Adam

Rethinking, I need to pass for now on defining whether Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. While it is true that my Gospel According to the Atheists is not just free of supernaturalism, but also apocalypticism (after deleting the Q2 sections), there is a lot of apocalyptic discourse in Luke that parallels Mark. This is called Triple Tradition. By normal standards that leaves Q1 and L and the Johannine Passion Narrative as almost free of apocalypticism. However, by my own analysis the Triple Tradition really contains Q passages that originated in Q, but thereby seems not to have come from Q even though it did. Therefore my own definition of Proto-Luke would be much larger than the usual boundaries, and the extended boundaries include apocalypticism. Even so extended, careful exegesis of gLuke can separate out what pertains to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD as against a yet-future end of the world. The latter is not stated as immediately forthcoming (just in Matthew).

So I won't be untrue to myself by making the case that there is no apocalypticism in the Historical Jesus. Such a case can be made by referring only to Q1, L, and gJohn or to the Gospel According to the Atheists as I have ordinarily defined it (in which I sometimes list the Johannine Discourses and sometimes don't).

The irony is that my acknowledgment here improves the case for HJ by recognizing apocalypticism as not just a later accrual stimulated by the Caligula Crisis in 38 CE. Add the Triple Tradition as historical. The problem is that adding all this apocalypticism also adds lots of supernaturalism, mostly validating the gospels as we have them. As I see it, you can take your pick between HJ and the Biblical Jesus, but MJ is untenable.

EDITED TO ADD:
Above I correctly (in my view) attributed much of the Triple Tradition to the Q Document, but inferred that was Q1 material. Given that it is rife with apocalypticism and supernaturalism, its nature seems more Q2. This preserves my Gospel According to the Atheists giving us an HJ largely free of supernaturalism and apocalypticism. This is an argument based on ideology, something I try to avoid. My conflict is that my argument for Q (Q1) being written by the Apostle Matthew includes accepting this Twelve-Source portion of the Triple Tradition as starting with the call of Levi (Matthew, in Mark 2:14). Ultimately it comes down to sorting out the Triple Tradition between what originated in Mark as against what came from Q1 and what came from Q2. Differentiating between Q1 and Q2 in Mark is very difficult, as ideology is the main criteria and varies from one person to another.

Adam

Commenting on my own work again, here I said how difficult it is to separate Q1 in gMark from Q2. Yes, but I have already done it. (I've been ill the last two days, still thinking acutely in my ENTP nature, but not so specialized in memory.) I presented my results here

Post #230 in Gospel Eyewitnesses

So yes, I am saying again that the earliest written eyewitness accounts about Jesus omitted apocalypticism. It never came into gJohn, and in the Synoptics Q1, L, and the Passion Narrative don't have it. Then after the Caligula Crisis in 38 CE the subsequent layers from Mark, Q2, and M retroject extreme apocalypticism back onto Jesus who may have outlined milder warnings to only his immediate disciples (The "Little Apocalypse" of Mark 13).
In listing above no apocalypticism is in the Q1 labelled "Twelve-Source from Levi." I can't add it to my "Gospel According to the Atheists", however, because it contains lots of miracles.

Grog

you are lost in the depths of the J2CH paradigm. Let's throw you a life line. Indeed, IF we assume that, instead of a Jesus of Nazareth crucified by Pilate, that Paul has in mind a Jesus crucified since time began, a heavenly intercessor revealed only in visions and esoteric readings of scripture, then there is plenty of evidence from Paul himself that this movement WAS persecuted. We even have Paul's first hand account (apologies aa, but I did say IF) that he himself engaged in just that sort of persecution. So your expectation that such a belief would be met with derision is met amply.

Let me ask you: IF you assume, when reading Paul, that he has in mind the actual historic event of Jesus suffering and crucifixion at the hands of Rome, how do you explain Romans 13:1-7? I have seen theological explanations that have merit, but nothing very convincing. Notice how easily this passage flows even fits in Paul IF we assume that Paul sees the elemental powers of Rom 8:38 and 1 Cor 2:8 as separate from the earthly civil authorities, then the tension is resolved. (you have to understand that "rulers of this age" is a term that Paul uses, in this case, th refer to evil demonic powers (see Lee 1970 for a good discussion of Paul's use of these terms).

I'm typing with my thumbs on an ipad, so please excuse typos....at least you are spared an even wordier response.

TedM

Thank you Grog. I've got to stop with the threads. Not sure about 13:1-7 unless Paul saw Jesus' crucifixion as necessary, so the rulers did what they did out of ignorance (as said in 1 Cor). Interesting that the prior verses caution against taking revenge against evil though.. I know 1 Cor 1-2 well, and think it is clear Paul is talking about men crucifying Jesus for a number of reasons, but I won't get into that again now. I don't recall Paul saying why he was persecuted, but Acts says why--has to do with not following Jewish law, and Paul does write about Jews who strongly opposed his message of salvation through faith, not law. So I suspect his persecution was due to that, and not a HJ vs non-HJ.

I may not respond anymore. I just can't allow any more time. Thanks.

Grog

I Cor 2:8 refers to 'rulers of this age" which is what I told you to read up on if you didn't want to take my word for it. Here:

"...both Jewish apocalyptic and Gnostic astrological
conceptions of the cosmic powers can be considered together in
I Cor. ii 8: "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if
they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"." Lee (1970)

It is true that most scholars read into this passage "Romans as proxies," but that is only because you MUST read into something that is not there if you imagine that Paul knows Jesus was crucified by Pilate. If Paul does not know that 'fact,' then we can read this plainly (as I believe you say we ought to, IIANM).

If we accept (or at least entertain the possibility) that Paul knows nothing about Jesus crucified by Pilate and, instead, that he believes what he says, that Jesus was crucified by elemental cosmic powers, then we can make sense of Rom 13:1-7, in fact there is no conflict in Romans 13.

As far as your contention that Paul mentions Jesus crucified by men in 1 Cor 1-2, please cite the passage.

Your argument that Paul saw the crucifixion as necessary is a standard apologetic. Paul does indeed see the crucifixion as necessary, but that does not explain Romans 13, because surely, even as necessity, Paul wouldn't argue that it was "good" or that Jesus "did evil." Surely a human crucifixion is terrifying.

TedM

The entire context of the first 2 chapters is about the wisdom of men vs the wisdom of God. It boggles me that people seem to overlook that when examining 2:8

I agree. Can't say I have a good answer, though I mentioned the verses just prior as a possible link to the idea that the govt authorities had done something that could have inspired the desire for revenge.

Can't continue with this. Thanks for your input.

aa5874

You are getting yourself all tangled up with your cosmic crucifixion. Please, it does NOT make sense. You are going to have to re-write the whole Canon and come up with all kinds of convolutions.

Please follow the written statements of ANTIQUITY and forget about FLAWED opinion.

It is the written statements of ANTIQUITY that counts.

The Pauline story in the Canon is EXTREMELY EASY to understand.

It does NOT require a PHd. After all even the illiterate should be able to understand once it is heard.

Jesus the Son of God was crucified, died for our sins, was buried, resurrected on the Third day and visited over 500 people including the disciples and Paul.

The Pauline writer is Merely claiming to be a supposed Witness of the Resurrected Jesus and the Apostles, especially Peter, James, and John.

The Pauline writer claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a human being and did NOT get his gospel from a man and that Jesus was God's Son in Galatians.

There is NO need to go Sub-lunar just use the written statements of the Pauline writers.

Galatians 4:29 KJV The Pauline Jesus was born as a Spirit.

Sheshbazzar

....because his father was an invisable spook. (he inherited his daddy's looks.)

andrewcriddle

Hi Rick

If this means that no source should be regarded as historically based unless there is no other realistic option, then this seems methodologically very odd. Am I misunderstanding you ?


Andrew Criddle

gurugeorge

Yes, the plain reading that "brother of the Lord" is a religious honorific term.