Rick Sumner

I'm arguing from the silence of documents we do have. You're arguing from documents we don't have, and presenting no argument in favour of their very existence.

The distinct possibility that it's a distinct possibility doesn't hold up very well.

The risen Christ is the first fruits of the resurrection of the dead--it's an answer to the church at Corinth who did not think there was a resurrection of the dead--a problem dealt with at length by apologists for centuries after Paul as well.

Yet Paul never states that "Because Jesus rose, the end is near." Nor anything roughly analogous. It's far more that Jesus rose because the end is near than the converse.

Good deal.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Not to create yet another tangent in this thread but what have all those apologists concluded?

How could the believers in Corinth accept the resurrection of Christ but not the resurrection of the dead?

Rick Sumner

Many early Christians didn't even accept the resurrection of Christ--that's why the gospels are at such pains to show him eat, or to touch his side, and so on--to answer charges that he was a ghost. Apologists concluded that he wasn't.

Resurrection was a rather abhorrent concept in Roman antiquity.

See the first few chapters of G J Riley, _Resurrection Reconsidered_ for a better discussion of it than I'm likely to be able to present.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

What's wrong with this method? Other sources need to be read into the Dead Sea Scrolls to date many of the events in those too.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vinnie

The method is fine.

Actually, for Paul I think the pivotal point is his contemporary primary data on the existence of Peter. I think Peter, on the basis of a number of sources was clearly a "follower of the HJ". Thus I think Paul is entirely consistent and provides some contemporary primary data for the the time frame established much more explicitly by 2nd stratum sources.

To this I would also add Paul's CPD on James, the brother of Jesus. Also the mention of a few other figures.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

Vinnie,
Thanks for your very sensible answers. Very sensible.

You mentioned that extra-canonical attestation include GThomas and Q.

AFAIK, GThomas is a collection of 114 sayings without narratives (three Greek fragments and one Coptic manuscript). P. Oxy. 1 is dated (based on Paleography) post c.200 CE. The two Greek fragments are dated c.250CE and the Coptic fragment is dated pre 350 CE.

My point being, in the absence of narrative, its difficult to date its compilation.

How do you explain the absence of the narratives?

And isn't it probable that the "Jesus said" (like in Q) were added later - based on the dates above - since by then, a HJ had spread considerably?

Couldn't these sayings and teachings attributed to Jesus represent part of the initiatiation to the mysteries of the Greek mystery religions in the early part of the first century?

"Q" is mostly a collection of sayings and parables, with little narrative material. But even without examining Q, I notice that you fault Crossan for using nonexistent texts. Wouldn't it be hypocritical of you to use Q to argue MA?

In the absence of narrative material, isn't it plausible that Q is a collection of sayings that is a product of a Jewish (or Jewish imitating) sectarian movement located in Galilee which preached a coming Kingdom of God - similar to Shepherd of Hermas or Didache?

Especially given that Q predates Mark?

Isn't it probable that Q is essentially an instructional collection of the same genre as traditional "wisdom" books like Proverbs, though in this case with a radical, counterculture content?

John Kloppenborg (The Formation of Q), has stated that Q in its various stages underwent considerable redaction (editing, adding and rearranging material to create a unified whole with identifiable themes and theology) - how would you unflinchingly then choose to attribute these sayings to Jesus? Do you feel your case is secure with respect to Q?

In my perspective, what you have between 30-60 C.E. is 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and Romans talking about a christ without mentioning Joseph or Mary, or Jesus's trial before Pilate. These dont even mention Jesus' expeling the money-changers from the temple - an act which allegedly cost him his life.

Then GMark - written 40 or so years after Jesus' death, telling us about a virgin birth of a man whose childhood is inexistent, a man who tells people to love each other, heals the sick and keeps away from Gentiles. This man, according to the Gospels, has 12 followers and he gets betrayed and gets crucified without any clear reason by Pontius Pilate. The existence of these 12 is rejected by some like Crossan.

The characterization of Pilate by Philo and Josephus is inconsistent with the Pilate in the Gospels. The manner of crucifixion and the putative reason is questionable and inconsistent with the practice at the time. And whereas Josephus talks of over 19 Jesuses, among whom were contemporaries of Jesus, he doesn't mention a Jesus of Nazareth.

You claim that two collections of sayings without narratives, one that is dated very late and one heavily redacted and whose existence is still disputed by scholars of good standing, are your extra-canonical sources that Multiply Attest Jesus' sayings.

Now, realize that reasons you have provided for Jesus' cricifixion are not based on what in the canonical gospels. In that sense, you are being apologetic and manufacturing 'reasons' on behalf of the gospels where their 'evidence' is clearly or probably false.
Don't you find this approach apologetic? What commitments do you have for creating an apology? - I know Fredricksen is comitted to a HJ - but what about you?

At what point would you state that the Gospels cannot be used for historical information regarding Jesus?

For example, when Matthew puts allusions of the temple/Jerusalem destruction in the mouth of Jesus, the author already knows the temple was destroyed - thus he is lying that Jesus foretold it. Can you rely on such a writer to tell you the truth? Or is it the case that you believe Jesus foretold it?

Isn't it reasonable to regard "this generation" (with regard to the eschatology) - to be the generation living at the time AMatt was compiled? and not the putative generation before temple destruction?

You state that "to the outside world Jesus was an unknown rabble-rouser from some unknown backyard who was crucified by Rome".
Unknown rabble-rouser is an oxymoron. Unless he was rabble-raising in the kitchen of his home.

Why would Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, 1 Clement, Odes of Solomon not mention the trial of Jesus, his crucifiction and Mary and Joseph many years later?

You plead "christian creativity" when a historical factoid cant stand the test of reason. Does it make sense to you that details of a HJ were only contained in Mark (and later copied by the rest) while Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, 1 Clement and Odes of Solomon, which are years later don't contain clear references to a HJ?

How did you arrive at the conclusion that creating a HJ is too big a project for "christian creativity" if they can make 2000 pigs drown, make Pilate merciful, fabricate census, scenes like temple expulsion and the rest?

Doesn't it disturb you that 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and Romans, which were the earliest dont even talk of a trial and Mary and Joseph?

Your paper is made impressive by your honesty and ability to be open about the weaknesses of the methods. I would just like to understand where you stand with regard to these questions and how you deal with the loose ends.

IYO, what else would Jesus need to be or to do in order to 'be important for Josephus'?
How are the Other Jesuses 'important to Josephus'?

Jesus ben Ananias, c62 AD, the doom-preacher, was arrested and flogged by the Romans, he was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He got mentioned yet he never even earned crucifiction unlike Jesus ben Stada who go crucified at the hands of a Roman crucifixion crew.

One last question: if you dont mind, could you please list sayings which can be traced back to Jesus using your methodology and criteria?

Thanks for your willingness to provide answers.

Amaleq13

Where do you find evidence of this?

Amaleq13

It allows the false assertion that Paul locates a living Jesus in a specific time. That simply is not true of his letters. Retrojecting claims made in later documents back into earlier documents so as to claim that the earlier documents make the claims of the later documents is pretty obviously an invalid methodology. I follow Kirby in this reasoning and have referred to him before in trying to convince Vinnie this is a specious methodology:

"Craig seems to think that the narrative in the canonical gospels should be retrojected onto the mind of Paul. Such a procedure is entirely invalid."

from http://www.infidels.org/library/mod.../rebuttal1.html

Without specifics, I can't say for sure whether this is at all similar. What "event" does Paul identify with regard to the living Jesus that can be dated so securely?

Amaleq13

A number of much later sources portray Peter as a follower of Jesus but Paul only portrays Peter as an early and prominent believer in the Risen Christ.

I'm entirely willing to accept the possibilty of a historical Jesus but not if the argument involves playing fast and loose with the evidence or a methodology that allows one to pick and choose from texts spread across decades to fabricate a consistent portrait throughout the evidence. You have to deal with the evidence as it exists and when it is understood to have existed.

Rick Sumner

The narrative doesn't need to be retrojected, and nor should it be. But where we find points of commonality, particularly if an HJ is the working hypothesis, it's wholly acceptable.

I didn't say anything in Paul could be dated securely. I said there is nothing wrong with reading it in the light of other sources. We do it with all branches of history in which we have numerous strands of evidence--thus we compare, for example, Josephus and Tacitus, and arrive a truth somewhere in between.

Regards,
Rick Sumner