TedM

I agree we got off topic a bit, but I wanted to address the issue of how similar Papias' views were to the canon, since you seemed to be saying there is little in common between them.

As for the crucifixion, I agree that Papias is no help from what I've seen of his alleged writings. I'm not sure why you say Papias seems to be unaware of the crucifixion though, given the small amount of material available.

ted

JoeWallack

JW
Now look at Quadratus. Seems to be a pattern. Does anyone write of a crucified Jesus before 125 CE besides Paul and "Mark"? Old Peter Kirby pointed out that no one wrote of an empty tomb before "Mark". Did anyone write of a Passion before "Mark"? Paul never claims that anyone who knew Jesus said he was crucified. "Mark" claims that the Historical Disciples never understood the crucifixion. Is it Possible that Paul learned this from Revelation and "Mark's" Passion story is based on Paul's Revelation? Have I provided a reasonable Possibility for a Fictional Crucifixion which prevents one from claiming a certain Historical crucifixion?



Joseph

TedM

The writings of Quadratus are about 5 sentences! To say no to your question, you have to dismiss the following references as fraudulent, interpolations, not really about a historical crucifixion, not even about a crucifixion, or written after 125AD:

* Matthew
* Mark
* John
* Hebrews 12:2
* 1 Peter 2:24
* 1 John 3:16
* Josephus TF
* 1 Clement 16:4,8, 49:6
* Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians (1st on I looked at)
*Tacitus "suffered the extreme penalty...at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus"
* Papias--(possibly implied that he knew by mentioning Judas as "traitor")

The answer depends when Mark was written. When do you think he wrote it, and why do you choose that date?


He doesn't claim that they never understood that Jesus was crucified.

Yes it is possible.

Possible? Yes. Reasonable? Depends on how you interpret Paul and how you treat all of those early references above.

ted

JoeWallack

JW:
Let's take a look at Peter's witness from Early Christian Writings where unlike us I have Faith that Peter's site does have criteria for his Listings, what he thinks is the consensus of Bible scholarship. Personally, I think Christian Bible scholarship is just like TV, it adds 20 years to your age. But if I'm right that evidence for the supposed crucifixion is significantly worse than is commonly thought, even Peter's site should show it:

Taking the midrange of dating:

45 Passion Narrative Anonymous Yes (refers to crucifixion)

55 Paul Yes

60 Q Anonymous No

70 Signs Gospel Anonymous Yes

73 Book of Hebrews Anonymous Yes

73 Gospel of Mark Anonymous Yes

85 Didache Anonymous No

85 Epistle of James Anonymous No

90 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel Anonymous No

90 1 Peter Anonymous Maybe

90 Gospel of Matthew Anonymous Yes

93 Apocalypse of John Anonymous No

93 Flavius Josephus Maybe

95 Gospel of Thomas Anonymous No

95 Egerton Gospel Anonymous No

100 Epistle of Barnabas Anonymous No


JW:
General observations:

1) No Identified first-hand witness to Jesus.

2) [toto] orthodox [/toto] Christianity preserved Identified non first-hand witness to Jesus.

3) No Identified second-hand witness claims first-hand witness claimed crucifixion.

4) All claims that Jesus was crucified are either from non-witnesses or are anonymous.

5) We have claims of first-hand witness to Jesus' crucifixion written by non-witnesses.

6) The earliest claim of Jesus crucified is either from the Passion Narrative (anonymous) or Paul (non-witness) who emphasizes Revelation.

7) Generally authors emphasizing Faith mention the Crucifixion and authors emphasizing Works don't. The original fragment Gospels probably did refer to the crucifixion.

8) When crucifixion is not mentioned the only other possible form of death mentioned is hanging from a tree, which is only mentioned a few times.

The Key consideration here is the D - I - S - T - A - N - C - E between what would be good evidence for the Historical crucifixion of Jesus and the evidence we have. Order of Good evidence:

1) Multiple, Credible, First-hand witness.

2) Credible First-hand witness.

3) Multiple, Credible, Second-hand witness.

4) Credible Second-hand witness.

5) Relatively low-hand Credible witness with known, Credible links to first-hand. Extant Papias' references seem to be closest to this but Papias never mentions the crucifixion.

The best Evidence we have:

1) Single Identified witness Paul, second-hand witness, Not credible, preserved by Not credible institution, never claims first-hand witness claimed crucifixion so no link to first-hand witness of crucifixion.

2) Later witness with even worse credentials than Paul sometimes mentions crucifixion and sometimes doesn't. The main determining factor here seems to be Theological outlook.

Conclusion:
There is a large D - I - S - T - A - N - C - E between what would be good evidence for the Historical crucifixion of Jesus and the evidence we have. Therefore, the crucifixion of Jesus does not have sufficient evidence to make it a historical fact.



Joseph

PAULMISTERY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

DCHindley

A few observaions.

1) Aren't Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel, and Egerton Gospel, both fragments? You can't draw conclusions about the whole from a possibly non-representative part.

2) Revelation 1:7 "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen." This is clearly a reference to the crucifixion story.

3) Doesn't the Epistle of Barnabas go on and on about how an OT passage signifies, by numerlolgy, the Greek "tau," which in turn resembles a cross? He also compares Christ to the scapegoat "sacrifice" in the day of atonement ritual. For crying out loud, he's referring to Christ's death as an atoning sarifice! You think he was sacrificed by slipping in the bathtub or something?

DCH

TedM

Hi Joe. I see you dropped 1 John and the last 4 off my list, due I assume to an avg date being after 100AD, though you originally had set the date at 125AD.

Here are some comments/corrections to 4 new ones on your list above:

In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus references his death at the hands of others:



The Edgerton Gospel is about 1 page of fragmented sentences, but among them is this:

Barnabas does reference the crucifixion

So does the Apocalypse of John






What do you mean by "Identified"? Do you really mean "verifiable"?
If "Identified" means the authors states his identity, then your statement assumes the author of 1 Peter lied.

Not sure what you mean here.. Example?

I don't know what you mean here.

Ok, except for possibly 1 Peter.


Do you mean 1 Peter, 1 John, and GJohn? Others?

Ok, but I would point out that Paul never emphasizes Revelation as the source for his information about Jesus' crucifixion.

Not sure that is true. Which are you saying emphasizes works other than James?


I've read that a cross was also referred to as a tree, so it may be that the two were used to mean the same thing. Paul clearly believed Jesus was crucified, so why would he mean something different in Galations?


He mentions the traitor Judas. But I agree that the kind of evidence we have is not so good. However, it is IMO in sufficient volume to be taken seriously.

I don't see why a lack of verifiable data leads you to the conclusion that the main determining factor seems to be theological outlook.

It seems to me that the authors are writing things they believe really were historical. The list above is fairly long and most affirm the concept that Jesus was crucified. If the whole thing was fiction then Paul was misunderstood, as was Mark and/or both camps that misunderstood each are unknown to us with no preservation in the record, and no inkling of it in either Pau's or Mark's works, though certainly Paul's works could have been changed to sound much more supportive of a HJ had that been an issue that needed to be "corrected".[/quote]


I have no problem with this conclusion. I only think the evidence we have is sufficient to make a historical crucifixion likely and the most reasonable explanation. It is all simply too consistent IMO....However, I could be wrong.

I'm curious--What do you think the Tacitus reference provides in the way of support for a HJ who was crucified, and whose followers were persecuted under Nero's rule from 54-68AD? Is this not a credible reference from a historian?


thanks,
ted

Dirge

Where are the early accounts of people denying that Christ ever existed, which could also exist if he didn't, considering few people in the early centuries were Xian, and others could use it as a rebuttal back then. Two hundred years is not a long time, even for oral memory. The doubters of his historical existence are 2000 years later.

JoeWallack

JW:
I indicated I would guess the original fragment Gospels did refer to a crucifixion:

I only put a description of No because technically the extant does not refer to a crucifixion.

JW:
"clearly"? You must have just read one of Doug's posts. It doesn't say "crucified" so it could not be clear unless the context was clear. The majority of Bible scholarship would take it as a reference to Zechariah which is not describing a crucifixion.

JW:
Assuming you are serious I don't think Christianity at the time of Barnabas had a definite shape of a stauros in mind and you lack a clear connection to crucifixion anyway. Regarding crucifixion being a natural atoning sacrifice in context of the Jewish Bible I think the opposite is the case. Judaism would have viewed the element of Torture in an atoning sacrifice as Pagan.



Joseph

PAULMISTERY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

JoeWallack

JW:
Nothing to predict a crucifixion.


JW:
Good one. I only searched for "crucify" and "crucifixion". Doh!


JW:
It's generally thought that "the great city" above is used in Revelation in opposition to Jerusalem (it's a bad place). It also says "their" (textual variation).

Helms righteously inventories Revelation as support for James, as opposed to Paul in The Bible Against Itself, and I wonder if this one use of "crucified" in Revelation for the Evil city (probably Rome) who's Lord was crucified is a criticism of Paulists.


JW:
"Identified" = Known.


JW:
Christianty preserved Known but not first-hand witness to Jesus (Paul).


JW:
The only Known second-hand witness is Paul. He never claims that first-hand witness claimed Jesus was crucified.


JW:
I'm just going by the consensus of Bible scholarship here.


JW:
1 Peter and second century Gospels.


JW:
He never says it was a human source.


JW:
Q, Didache, Revelation and Thomas.


JW:
It's quite possible that a Christian author saying "tree" may have intended to refer to a crucifixion. Not a stretch for them. Whatever Jewish evidence there is always makes clear that it was a tree. It's also possible that when a Christian author said "crucified" they were referring to a tree.


JW:
Where the emphasis is on Works the tendency is not to mention or at least not to emphasize the crucifixion. Where the emphasis is on Faith the tendency is to emphasize the crucifixion. This is supported by the common sense argument. Always the best one. Those who knew Jesus probably emphasized Works and those who did not probably emphasized Faith and Crucifxion.


JW:
The point of this discussion Ted is there is a difference between Belief and Knowledge.


JW:
The above is my main point here, the supposed crucifixion should not be Assumed or considered a definite historical fact. So I can't ask any more of you here. Maybe the crucifixion is Likely. I don't think it is. The problem that HJ's either Ignore or don't properly deal with is that the two best witnesses for the crucifxion, Paul, who is the first to mention, and "Mark", who is the first to Narratize, both have an anti-Historical witness attitude. Paul is in Competition with Historical Jesus witness and orthodox Christianity sides with Paul. "Mark" is one long Dennis Miller Rant against Historical witness to Jesus. All or at least most other crucifixion witness seems to be based largely on these two. For me this creates enough Doubt to only think the crucifixion Possible, but not Likely. Maybe if someone Qualified would write a Scientific argument for the Crucifixion being Likely I would change my mind but so far such an article seems Mythical.



Joseph

PAULMISTERY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

JoeWallack

JW:
http://www.textexcavation.com/tacitustestimonium.html

JW:
Once again, this does not say "crucified" and I think the evidence above indicates it probably was not crucifixion. Historians are exponentially better potential witnesses than Partisans but we have serious doubts as to how the above originally read.

One of the responsibilities of the Historian is to provide Motivation. Why was Jesus crucified? Paul doesn't tell us and "Mark's" explanation, that Pilate was pressured to release Barabbas, a known political threat, and instead crucify Bar Abbas, an unknown, non-political and no threat, is unlikely. All subsequent references to Jesus' supposed crucifixion suffer from lack of Likely Motivation from the Sources. A possible explanation for the lack of extant Motivation to crucify Jesus is that once Jesus obtained god/God/gods status in Christian eyes, Christian Editors considered it blasphemy to write/copy any Negative charges against Jesus.

Assuming there is some historical value to Tacitus here you still have to ask what exactly was Tacitus' source and discount it (Tacitus) as second century. But again, as it stands, I think it is evidence against crucifixion.

Interestingly, though they have relatively little evidential value here, both the Jewish and Muslim traditions contradict the crucifixion Assertian.

Far more important than the above, I bring tidings of great joy to the II Unfaithful. I have successfully resurrected Peter (Kirby) using the oldest possible Motivation.



Joseph

PAULMISTERY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction