Regarding L.

The most recent exhaustive treatment of the L material is by Kim Paffenroth in his 1997, "The Story of Jesus according to L." It is available on Amazon.com but it is unbelievably expensive. Mr. Paffenroth analyzes the form and content of L and concludes that there is a coherent, unified source which was written by Jewish-Chiristians in Palestine sometime between 40-60 CE.

For a more affordable treatment I suggest Robert Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament. In his chapter on the gospel source material he spends some quality time with L.

There is a concise overview of the scholarship on L. Kevin Giles' "L" Tradition in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Joel B. Green is the editor.

There are several german scholars I could provide you with, but as far as I know their works have not been translated into English yet.

Not to put words in Layman's mouth, but my guess is that he is using the criterion of embarrassment here. It is generally accepted that if the gospel writers include elements which would be embarrassing to Jesus or the Christian community those elements are most likely true. It would be an embarrassment that Jesus own family didn't approve of his ministry and that he needed to be baptized by John the Baptizer. No good apologetic purpose (so the thinking goes) can be found for the invention of these humiliating elements, so they are probably not fabrications. Their inclusion would have probably tended to hurt the reputation of Christianity rather than help it, so if they are included, they probably are true.
We'll see if that was Layman's thinking or not.

[This message has been edited by not a theist (edited April 27, 2001).]

Bede, It's interesting that you would say Jesus' followers thought he was still with them "in some sense." There's a more recent example of this. In the early 1800's the Rebbe of the Breslover Hasidim, Rabbi Nachman, died. They didn't allow a successor as they had a strong feeling that R. Nachman was still with them, guiding them and interceding for them. To this day many Breslovers claim that R. Nachman comes to them in dreams. There have also been numerous wide-awake sightings of R. Nachman; especially in Breslover synagogues. R. Nachman's chair was brought over from Russia to Jerusalem and sits in the Breslover synagogue in Jerusalem. No one is supposed to sit in his chair. Many people have claimed to see him sitting in the chair over the years. Breslovers also often say that they feel R. Nachman's presence. All this phenomena began shortly after R. Nachman's death and continues to this day. Breslover hasidim believe that R. Nachman was the incarnation of the messiah for his generation. I don't know if this means that they believe that when the messiah comes he'll be R. Nachman. A good question to ask my Breslover friends the next time I'm in N.Y.C.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bookman: Polycarp, Layman, I know you don't have much time right now, but if either of you could spare a quick post in reply to Bede indicating if you are in general agreement with his list of items, or if there appear to be any glaring omissions.

I would agree with Bede’s list:

He was baptised by John the Baptist;
He had disciples;
He was a teacher who used parables;
He was believed to be a miracle worker;
He challenged the priestly establishment at the Temple;
He was crucifed under Pontius Pilate outside Jerusalem at Passover in 30AD/33AD;
After his death, his disciples believed he was, in some sense, still with them


and I would add a few more of my own:

A major portion of his teaching focused on the “kingdom of god/heaven.”
He associated with people considered to be on the fringe of Jewish society: “sinners”, tax collectors, prostitutes, and others who were ritually unclean (lepers, etc.).
He made claims about himself which were considered blasphemous by many religious leaders.
He was betrayed by one of his disciples in some way that contributed to his death.

Peace,

Polycarp

Thanks, Poly. That's a good list. I'll reply as best I can.

A major portion of his teaching focused on the “kingdom of god/heaven.”
I'm still working through Layman's list of scriptural references.
Is this unusual behaviour on his part? You and Layman both thought it important enough to mention, but the significance is lost on me. Does it appear to you that he is creating new theology or just emhasizing this facet of it?

He associated with people considered to be on the fringe of Jewish society: “sinners”, tax collectors, prostitutes, and others who were ritually unclean (lepers, etc.).
I'll buy that; it seems in keeping with what's been written about him.

He made claims about himself which were considered blasphemous by many religious leaders.
You've lost me here. Claims about himself? I know he is portrayed as being somewhat liberal with respect to the Jewish law; can you be more specific here. Why do you consider this an historic fact?

He was betrayed by one of his disciples in some way that contributed to his death.
Same question here: What are the sources other than the bible?

Thanks!
Bookman

Originally posted by Bookman:

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Polycarp said: A major portion of his teaching focused on the “kingdom of god/heaven.” Bookman replied: I'm still working through Layman's list of scriptural references. Is this unusual behaviour on his part? You and Layman both thought it important enough to mention, but the significance is lost on me. Does it appear to you that he is creating new theology or just emhasizing this facet of it? Polycarp said: He made claims about himself which were considered blasphemous by many religious leaders. Bookman replied: You've lost me here. Claims about himself? I know he is portrayed as being somewhat liberal with respect to the Jewish law; can you be more specific here. Why do you consider this an historic fact?

These two points are closely related, so I’ll briefly address them together. In itself, there’s nothing extraordinary about a first century Jew discussing the kingdom of god. However, if the person began claiming that they were intimately related to god’s kingdom in a unique way that was different than even the temple priests’ relationship to god, then I would say Jesus was “creating a new theology”.

We also have a similar situation in the way Jesus treats the Law. For example, the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is considered by even many very liberal scholars as containing a lot of authentic words of Jesus. But if you look at passages like Matt 5:21-48 you’ll find that Jesus places himself ABOVE the Mosaic law, or at least as an authority on it. He’s saying, “The Law says this, but I say that…” He does this numerous times on several issues. Its easy to dismiss this as a fiction created by Matthew, BUT we have to keep in mind that Jesus is remembered by non-Christian Jews as being a false prophet. The Talmud says Jesus was killed for being a false prophet who deceived the people. The same type of thing is found in Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho” which was his debate with a 2nd century Jew.

It is clear from all of the evidence that Jesus faced opposition from the religious authorities. Why is this? It seems to me as though he was somehow tying god’s activity (kingdom) to his own words and actions. This is what angered the religious leaders and later led to the belief among Jews that Jesus was a false prophet worthy of death. In the first century it would certainly have been considered blasphemous for a carpenter from some hick town in Galilee to be telling the religious authorities that they were wrong in their interpretation of the law. There are numerous contributing factors for why the authorities were angered by Jesus but these are a few of them.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Polycarp said: He associated with people considered to be on the fringe of Jewish society: “sinners”, tax collectors, prostitutes, and others who were ritually unclean (lepers, etc.). Bookman replied: I'll buy that; it seems in keeping with what's been written about him.

Cool. I’m glad we can find common ground. However, I’m intrigued that you would accept this fact about Jesus while denying the next one. I’ll explain below…

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Polycarp said: He was betrayed by one of his disciples in some way that contributed to his death. Bookmand replied: Same question here: What are the sources other than the bible?

There are no non-biblical sources on this other than the writings of early Church fathers, but neither were there any for the previous issue which you accepted.

There are a few reasons I believe this to be very probable. First, it seems highly unlikely that the early Christians would fabricate this. There is no motivation for them to manufacture the idea that one of Jesus’ disciples helped bring about Jesus’ death. The disciples were admired by the early Christians and the fact that one of them betrayed Jesus proved to be very embarrassing to them. This is why we have some of the later gospel writers trying to soften the blow by claiming that Judas was possessed by Satan, etc. In addition we have very early testimony from Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23 that refers to Jesus being betrayed. He doesn’t name a specific person, but it seems clear that it was someone close to Jesus. By definition, a person who “betrays” someone must have been an ally of the “betrayee” prior to the betrayal.

Peace,

Polycarp

Poly, thanks for your reply.

These two points are closely related, so I’ll briefly address them together. In itself, there’s nothing extraordinary about a first century Jew discussing the kingdom of god. However, if the person began claiming that they were intimately related to god’s kingdom in a unique way that was different than even the temple priests’ relationship to god, then I would say Jesus was “creating a new theology”.

We also have a similar situation in the way Jesus treats the Law. For example, the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) is considered by even many very liberal scholars as containing a lot of authentic words of Jesus. But if you look at passages like Matt 5:21-48 you’ll find that Jesus places himself ABOVE the Mosaic law, or at least as an authority on it. He’s saying, “The Law says this, but I say that…” He does this numerous times on several issues. Its easy to dismiss this as a fiction created by Matthew, BUT we have to keep in mind that Jesus is remembered by non-Christian Jews as being a false prophet. The Talmud says Jesus was killed for being a false prophet who deceived the people. The same type of thing is found in Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho” which was his debate with a 2nd century Jew.

It is clear from all of the evidence that Jesus faced opposition from the religious authorities. Why is this? It seems to me as though he was somehow tying god’s activity (kingdom) to his own words and actions. This is what angered the religious leaders and later led to the belief among Jews that Jesus was a false prophet worthy of death. In the first century it would certainly have been considered blasphemous for a carpenter from some hick town in Galilee to be telling the religious authorities that they were wrong in their interpretation of the law. There are numerous contributing factors for why the authorities were angered by Jesus but these are a few of them.

We agree on more of this than you apparently think. I can easily accept that a radical Jew would say “The Law says this, but I say that…”; however it seems a long leap to me to go from there to "He made claims about himself which were considered blasphemous by many religious leaders. The simple act of railing against an archaic system of laws and a corrupt preisthood would have been enough to create animosity (and even perhaps, charges of blasphemy now that I think about it).

It doesn't seem to me, intuitively, that he was necessarily making claims about himself. I'm not prepared to add this to our list of "historic facts".

There are a few reasons I believe this to be very probable. First, it seems highly unlikely that the early Christians would fabricate this. There is no motivation for them to manufacture the idea that one of Jesus’ disciples helped bring about Jesus’ death. The disciples were admired by the early Christians and the fact that one of them betrayed Jesus proved to be very embarrassing to them. This is why we have some of the later gospel writers trying to soften the blow by claiming that Judas was possessed by Satan, etc. In addition we have very early testimony from Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23 that refers to Jesus being betrayed. He doesn’t name a specific person, but it seems clear that it was someone close to Jesus. By definition, a person who “betrays” someone must have been an ally of the “betrayee” prior to the betrayal.
Something doesn't seem right here to me. Let me think on it some more and get back to you.

Bookman

One quick question that will help me a bit with the previous post:

We have described the historical Jesus as "a teacher". Is saying that he had disciples redundant with that? Is disciples just another word for students in this context?

I seem to recall that latin discipulus (and I may have butchered the spelling) simply means student.

Thanks!
Bookman

Toto

But there is a clear motivation. The gentiles who became early Christians were in a power struggle with early Jewish Christians. They invented the betrayal by Judas (Judas = Jew) and the role the Sanhedrin, in order to blacken the name of the Jews.

Rather than being embarassing, it was quite convenient.

Toto, only one gospel was written by a Gentile, Luke's.

Matthew, Mark, and John were written by Jews.