Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 04-06-2012, 10:08 PM

GDon and I are conversing on Barnabas. I thought I'd start a new thread because it seems silly to have it in the other thread for a different topic.

V

here is GDON and my reply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

We can discuss Barnabas in light of your (2) above, but (1) is not supportable.

The date of Barnabas is more interesting. I'd say that, like Mark, it dates from Hadrian's reign just/at the outset of the war and the comment that the servants of the enemy will rebuild the temple is the kind of false prophecy that "Daniel" was making; the writer knew the Romans were rebuilding the temple.

Okay, so probably around 130 CE. Let's start with the implications of (2). What did the the author know of Jesus, and what does it mean, given the date of the epistle? Let's look at some passages:

The prophets, having obtained grace from Him, prophesied concerning Him. And He (since it behoved Him to appear in flesh), that He might abolish death, and reveal the resurrection from the dead, endured [what and as He did], in order that He might fulfill the promise made unto the fathers, and by preparing a new people for Himself, might show, while He dwelt on earth, that He, when He has raised mankind, will also judge them. Moreover, teaching Israel, and doing so great miracles and signs, He preached [the truth] to him, and greatly loved him.

But when He chose His own apostles who where to preach His Gospel, [He did so from among those] who were sinners above all sin, that He might show He came "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God. For if He had not come in the flesh, how could men have been saved by beholding Him?

The question here is, where is the above information coming from? According to Doherty in J:NGNM, page 465 (my emphasis):

Like Polycarp and Clement, 'Barnabas' has no documents or traditions to draw upon when he wishes to describe Jesus' passion (5:2, 5:12, 13). He, too, has recourse to Isaiah (50 and 53) and the Psalms (22 and 119). While Barnabas has a greater sense than any of the other early Fathers that Jesus had been on earth (5:8-11), he has little of substance to say about that incarnation. He speaks of Jesus as teaching the people of Israel, his miracles and wonders, but he fails to itemize any of those teachings or miracles. The latter were expected of the Messiah, so the writer may simply be assuming that such things had happened.

On the Gospels, Doherty writes (page 465):

Barnabas quotes other things whose sources are unknown, and it is possible that this saying too is from a writing now lost, or is a unit of oral tradition that has come to be applied to Jesus. Barnabas is not likely to have known Mark and yet misapply this saying so badly, or to so misrepresent the character of the apostles in that Gospel. His only other quotation of a saying found in the Gospels (Mt. 22:14) is 4:14: "It is written that many are called but few are chosen." The "it is written" tells us that Barnabas looks upon the source as a sacred writing. In his time, this could not have included the Gospel of Matthew—although it may have been recently written by then.

So, if Barnabas is not getting his information from the Gospels about Jesus and the apostles, where is it coming from? (And these questions still exist even if the mythicist view becomes mainstream, since scholars would still try to trace the development of Christianity through early literature.)

++++++++++++++++++++++

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Okay, so probably around 130 CE. Let's start with the implications of (2). What did the the author know of Jesus, and what does it mean, given the date of the epistle? Let's look at some passages:

Ok... but this might work better as a new thread.

Quote:

[indent]The prophets, having obtained grace from Him, prophesied concerning Him. And He (since it behoved Him to appear in flesh), that He might abolish death, and reveal the resurrection from the dead, endured [what and as He did], in order that He might fulfill the promise made unto the fathers, and by preparing a new people for Himself, might show, while He dwelt on earth, that He, when He has raised mankind, will also judge them. Moreover, teaching Israel, and doing so great miracles and signs, He preached [the truth] to him, and greatly loved him.

The problem is that this discussion relates to EBarn's complex history. Have you read Paget? Google books has him in truncated format.

Quote:

So, if Barnabas is not getting his information from the Gospels about Jesus and the apostles, where is it coming from? (And these questions still exist even if the mythicist view becomes mainstream, since scholars would still try to trace the development of Christianity through early literature.)

I think Doherty has answered this question, as Barn himself says, from revelation and the prophets. The next section after the part you offer above is devoted to that. If Barn knows a gospel tale, he's wondrously reluctant to discuss. Rather, the details and reasons he offers are all built out of scripture.

There is a very Dohertian moment here further down, where EBarn discusses the circumcision. It is obvious that EBarn does know a historical Jesus but rather one who has come down via scripture and whose actions are deduced from that. If the writer thought of Jesus as a real human executed less than a century ago, why isn't Jesus' own circumcision an issue?

Again for food laws. Where is Jesus' pronouncement on them?

Ditto for Jesus' baptism -- Jesus foretold baptism, but he didn't undergo it. No JBap, no dove.

He even links Joshua and Moses and has them predicting Jesus, but significantly, there is a "When shall it happen?" question -- but alas, he relies on prophecy to explain the When. He doesn't say it came to pass in the day of Pilate. He doesn't know anything about any historical events of Jesus.

This follows the regular pattern of epistles in the first and early second century. No discussion of earthly life, everything deduced from prophecy. EBarn is good exemplar of Doherty's understanding.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 04-06-2012, 10:12 PM

Paget is online here:

http://tinyurl.com/7rq9qp2

GakuseiDon · 04-07-2012, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

The problem is that this discussion relates to EBarn's complex history. Have you read Paget? Google books has him in truncated format.

Thanks. I looked at it, but not sure how it plays into this debate. Perhaps you could summarize its relevance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

I think Doherty has answered this question, as Barn himself says, from revelation and the prophets. The next section after the part you offer above is devoted to that. If Barn knows a gospel tale, he's wondrously reluctant to discuss. Rather, the details and reasons he offers are all built out of scripture.

And that is my point as well. The Gospels were not authoritative at this time, so the details and reasons offered are built from Hebrew Scriptures. We see the same pattern in the other early epistles.

But no-one doubts that the eBarn author believed in a historical Jesus, so why not the other early epistle writers who wrote the same way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

There is a very Dohertian moment here further down, where EBarn discusses the circumcision. It is obvious that EBarn does know a historical Jesus but rather one who has come down via scripture and whose actions are deduced from that. If the writer thought of Jesus as a real human executed less than a century ago, why isn't Jesus' own circumcision an issue?

Exactly. And you there is no doubt that the eBarn author thought of Jesus as someone on earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Again for food laws. Where is Jesus' pronouncement on them?

The author apparently had no knowledge of them. He didn't know the Gospels. What does it mean that the eBarn author knew of the apostles being sent by Jesus, knew that Jesus had been on earth and crucified, but he doesn't appear to know the Gospels?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Ditto for Jesus' baptism -- Jesus foretold baptism, but he didn't undergo it. No JBap, no dove.

Correct. His sources didn't appear to include the Gospels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

He even links Joshua and Moses and has them predicting Jesus, but significantly, there is a "When shall it happen?" question -- but alas, he relies on prophecy to explain the When. He doesn't say it came to pass in the day of Pilate. He doesn't know anything about any historical events of Jesus.

Not quite: "He chose His own apostles", so whenever he was on earth, it was at the time of the apostles. But again: this is exactly my point. He doesn't talk about Pilate, he doesn't appear to know anything about the history of Christianity itself! Yet there is no doubt that the eBarn author believed in a historical Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

This follows the regular pattern of epistles in the first and early second century. No discussion of earthly life, everything deduced from prophecy. EBarn is good exemplar of Doherty's understanding.

Exactly. Yet there is no doubt that the eBarn author believed in a historical Jesus.. If we see this pattern in eBarn who obviously believed in a historical Jesus, then how does it set our expectations about other early literature, where we see the exact same pattern?

Again, let me repeat: My point still stands even if there were no historical Jesus and even if Doherty is completely correct. We have an example in eBarn where the author has little interest or knowledge of a historical Jesus, yet there seems no doubt that he believed in one. So how do we rule out other "non-historicist" literature that is written in similar terms?

Vork, where do you see eBarn's sources coming from? If not from the Gospels, then where do you see his belief that Jesus had been a historical person, the Son of God, who sent out apostles, originate from?

EmmaZunz · 04-07-2012, 02:34 AM

His distant sources most likely did include GMark - hence why he near-quotes it but misapplies it (he applies the call to sinners not saints to the disciples, calling them the worst of sinners).

Unless GMark and EB were both drawing on a text we don't have.

As I said on the other thread, it would help your case if EB displayed specific Gospel-HJ vocab like: empty tomb, Pilate, Mary, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Lazarus, etc..

Instead he only uses very general vocab like: "He dwelt on earth".

That suggests to me EB likely did not know the full HJ tradition. Rather, he was hearing confused echoes and partial ideas, and filling them in as best he could from prophetic scriptures and his own previous beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

The problem is that this discussion relates to EBarn's complex history. Have you read Paget? Google books has him in truncated format.

Thanks. I looked at it, but not sure how it plays into this debate. Perhaps you could summarize its relevance.

And that is my point as well. The Gospels were not authoritative at this time, so the details and reasons offered are built from Hebrew Scriptures. We see the same pattern in the other early epistles.

But no-one doubts that the eBarn author believed in a historical Jesus, so why not the other early epistle writers who wrote the same way?

Exactly. And you there is no doubt that the eBarn author thought of Jesus as someone on earth.

The author apparently had no knowledge of them. He didn't know the Gospels. What does it mean that the eBarn author knew of the apostles being sent by Jesus, knew that Jesus had been on earth and crucified, but he doesn't appear to know the Gospels?

Correct. His sources didn't appear to include the Gospels.

Not quite: "He chose His own apostles", so whenever he was on earth, it was at the time of the apostles. But again: this is exactly my point. He doesn't talk about Pilate, he doesn't appear to know anything about the history of Christianity itself! Yet there is no doubt that the eBarn author believed in a historical Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

This follows the regular pattern of epistles in the first and early second century. No discussion of earthly life, everything deduced from prophecy. EBarn is good exemplar of Doherty's understanding.

Exactly. Yet there is no doubt that the eBarn author believed in a historical Jesus.. If we see this pattern in eBarn who obviously believed in a historical Jesus, then how does it set our expectations about other early literature, where we see the exact same pattern?

Again, let me repeat: My point still stands even if there were no historical Jesus and even if Doherty is completely correct. We have an example in eBarn where the author has little interest or knowledge of a historical Jesus, yet there seems no doubt that he believed in one. So how do we rule out other "non-historicist" literature that is written in similar terms?

Vork, where do you see eBarn's sources coming from? If not from the Gospels, then where do you see his belief that Jesus had been a historical person, the Son of God, who sent out apostles, originate from?

GakuseiDon · 04-07-2012, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

His distant sources most likely did include GMark - hence why he near-quotes it but misapplies it (he applies the call to sinners not saints to the disciples, calling them the worst of sinners).

So the author is aware of gMark, in your view? Then why not more details about a historical Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

As I said on the other thread, it would help your case if EB displayed specific Gospel-HJ vocab like: empty tomb, Pilate, Mary, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Lazarus, etc..

Actually, the less the author apparently knows, the better for my argument.

To recap, my argument is this:

(1) We have an author who apparently believes in a historical Jesus, but is apparently unaware, or neglects to mention (as you note above) Gospel-HJ vocab like empty tomb, Pilate, Mary, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Lazarus, etc.

(2) So, if we come across similar authors who also appear unaware, or neglect to mention Gospel-HJ vocab like empty tomb, Pilate, Mary, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Lazarus, etc. then this silence doesn't necessarily mean that the author didn't believe in a HJ.

(3) The above is true even if Doherty's case about a MJ is correct.

So, as long as the author appears to believe in a historical Jesus, the more details missing, the better for my argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Instead he only uses very general vocab like: "He dwelt on earth".

That suggests to me EB likely did not know the full HJ tradition. Rather, he was hearing confused echoes and partial ideas, and filling them in as best he could from prophetic scriptures and his own previous beliefs.

That's fine. The reason is less important than the example that is set, at least for the point that I have outlined above. We have an author who believes in a historical Jesus based on confused echoes and partial ideas, and filling them in as best he could from prophetic scriptures and his own previous beliefs.

EmmaZunz · 04-07-2012, 05:57 AM

Distant sources - i.e. GMark has created the idea of a HJ, and people have talked to people who have talked to people who have talked to the author of Barnabas about it. Hence why Barnabas has some vague idea about it.

I'm saying Barnabas et al don't talk about the full HJ tradition because they didn't know it. They didn't know it because it was a late development that later Xians grafted on to their pre-existent belief systems.

Are you arguing that Xianity started with some sort of HJ? Then how could someone like the author of Barnabas know so little about it? You think people were being converted to Xianity, believing in a HJ, yet showing no interest in him or in finding more info? The info wasn't being passed along as one of the main elements of the faith?

That is not plausible to me. It's like the POV Earl satirises in his "Conversation between Paul and some new converts" (JNGNM appendix 2).

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

His distant sources most likely did include GMark - hence why he near-quotes it but misapplies it (he applies the call to sinners not saints to the disciples, calling them the worst of sinners).

So the author is aware of gMark, in your view? Then why not more details about a historical Jesus?

Actually, the less the author apparently knows, the better for my argument.

To recap, my argument is this:

(1) We have an author who apparently believes in a historical Jesus, but is apparently unaware, or neglects to mention (as you note above) Gospel-HJ vocab like empty tomb, Pilate, Mary, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Lazarus, etc.

(2) So, if we come across similar authors who also appear unaware, or neglect to mention Gospel-HJ vocab like empty tomb, Pilate, Mary, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Lazarus, etc. then this silence doesn't necessarily mean that the author didn't believe in a HJ.

(3) The above is true even if Doherty's case about a MJ is correct.

So, as long as the author appears to believe in a historical Jesus, the more details missing, the better for my argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Instead he only uses very general vocab like: "He dwelt on earth".

That suggests to me EB likely did not know the full HJ tradition. Rather, he was hearing confused echoes and partial ideas, and filling them in as best he could from prophetic scriptures and his own previous beliefs.

That's fine. The reason is less important than the example that is set, at least for the point that I have outlined above. We have an author who believes in a historical Jesus based on confused echoes and partial ideas, and filling them in as best he could from prophetic scriptures and his own previous beliefs.

GakuseiDon · 04-07-2012, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Distant sources - i.e. GMark has created the idea of a HJ, and people have talked to people who have talked to people who have talked to the author of Barnabas about it. Hence why Barnabas has some vague idea about it.

I'm saying Barnabas et al don't talk about the full HJ tradition because they didn't know it. They didn't know it because it was a late development that later Xians grafted on to their pre-existent belief systems.

OK. So gMark had been written, and had created vague ideas around a historical Jesus. The eBarn author had encountered these vague ideas and added them to his/her pre-existent belief systems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

Are you arguing that Xianity started with some sort of HJ? Then how could someone like the author of Barnabas know so little about it? You think people were being converted to Xianity, believing in a HJ, yet showing no interest in him or in finding more info? The info wasn't being passed along as one of the main elements of the faith?

That is not plausible to me. It's like the POV Earl satirises in his "Conversation between Paul and some new converts" (JNGNM appendix 2).

But aren't you saying this is exactly what has happened? gMark HAD been written. That information WAS available.

So why didn't eBarn seek out that information? Are you saying eBarn believed in a HJ, yet showed no interest in him or in finding more information?

Toto · 04-07-2012, 12:27 PM

Barnabas did not believe in a "historical Jesus." He believed in a spiritual Jesus Christ who manifested himself on earth, based on Hebrew prophecy. That is not a historical Jesus.

GakuseiDon · 04-07-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Barnabas did not believe in a "historical Jesus." He believed in a spiritual Jesus Christ who manifested himself on earth, based on Hebrew prophecy. That is not a historical Jesus.

Okay, I'm happy to go with that. Let's discuss the implications. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you believe that the author spontaneously came up with the idea from Hebrew Scriptures independent on early writers who believed something similar.

So: do you think the author was aware of the Gospels? Or was there another source -- independent of the Gospels -- that talked about how Jesus dwelt on earth, how he taught Israel, performed miracles and chose his apostles to preach his message?

EmmaZunz · 04-07-2012, 04:27 PM

Where did Barnabas get the Markan line about coming "not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance"?

Was that dependent on Mark? Pauline? Cynic or common saying? Scriptural?

Or Lukan? The EB line is a direct quote of Lk. 5:32 it seems.

Does the EB manuscript have the line in quotation marks like in the translation?

But Barnabas made different use of the line from the Gospels, applying it to apostles not believers.

He has Jesus suffer "on the tree" - why do so many non-Gospel writers say tree, not cross?

And as Toto says, there is a good deal of extrapolation from scripture.

(All EB chap. V)

My suggestion is that Barnabas has heard bits of Gospel tradition spreading orally, but he had not read the Gospels himself. Hence he repeats a bit of Gospel lore, and fills in a bit of scriptural extrapolation. What goes back to the Gospels, and what are independent ideas, are hard to separate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Barnabas did not believe in a "historical Jesus." He believed in a spiritual Jesus Christ who manifested himself on earth, based on Hebrew prophecy. That is not a historical Jesus.

Okay, I'm happy to go with that. Let's discuss the implications. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you believe that the author spontaneously came up with the idea from Hebrew Scriptures independent on early writers who believed something similar.

So: do you think the author was aware of the Gospels? Or was there another source -- independent of the Gospels -- that talked about how Jesus dwelt on earth, how he taught Israel, performed miracles and chose his apostles to preach his message?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-06-2012, 10:12 PM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Paget is online here: http://tinyurl.com/7rq9qp2

04-07-2012, 12:27 PM	#8
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Barnabas did not believe in a "historical Jesus." He believed in a spiritual Jesus Christ who manifested himself on earth, based on Hebrew prophecy. That is not a historical Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.