further conclusions, at least if you are debating someone who doesn't believe in that hypothetical document. That burden of proof can be met for Q if Matthew and Luke are relatively independent, and there are some good arguments for that view. In the case of the passion narrative, a critical question would be whether John and Mark were relatively independent. If Crossan, Neirynck, and company are correct that John knew Mark, then a possible argument for a pre-Markan passion narrative is choked off. So the question of the interdependence of sources must be considered in your stratification.

I dispute 5. Even if Thomas is independent of the synoptics, it could still have been written in the late first century.

Would anyone dispute the letters of Paul to the Thessalonians, Romans, Galatians, and Corinthians? Doherty, Wells, Ellegard, and most mythologues do not dispute the authenticity of some Pauline letters and indeed build on the assumption that the proto-Paulines predate the four Gospels. I note that an early 1 Clement would secure the authenticity of some of Paul's letters, but of course that only means that a dissenter would have to date 1 Clement into the second century. There were some around 1900 that saw the Paulines as the work of the Marcionite school. In our day Hermann Detering, Robert Price, and Darrell Doughty have written on the issues of Pauline authenticity. If the Paulines were all forged, of course, then their use both by mythologues and historicists becomes problematic. In our own forum there is Yuri Kuchinsky, who thinks that the epistles of Paul may have been subject to extensive revision. I myself am willing to assume the substantial authenticity of the proto-Pauline corpus, while at the same time I would encourage investigation into the subject of Pauline authenticity.

If you are interested in a mythologue's viewpoint, take a look at Quentin's web site:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin...-Timeline.html

http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin...ity/Table.html

I also have a web site myself.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

And here is Crossan's stratification, for those who haven't seen it yet.

http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

Perhaps a safe route to take is to build on those documents where there is agreement between these three sources (Quentin, Peter, and Dom)?

Are there any mythicists who would like to voice their disagreement with some of the datings offered by these web sites?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

But there are variations in the Q critic camp. These names disgaree with one another as well. To put it quite simply from my perspective: Its either Q or Luke knew Matthew. I obviously favor the former.

And what do you make of the material that overlaps with Q?

And I cannot even find Q mentioned on either of those links to Iason's pages. Maybe he is a Q skeptic?

At any rate, my question is simply this:


First assume this stratification (limited):


First stratum 30-60

Thessalonians [I Thess].
Galatians [Gal].
Corinthians [1 Cor].
Romans [Rom].
Gospel of Thomas I [Gos. Thom. I].
Q1

Second Stratum 60-80

Mark
Gospel of Thomas 2

Third Stratum 80-120

Matthew
Luke
John

Under the assumption of this stratification, state whether you think there would be compelling evidence for the existence of Jesus or not. if you simply don't know then state so.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

How do you know that Matthew didn't use Luke? You seem to suggest that Matthew's use of Luke is ruled out of court in a way that Luke's use of Matthew isn't.

As to your stratification, here is how a mythologue might respond:

Thessalonians, Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans give evidence only for a heavenly Christ without making the connection that this Christ had lived recently and died at the hands of Pilate in Jerusalem. For the argument, see the "Sound of Silence" feature on the web and the first part of Doherty's book.

Q1 and GTh1 are the same thing. The sayings document at the earliest stage may have been an anonymous collection of wisdom, the likes of which are known from ancient times. The sayings community may have invented a founder so as to present an authority over those who were in conflict with the community, as expressed in the fuming apocalyptic of the later stage. For the argument, see the second part of Doherty's book (and not the web site).

The Gospel of Mark is a fictional story made up by someone who was part of the Kingdom of God preaching movement and wanted to give concrete expression to the cosmic Christ that is exhibited by the epistles. The exact purpose of Mark is one of the slipperiest parts of mythicist theory and will vary from person to person as well as on whatever that person has read most recently--as it also varies among HJ scholars. The biggest divide is between people who think that the Gospel of Mark was written with a pre-existing belief in an earthly Jesus (so Ellegard, Wells, and perhaps Doherty now) and people who think that the Gospel of Mark was written purely as an allegory and not to be taken as an expression of a belief in an earthly Jesus (so Freke, Gandy, and perhaps Doherty in the past). (I say "perhaps" because this is based on my memory of conversations with Doherty on Jesus Mysteries and in private correspondence.) Most agree that the Gospel of Mark fleshed out Old Testament motifs; some argue that Mark was based on Homer or on pagan parallels. There is also the plausibility that Mark incorporated oral lore about actual first century rabbis and healers.

Whatever the purpose of Mark, it was the fictional juggernaut that informed the later writing of Matthew, Luke, and John. (I wonder whether there are any mythologues who would postulate the priority of John.)

I don't express the above as fact but as my understanding of common mythicist ideas. I hope that an actual mythologue will intervene in this discussion.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Thanks for the response PK.

I want to ask another question of the mythicists (when they show up). Do you see Mark as dependent or independent of the pauline corpus? Or do you just "not have a solid opinion" either way?

Okay, PK, you might have guessed where this is going but at any rate I am interested in seeing a further response based upon the overlapping material of these documents.

I am going to modify Crossan's first stratum independently attested material to fit the stratification I layed out here. I do not claim to have perfectly correlated it but it should be close enough:

Now please look carefully all the overlapping material:

First a rundown:

All of this material occurs at least in one first-stratum source (Paul, Thomas or Q1):

The first set (multiple independent attestation) recieve very widespread attestation (at least 5 indpeendent references using Crossan's stratification)

I have also tried to remove (in a fast fashion) Crossan's appeals to Q 2:

Those were not all of the traditions either. For example, I don't remember Crossan mentioning "the twelve" in there and that occurs in the first stratum (Pauline coprus--Corinthians).

At any rate, from this we might want to ask several questions:

How many times does Pauline material overlap with other independent sources and with how many different ones?

How many times with other first straum material?

How many times does Q1 or T1 overlap with other independent sources? How many different sources? How many times with the Pauline corpus?

My argument is not that all of these references are accurate. Some may dispute Crossan's readings and even the inventory itself! My argument further is not that all these go back to the HJ. Those familiar with Crossan's inventory know what the "plus and minus" signs after each number mean.

The point is not to look at all the individual details but the big picture and all the overlaps.

With this stratification and inventory of Jesus traditions (and 16 first century datums pointing clearly to 30 ad as ground zero--see my article), what is the simplest solution? That there was a historical Jesus behind some of these or that this was all invented and adapted in such numerous and independently overlapping ways?

This, IMO, is the importance of stratification and inventory of attestation for discussing historicity.

To me, the simpler solution is historicity but I want your views not mine. I already know my own view

I see a historical Jesus as being them most plausible way to explain this.

After those questions are answered I'll ask this, does stratification and inventory of sources play a role in judgments of historicity? The attestation is merely a form of multiple attestation which was dismissed whole cloth before.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I am not aware of (or just don't remember) arguments for where Luke appears to be the middle term. Do you know of any?

Vinine

Vorkosigan

Vinnie, that post about with the detailed listing is really great! Very useful.

That there was a historical Jesus behind some of these or that this was all invented and adapted in such numerous and independently overlapping ways?

Vinnie, there's a strong possibility that there is some underlying historical figure who did quite a bit of this, perhaps similar to the Teacher of Righteousness. But the question here is really the slippage between that figure and the obvious fiction we're presented with in the 30+ gospels.

For example, I don't remember Crossan mentioning "the twelve" in there and that occurs in the first stratum (Pauline coprus--Corinthians).

Yes, in the probably interpolated passage in Corinthians.

Speaking of the Pauline letters, how did 1 and 2 Tim get on the list you presented? They are later forgeries.

Finally, I thought I'd check out a few of these, because I have found out over the years that when apologists lump passages together, they often have nothing to do with each other. So I randomly grabbed number 3 above and what do I see? What I expected, of course.

This is supposed to be the Bread and Fishes stuff. I reproduced it below:

3. Bread and Fish: (1?) 1 Cor 15:6; (2) John 6:1-15; (3a) Mark 6:33-44 =Matt 9:36; 14:13b-21 = Luke 9:11-17; (3b) Mark 8:1-10 = Matt 15:32-39; (4) Luke 24:13-33,35; (5) Luke 24:41-43; (6) John 21:9,12-13

(1?) 1 Cor 15:6;

• 1 Corinthians 15
  6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Not only is there no bread or fish here, but this is a post-resurrection appearance in an interpolated passage. And what do we see below? A Pre-resurrection appearance with bread and fish. Are these two passages related? Let's suspend judgment on that question for now.

(2) John 6:1-15;

• 1Some time after this, Jesus crossed to the far shore of the Sea of Galilee (that is, the Sea of Tiberias), 2and a great crowd of people followed him because they saw the miraculous signs he had performed on the sick. 3Then Jesus went up on a mountainside and sat down with his disciples. 4The Jewish Passover Feast was near. 5When Jesus looked up and saw a great crowd coming toward him, he said to Philip, "Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?" 6He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.
  7Philip answered him, "Eight months' wages[1] would not buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!" 8Another of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, spoke up, 9"Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?" 10Jesus said, "Have the people sit down." There was plenty of grass in that place, and the men sat down, about five thousand of them. 11Jesus then took the loaves, gave thanks, and distributed to those who were seated as much as they wanted. He did the same with the fish. 12When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, "Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted." 13So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten. 14After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world." 15Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

Moving on past that, we come to the same story in Luke and Matt.

(3a) Mark 6:33-44 =Matt 9:36; 14:13b-21 = Luke 9:11-17; (3b) Mark 8:1-10 = Matt 15:32-39;

And thence to the Post-resurrection appearance here:

(4)Luke 24:13-33
13Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[1] from Jerusalem. 14They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16but they were kept from recognizing him. 17He asked them, "What are you discussing together as you walk along?" 18They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, "Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?" 19"What things?" he asked. 20"About Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see." 25He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26Did not the Christ[2] have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
28As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus acted as if he were going farther. 29But they urged him strongly, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them. 30When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32They asked each other, "Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?"
33They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together[/list]
So now we have a post-resurrection appearance where we have bread. So I guess "multiple attestation" here means "mentions bread" But it gets worse, because the next passage says:

Luke 24:41-43

• 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

An anti-Docetic passage obviously not from some original stratum but part of a set of stories clearly invented for theopolitical purposes, and furthermore, happens to mention fish, though not in the context of a miracle Jesus has performed.

You can see, Vinnie, why skeptics get so frustrated. You get on our case for our "literal" application of multiple attestation (as you did when I used the Darkover trilogy as an example), but that's exactly what is being done here. None of these stories are related, and have only the common elements of bread and fish, but at least one, 1 Cor 15:6, mentions neither, while some only mention one or the other. So why on god's green earth are we counting 1 Cor 15:6 in this stew?

Finally, we have the tale from John so like Luke's above....

John 21:9-13

• 9When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread. 10Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught." 11Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." None of the disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord. 13Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish.

....because it is taken from the original ending of Mark, which both the writers of John and Luke apparently knew. To count this as "multiple attestation" is to bend the rules into cute little origami shapes.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Remember, it is only a quick modification of Crossan's Appendix.

I agree and that is why I usually accept only the broadest possible material in the synoptics and other texts which do overlap with 1st stratum material--> Jesus was seen as miracle worker--was crucified--baptized by JBap (probably not supported by first stratum material)--preached on the kingdom of God, etc.

This is Crossan's stratification and he doesn't see it as interpolated as best as I can tell so the lack of it is curious at any rate. But yes, further correlation would have to take out or remove what is seen as an interpolation for each individual person. I still don't know why people think that passage was interpolated? I found outo n the james/Gal one but I'll get back to that later. I just have to figure out which thread it was in

They weren't quoted as first stratum material. They were used as independent witnesses (e.g. like Mark or John were). Crossan does date them to about 120 ad. Of course, a text by 120 could have been influenced by that text. I think it depends on what texts are being used. I'd like to do my own inventory with a cut off of 100 ad. That would take a lot of time and I am not even convinced on whether or not some works are 1st stratum or not. Stratification has to come before inventory.


Have you read, or do you have access to Crossan's work, The Historical Jesus? On page 506 he lists all the pages where he discusses each complex. You chose number three and that is found on pp. 311, 320, 396-402, 405, 407. Check, especially the pages I have in bold type.

Further, I am not sure how Crossan turned into an "apologist" who is "lumping stuff together"?

I thought the same thing. I was like w.t.h. is this guy smoking? This has nothing to do with anything

This would take too long for me to try and summarizee the very complex treatment of this issue by Crossan on pp 396-402. I urge you to look at this discussion and decide for youself if it belongs in the list or not.

I can only ask you to read that section from Crossan. Further, notice above that I said some of this inventory itself probably could be disputed. My argument is not based upon all of it being accurate. But Crossan does produce the argumentation for his inventory even if you don't agree with it and Crossan can hardly be blamed for including a text you feel is interpolated when he doesn't think so.

I really got on your cases for a poor understanding of MA. Look at these complexes from Crossan:

Minus---- 2,11,12,13,14,16,25,28
Plus and Munis---3,6,7,17,26,30

That is just his first thirty and this is his description of what the Plus/Minus means:

MA when dealing with Jesus is not so simple and naive as "two people said so it must have occured". It is complex and scholars usually see multiple sources when we amatuers a lot of the times do not.

Of the first thirty, many of which receive VERY widespread independent attestation, Crossan rejects.

Vinnie