TedM

Ok, if these layers are true and it all began with some (how many?) wise teachings by some guy named Jesus and Christians sometime after Paul mythologized it by incorporating a grander Jesus into the teachings, I agree that this could be used as an argument against a wisdom-teaching Jesus. But, given the total original co-existing indepedance you also ascribe to between the Q camp and Paul's camp, this is not evidence against Paul having written about a historical Jesus...

To me the question of coincidence is important IF the Q movement was significant and/or unique at the time of Paul AND IF it was started by a guy named Jesus. Then we have the question: What are the odds that 2 independant significant and/or unique, movements would co-exist with founders by the same name. Given A, what are the odds of B, assuming they are independant events?

With regard to my first sentence, can we really break Q down by layers without assuming that the gospel Jesus never said or did all of the things in it? Can we assume that all the original wise teachings were never attributed to a guy named Jesus or if they were we have no record of who that Jesus was? Can we assume that there would be no record of a distinct wisdom sect being outraged that these Christians came along and butchered their collection of sayings?

If these issues can't be resolved then we can't assume that Q is evidence against a gospel Jesus, and Q and its origins as it pertain to Paul's Jesus remain a mystery.

ted

Amaleq13

No, it would be an argument for an independent wisdom-teaching Jesus who was subsequently incorporated into a narrative attempt to describe Pauline theology.

Since that isn't a focus of this thread, I'm not sure I understand how this is relevant. What has become a focus of this thread is the notion of more than one figure named "Jesus" at the same time Paul preached.

I assume you meant "the question of probability" here but there is no reason to assume Q was all that significant. Assuming it represents the people teaching "another Jesus", it only has to have been significant enough to get Paul's attention.

Given that the name in question was common, I don't see how those odds could ever be speculated to be amazingly unlikely. I'm afraid the commonality of the name is going to screw up any attempt you make to create the appearance of improbability. An unusual name would have served your purpose much better.

The Gospel Jesus never said anything because he is a fictional creation. We are trying to imagine the historical Jesus that the Gospel Jesus hides from us. To my knowledge, most Q scholars assume that the initial layer is the closest one can get to the historical leader of the movement (ie highly respected teacher) but whether any particular saying can be relied upon as historical is another matter entirely. I'm not sure why it is relevant here.

I'm not sure I understand this question given the "all" and the "never". We don't have to assume that all the sayings were really spoken by the Q leader to recognize that he was revered as a teacher and our only "record" of the guy is Q.

We don't even have a complete record of the sect that "won" (ie Christianity) so, no, we shouldn't be terribly surprised that a sect that didn't manage to survive and whose apparently primary text was incorporated into the texts of the winners left little trace.

Q isn't evidence against a "gospel Jesus". Q is a source for at least two of the narratives describing the "gospel Jesus". Q is offered as evidence of variety at the time of Paul and a candidate for those who taught "another gospel" and "another Jesus".

To review:

1) Paul's "historical Jesus" = an appearance of flesh taken on by the Son of God to hide his true nature and allow his execution to be the ultimate atoning sacrifice.

2) Q's "historical Jesus" = a leader of a group of prophets, revered as a wise teacher and eventually mythologized into God's Wisdom/Son of God

3) Gospel's "historical Jesus" = a later combination of the other two

I hold that 3 is the least helpful in identifying any "real" historical Jesus because it contains the most mythological overlay. I also contend that the other two appear to describe two completely different individuals despite the fact that they bear the same name.

TedM

I agree. I didn't state my position as clearly as you have, but I meant the same thing.

I'm skipping to your review. Thanks for doing that.

Here's Youngs Literal Int. of Phillipians 2:6-8:

This seems open to various interpretations. Although the phrase "Appearance of flesh" isn't in this passage the "appearance of flesh" sounds to me like to any outsider Jesus looked like another human being. "Found as a man" sounds very much like a real person. I don't see evidence in this passage for hiding of his true nature or for him having no reputation. The "Emptying" and his being a "servant" may be referring to becoming a human being, or it may be referring to his willing submission to death on the cross. I don't see any clear indication that this passage is about the reputation of Jesus in his life prior to the cross. Paul's Jesus does not IMO rule out a teaching Jesus, but it is silent about him (with the possible exception of a few passages).


You know more about Q than I. Where in Q does it say he was a leader of a group of prophets? Do the scholars that claim an evolution of Q really has good evidence? What is that evidence? What about the Case Against Q arguments? I question the name of Jesus for the original Q. It is possible, but a coincidence, as you have said. I recall you saying that you don't favor the idea that the name Jesus was a Christian interpolation. May I ask why?

I'm ok with this one for the most part, assuming Q really preceded Matthew and Luke.


That seems reasonable, again assuming that Q really existed prior to Matthew and Luke. I'd like to know what dates you propose for Mark, the original Q, the final Q, Matthew and Luke, and James.

That is reasonable given your descriptions of Q, which I question. I've argued that Paul's Jesus may have been more Q-like than he describes, or that others may have been so inspired by Paul's Jesus to invent a Q Jesus. I've also argued that Paul's letters have some Q-like teachings, but I haven't yet provided evidence for that. I've argued that James has Q-like teachings, and see his lack of attribution of such sayings to Jesus as a curiousity that may point to James preceding Q--and providing inspirations for early Christians to attribute Q sayings to their Jesus. You have indicated (I think) a belief that the work is too late to be of value.

I"ve also argued that "another Jesus" isn't referring to Q. What in Paul's letters reference another Jesus that we find in Q?

I have yet to respond further to your 5 points regarding "another Jesus" in 2 Cor.

I'm going out of town tomorrow till Monday, so may not be connected much.

ted

Amaleq13

I agree but none that deny Paul considered the incarnation to be a disguise for the Son.

It wouldn't have been a very good disguise if he didn't.

What did Christ "empty himself" of? As I clearly indicated before, "made himself of no reputation" comes from the King James translation. Presumably, for Christ to "empty himself" and to make himself "of no reputation" are attempts to express the original phrase. That the Heavenly Christ is taking on an appearance entirely unlike his true identity is painfully obvious but he even states in 1Cor 2 that the "rulers of the age" wouldn't have executed Christ had they known who he was. In fact, he goes on and on about how this was a complete "mystery" until it was revealed by the Spirit.

Ted, please, this is just silly. This passage comes immediately after stating that the Heavenly Christ "being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God" (YLT) and starts with "BUT" which clearly indicates a contrast.

Failing to rule out a teaching Jesus is simply not good enough, Ted. The fact is, if we did not have the Gospels (or were unable to read Paul without them influencing our understanding), there would be no reason to even wonder if Paul thought the incarnated Christ spent time teaching before he was executed.

If you want to assume he was not, be my guest. That can only increase any estimation of the odds. If not leader, then founder but I'm not sure why that matters. Seriously, if you are this uninformed on Q, I suggest you read it yourself. It doesn't take long. Kirby's page on it is here.

If you are truly interested, I suggest you read Kloppenborg. He seems to be the big name in Q studies. I have Excavating Q and I think it addresses your questions. IOW, it takes a book to do so properly.

They are in the minority but I think they make some compelling points. I think I said from the beginning that I was referencing Q because it was so popular amongst those depicting the "real historical Jesus". If you wish to reject Q, then we have even less to work with in imagining him. In fact, all we've got is are the minimal references in Paul and the tantalizing hints of what his enemies were saying about "another Jesus".

Doherty would be glad to hear it. He suggests that the initial layer of Q was comprised of anonymous sayings that were only later attributed to Jesus.

I think I already told you. I think it creates more problems than it solves. To be fair to Doherty, he considers this his secondary position. At least he did several years ago when I asked him about the name. His primary argument is that the name is a later addition but he acknowledges that it might very well have just been a coincidence and one that obviously would have attracted the Gospel authors to use it.

I'm content to accept the ranges Mr. Kirby offers at his website:

Mark = 65-80

Q = 40-80

Matthew = 80-100

Luke/Acts = 80-130 (though I'm tending toward moving up the earliest date given evidence that he relied on Josephus as a source)

James = 70-100

I think such ranges, given the evidence, are more reasonable than anything more specific.

The former doesn't appear to have any basis while, IIRC, you admitted that the latter was unlikely.

I agree that is entirely possible. I don't see how this reduces the variety of depictions of Jesus, though.

Nothing I can think of but I wouldn't expect much more than a general denigration of seeking after wisdom.

spin

It should be noted that the phrase in bold doesn't seem to occur in the Alexandrian text, the Vulgate or the Peshitta. It would then be a later clarification!

Why are you "content" with these dates? There's nothing historical about them whatsoever. They are based on conjectures aimed at giving the earliest possible datings for central texts, earlier implying more trustworthy. Yet the earliest we can securely get is Justin's indications of close gospel knowledge, with a probable earlier attestation in Marcion's gospel, later claimed to be a bowdlerized Lk. Why no earlier knowledge evinced?


spin

Amaleq13

Because I don't think the concession actually help establish a credible depiction of "the historical Jesus" and, as you point out, it actually creates a longer problematic period of silence between authorship and reliance as authoritative.

BTW, can you provide any insight into the original language of the phrase in Philippians 2:7 that is interpreted "empty himself" or "made himself of no reputation"? Somebody offered an explanation some time ago but I can't find the thread/post.

spin

Literally, it seems clearly to be "emptied himself", eauton (self) ekenwsen (emptied). And I can't for the life of me see how the stuff about "reputation" can be drawn from the phrase. (But I know little about Greek.)


spin

TedM

Being an omniscient God with no human limitations.

I've given the Young's literal. Spin seems to agree based on the Greek that there is no suggestion of having no reputation among men. The passage doesn't even suggest that kind of a contrast. It contrasting a pre-existing God-like Jesus with a human Jesus. It seems obvious to me. I am not a translation expert, but would you agree that the Youngs in no way supports your interpretation?

Yes, they wouldn't have crucified someone had they known he was the incarnated Heavenly Christ. That's totally different than saying they didn't knww he had a reputation for being a wise teacher on earth. Nothing in these passages supports this level of anonymity.


Since you apparantly don't see that I'm recognizing such a contrast, let me make it more clear: Omniscient God vs a more limited human being. My comment is more in line with the context than any suggestion that Paul is saying Jesus had no earthly reputation.

You are claiming to have scriptural support for a depiction by Paul of a Jesus who had no earthly reputation. You have given two passages as support, yet neither support it. Therefore your depiction is not supported. That is my point. You have no positive evidence. Only an argument about Paul's silence.

That's different than claiming Jesus had no reputation and that Paul's passages in 1 Phillipians and in 1 Cor support that. They don't. In other words, you are claiming that Paul depicts Christ as being something (a man with no reputation that as a result wasn't recognized by rulers as having been the Christ), but as I see it Paul doesn't do any such thing.

Saying that Paul depicts Jesus as a man who had no reputation and using that as an argument for Paul's Jesus as not having been a known teacher is different that saying that Paul doesn't depict Jesus as having had an earthly reputation and using that silence as an argument for Paul's Jesus as not having been a known teacher.

ted

TedM

What I was asking is what are the problems it creates?

Thanks. I find it intriguing that the letter of James seems to reflect a lot of Q sayings, yet doesn't attribute them to Jesus. Since James seems directed to Jewish Christians, I'm curious as to any explanation you might have for this silence if it in fact was authored no earlier than 70AD, well after Q likely would have been first attributed to the Christian Jesus, I would think.

Regarding the former, on Kirby's site you directed me to regarding Q, Koester is quoted as follows: "Even the sayings used for the original composition of Q were known and used elsewhere at an early date: they were known to Paul, were used in Corinth by his opponents, "

Regarding the latter, I don't recall saying exactly that. What I said was others may have invented a Q Jesus, having known certain basic things about Paul's Jesus: God incarnated, crucified, believed to be raised, moral teachings of Christians..

ted

TedM

Interesting. What theories exist regarding those omissions, and which do you agree with? What's in the oldest known texts? Does the phrase in the prior verse "the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made" exist in those texts.?
ted