Steven Carr

I know you never said anything about what Wright wrote, which is why I was not lying when I said you refused to defend what Wright wrote in his article.

Wright says that one of main themes of Jesus' teaching is the destruction of the Temple, yet Paul seems to know nothing of it, although such an 'impending catastrophe' could hardly be ignored by a Jew.

Clearly Jesus taught no such thing.

And I did retract my mistaken impression that Wright was speaking against Doherty, and wondered who Wright thought did insist on Paul trotting out parables parrot fashion, and repeating 'every line' of Jesus' teaching. It appears that Wright was constructing strawmen, as that corresponds to nobody's position.

Layman

I misread the "and actually defend the words that Wright wrote" as saying I was doing so. I see now what you meant.

Using the term "liar" was wrong and I apologize to you.

rlogan

I do not understand why there is even an argument here, notwithstanding the scholarship of the "Paul is the fraternal twin of Jesus" authors.

Paul does not say: "Jesus said...XYZ"

Paul says where he gets his knowledge. By the spirit (revelation).

We cannot conclude anything else. Paul's "wisdom" did not come from utterances of Jesus. They came from the batphone.

We cannot be coy and pretend he meant they came from utterances of Jesus as related to him by those who actually knew Jesus. He makes the positive assertion that he used the batphone.

Unless I've missed something Vinnie is the only one who has put forward an example of similarity, and that was the divorce issue.

That there is an intersection of some "wisdom" is dictated by random chance, let alone common beliefs to the people of the time.

You can't mount an offensive built of "echos" as a counterproof to his positive attestation of batphone use.

What is the mystery? Threre isn't one. By his own witness he does not use things Jesus said, period.


Good God almighty, can you believe the piffle from Wright? Why, one cannot give so much as a single example because it would be:

"tedious to traverse the same ground again"

pfffft!

Vinnie

Re: the Markan secret parables. These may be part of a systematic apology for the cross. His death stems not from his failure of universal discipleship, *but from the successful achievement of his goal to separate out his true family from outsiders.* A whole section on parables (4.1-34) comes, in what I doubt is a coincidence, right on the heels of the discourse about Jesus' true family (3.31-35). Like Jesus' healings on the sabbath and other actions, many see an implicit pre-determining of his death in them. That is how Mark his alleviating for the shame of the cross. Jesus' not not only was according to the scriptures, it was not only predicted in a detailed manner by Jesus beforehand, he was also in control and in a sense, predetermined it.

Of course, Gundry runs into the problem that Jesus gave his parables to audiences at large and the audiences at large actually tend to love Jesus and follow him around in Mark. So Mark may contradict himself on this simply to apologize for the cross. Or maybe the point is Jesus' magnetism. Even those who don't understandh im are flocked to hear him speak. Its hero-writing aimed at glorifying Jesus as is the rest of Mark.

A parallelism of outsiders is presented by Jesus true family and the desensitizing parables which are directly next to one another. It may also be argued Jesus did not talk in oparables in such ways to divide, but to weed out between those who are on the inside--those who would respond in faith and those on the outside--thsoe who won't respond in faith which he foreknows as he does other things in Mark.

Mk 4:13 and 7:17 show that Jesus expects his disciples to understand his parables. Its part of the prgrammatic denigration of the apostles in Mark.

So your objection: "But then, how to explain Jesus taking the trouble to issue messages in a form (parables) not meant to be understood, and useless for saving his country folks?"

THis is no objection at all. We have to remember we are discussing how Mark portrays the situation. Mark is not biography. I woulkd presume from the poutse4t Jesus spoke in parables top an audience at large and not to confuse them, but to instruct them as Matthew and Luke alter Mark on this. Mark has some secrecy issues.

I also think Q predates Mark:

[Editing to change] I meant to say I think Q is independent of Mark. I think Q comes from the second stratum. Same general time as Mark. I would generally place the brunt of Thomas here as well (60-80). Thomas is indepednet and Mark used sources and M and L preserve independent parables IIRC. At any rate, we have such fundamental disagreements regarding Gospel presupposition and source stratification we cannot have a reasonable discussion of this issue. We would first have to debate, Q, and Thomas and their relation to Mark and Mark itself. I don't have that kind of time.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

What do you think of Crossan's idea that GTh and Q should be understood as splitting from common ground on the issue of apocalyptic preaching with GTh moving away and Q moving toward?

Vinnie

I think Q and Thomas shared common sources. This is a given as there is not evidence THomas was dependent upon Q or vice versa. I think both of them go in different directions (obviously) and I think both naturally expanded their portraits. If one was more authentic, I am not qualified enough to speculate on. Crossan is relying on Arnal or Patterson here. I forget which one but I haven't read the work which aims at showing this and I doubt I am capable of this (such a study probably requires good knowledge of Greek or at least more of a working knowledge than I currently possess.

I find it difficult some days not to see Jesus as apocalyptic. The baptist before him and Paul after him. Plus the saying Sanders reconstructs from Paul and Matthew and the apologetical progression seen across the stratums regarding Jesus' delay.

At any rate, if the apocalyptic eschatology does not go back to the HJ it probably goeres back to the late thirties. It must be deemed very early in my eyes. A detailed reconstruction of the double tradition sayings material, alond with responses to Crossan on Paul and Meier on early Christian prophets and the mistaken timetable would be required for me to fully accept this, however.

We also have a saying which suggests Jesus broke from the baptist and also Paul could have gone his own way.

Or maybe Jesus said God will intervene soon if we don't change our ways and with his rez experiences and Paul this became or was turned into an imminent return of Jesus and judgement by God? The general resurrection and the end of all thigns...yadda yadda. I have no idea. This is a compelx issue to me. I can't resolve it at this time, however.

I lean towards Jesus being mistaken on the timetable however.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

Agreed.

I didn't get the impression Crossan considers either to be "more authentic" but I do consider the argument for the split to be the best evidence for considering GTh to be, at least in part, contemporary with Q.

I think it is difficult to tell whether we are dealing with a genuinely apocalyptic Jesus or later rejected followers retrojecting the anger.

Agreed again. Mark this down as a subject we should not discuss in the future due to boring agreement.

I certainly get the impression from Paul's letters that his expectation of an imminent End was based on his consideration of the resurrection appearances as "first fruits" of the End Times general resurrection. I don't get the sense from his letters that the TJC had the same feeling of urgency.

Vinnie

I didn't get the impression Crossan considers either to be "more authentic" but I do consider the argument for the split to be the best evidence for considering GTh to be, at least in part, contemporary with Q.

I meant for the split Crossan was dependent upon a work by either Patterson or Arnal.

I certainly get the impression from Paul's letters that his expectation of an imminent End was based on his consideration of the resurrection appearances as "first fruits" of the End Times general resurrection. I don't get the sense from his letters that the TJC had the same feeling of urgency.

But E.P. Sanders reconstructs a saying from Paul:

Sanders: If Jesus expected God to change the world, he was wrong - is by no means novel. It arose very early in Christianity. This is the most substantial issue in the earliest surviving Christian document, Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians. There, we learn, Paul’s converts were shaken by the fact that some members of the congregation had died; they expected the Lord to return while they were still all alive. Paul assured them that the (few) dead Christians would be raised so that they could participate in the coming kingdom along with those who were still alive when the Lord returned. The question of just how soon the great event would occur appears in other books of the New Testament. A saying in the synoptics (discussed more fully below) promises that ‘some standing here’ will still be alive when the Son of Man comes. In the appendix to the Gospel of John (ch. 21), however, Jesus is depicted as discussing an anonymous disciple, called ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’, with peter: ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?’ The author then explains, ‘ So this rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?�’ (John 21.21-3).

The history of these adjustments to the view that God would do something dramatic while Jesus’ contemporaries were still alive is fairly easy to reconstruct. Jesus originally said that the Son of Man would come in the immediate future, while his hearers were alive. After his death and resurrection, his followers preached that he would return immediately - that is, they simply interpreted ‘the Son of Man’ as referring to Jesus himself. Then, when people started dying, they said that some would still be alive. When almost the entire first generation was dead, they maintained that one disciple would still be alive. Then he died, and it became necessary to claim that Jesus had not actually promised even this one disciple that he would live to see the great day. By the time we reach one of the latest books of the New Testament, II Peter [dated circa 130 Ad], the return of the Lord has been postponed even further: some people scoff and say, ‘Where is the promise of his coming?’ but remember, ‘with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (II Peter 3.3-8). The Lord is not really slow, but rather keeps time by a different calendar.

This is the same progrssion I have outlined several times here.

Hre are the sayings:
. . .
1 Thess 4.15-17 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left untill the appearance of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a command, with the voice of an archangel and with a trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be snatched up with them in the clouds to greet the Lord in the air.

Matt. 24.27g. The sing of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming on clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a trumpet of great voice, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one side of heaven to the other.

Matt. 16.27f. The Son of man is about to come in the glory of his father with his []i]angels[/i], and then he will repay each according to his or her deeds. Truly I say unto you, there are some of those standing here who l not taste death, until the see the son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Sanders: Paul and Matthew have essentially the same component parts. If we delete from Paul's version of the saying his new concern about the dead in Christ, if we deleted from the synoptic saying the apparent modification that only some will still be alive, and if we equate 'the Son of man' in the synoptics with 'the Lord' in Paul, we have the same saying.�
Sanders goes on to argue that the most likely explanation for the constant revising by Christians on this issue is that the idea of an immediate return goes back to Jesus himself. One page 182 he articulates the notion that “scholars who try to ‘test’ the sayings of Jesus for authenticity will see that this tradition passes with flying colors.�

But for opposition see Crossan @ 243-246 of THJ.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

I think Crossan has it right. The textual evidence suggests the phrase is originally used as an indirect self-reference and is only later applied with an apocalyptic meaning by post-resurrection followers.

I also think Sanders completely ignores the glaring problem that Paul never uses this phrase by fabricating a connection to "Lord" in Paul's letter. Once again, we are confronted with a disconnect between conceptions of the historical Jesus and the contents of Paul's letters.

Vinnie

Crossan raises valid points but I noticed a blatant flaw in his methodology here.

Vinnie