pierneef

If most scholars I have read are correct, and the arrest and trial (and probably ressurection sequences) are heavily redacted and edited, but leaving some of the original words of the gospel writers intact (and even these are reports based on traditions or Q), then it is no surprise that we have a somewhat arbitrary mish-mash of stuff, in which the "contradictions" may well be simply accidental by-products of the editing process. It seems that rewarding textual analysis is better confined to sections of the gospels that have higher authenticity, otherwise one may be "discovering" significance that is really not there.


But there is some evidence of some kind of event from sources outside of the Bible. These sources dont, of course agree, necessarily:

PhilosopherJay

Hi Rick,

I'm not so sure if we have to limit ourselves to the simple reconstruction of Jesus' words. I mean it is quite obvious that Mark and the other Gospel writers had "Q" type sayings of Jesus and they contextualized them in new ways for political purposes. But the "Q" type sayings decontextualized the sayings in the first place. By just getting to this layer, at best we get to the layer that an editor selected and spread around to give his impression of Jesus. Maybe, this editor did a very selective job to give an impression of Jesus that was totally different than the historical person.

For example, we may imagine that after pronouncing against divorce at an open meeting, Jesus went home and had the following conversation with Mary Magdalene:

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Rick Sumner

Yet then you go on to explain why we have no choice but to do exactly that. . .

We can only ascertain whether or not person X is likely to have done Y. As to how they felt about Y, or what inspired them to do Y, we can only guess, and even that we do primarily blindly.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

\

None of these sources say Jesus was tried by Pilate, although Tacitus is close. Try this discussion:

http://www.courses.drew.edu/sp2000/B...1/Tacitus.html

Because the trial of Jesus under Pilate is a clear fiction that at every level was built out of the OT, it is difficult to maintain it ever happened. Without an outside vector you can't extract any history. Even if not interpolated, Tacitus is writing late and third-hand. Lucian is even later, and Suetonius' Chrestus was a common name. Although it was a common misspelling, in the same book Suetonius spelled 'Christian' properly in another spot, further argument that the Chrestus who instigated trouble was not related to Jesus.

Chili

O yes, the precinct of the temple was the age of indoctrination that became the Jewish identity of Joseph. They were his Phariesees and their activity in the temple made it look like a market place where untimely truths were bargained with as if there was no tomorrow. This activity commenced with the age of reason and that is equal to the yeast of the pharisees which became the sin nature of Joseph and the very cross of Jesus that made his identity about thirty years old.

In "Intimations of Immortality" the age prior to the age of reason is identified as if it took place East of Eden when he was "fretted by his mothers kisses" and in a "River Merchants Wife: A Letter" it was the age when he was still "picking flowers" in the front yard and this was before he got himself some "bamboo stilts" so he could find some "green plums" on his own. The bamboo stilts here was just a metaphor for his faculty of reason and they became the raft that brought him home along the narrows of the river Kiang.

If it helps any here, notice the exact age of 46 and the approximate age of Jesus given as 30 (if I remember correctly).

pierneef

I think these sources may say (although as you point out, they are short of definitive overall):

*There was a Jewish leader or rebel called Jesus
* He was captured and executed by the Romans during the proconsulship of Pilate

* He had a following which taook his name and made their way to Rome where they were considered an insidious, maybe revolutionary influence that had to be put down.

That is actually quite a lot, and it certainly isnt the mainstream Chrsitian tradition. That DOES give us something of a handle on which to consider the motivations for those who redacted, edited and interpolated the traditions. Its a discipline, which can be fairly rigorous, and better than nothing at all, even if it falls short of the standards of historical verification.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Rick,


If we look at the doings of Jesus, we see they are cobbled from the deeds of the prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures.
If we can only go back to the pithy maxims of Jesus, we will find that they are just Judacized versions of the maxims of Julius Caesar's favorite writer Publilius Syrus, Syrian slave and writer of mime plays.

"To do two things at once is to do neither."

Publilius Syrus (circa 50 B.C.E.)

Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13
"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.


"Look to be treated by others as you have treated others."

Publilius Syrus

"Do unto others what you want them to do to you"

Jesus Christ

We must still determine if Jesus was reading Maxims of Publilius Syrus before making his speeches, or if the woman writing the original Gospel material was using lines from Publilius Syrus for her Jesus character.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Rick Sumner

Certainly, but this is a separate issue from what you outlined initially. At the outset you were suggesting that after we determine a saying is authentic, we need to determine why it was said. Such a venture is quite impossible--not just in this branch of ancient history, but in all branches--we can't read minds, and have very limited access to context.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

pierneef

I agree that "determine" is too high a goal, but with rigorous textual research, scholars have come up with some pretty convincing suggestions and proposals for why Jesus said many of the things considered reasonably authentic. It depends on whether the scholar is guided by his methodology and has no vested interest in what it produces; compared to a theologian who puts methodology to use in a selective and distorted fashion, to prove a theological belief.

If one reads a selection of such studies, you would rapidly see the difference in quality, which shows that something (albeit less than "determination") can be done, with quite impressive results

Rick Sumner

If we are determining anything with anything approaching even vague certainty, why does _The Five Gospels_ look so different from Vermes' _The Authentic Gospel of Jesus_?

Regards,
Rick Sumner