RUmike

What I gathered from your earlier post(s) was that Matt and Luke are just reworks of Mark and so offer nothing useful in figuring out the historical Jesus. This is patently false, as plenty of material in Matt and Luke did not come from Mark. Here are some sayings which I find have at least a reasonable claim to authenticity (some stronger than others).

- Love your enemies (Mt 5:44 // Lk 6:27, source: Q)
- Turn the other cheek (Mt 5:39, source: Q)
- Give your coat also (Mt 5:40, source: Q)
- The Parable of the Samaritan (Lk 10:29-37, source: L)
- No one born of a woman is greater than John (Mt. 11 // Lk 7:28, source: Q, and Thomas 46:1, earliar version is almost definitely Q)
- Jesus a glutton and a drunk, a pal of toll collectors and sinner (Mt 11:19 // Lk 7:34, source: Q)
- Parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:11-32, source: L)
- Son of Adam has nowhere to lay his head (Mt 8:20 // Lk 9:58 // Thom 86, sources: Q and Thomas)
- Let the dead bury their dead (Mt 8:21-22 // Lk 9:59-60, source: Q)
- Days when you won't see the son of man (Lk 17:22, source: either L or Q)
- Congratulations to the poor, the KoG belongs to you (Lk 6:20 // Thomas 54, sources: Q, Thomas)
- Take the timber out of your own eye first (Mt 7:3-5 // Lk 6:41-42 // Thomas 26, sources: Q, Thomas)

Didymus

Etc.

Both Q and Thomas are sayings collections; neither contains significant information about Jesus' life. The dating of Thomas is highly conjectural; many scholars date it to the 2nd century and think that many of its sayings are either gnostic inventions or gnosticized versions of sayings which had earlier appeared in M,M,L&J. Neither Thomas nor Q has been accepted by any major Christian denomination as historically accurate. There is no consensus; many Christians consider Q to be merely hypothetical and Thomas to be historically inaccurate because it misquotes Jesus by giving him heretical utterances.

Perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough, but my original intent was to say that the only independent first century source of information we have about Jesus' LIFE was Mark, and that there is no first-century evidence to support Mark's biography of Jesus as historical fact. (There may be dependence issues with Mark, too. We don't know for sure. In any event, I do not accept the proposition that Paul's biography-free gospels confirm the historicity of Jesus. Nor do I think the Testamonium Flavinium or any variation of it was written by Josephus. And even if Josephus did say SOMETHING about Jesus, there's no evidence that it came from non-Christian sources.)

I certainly wasn't thinking of the Q/Thomas sayings and pericopes as historical; it's hard enough for me to get my head around the historicity of JESUS, let alone the historicity of sayings that have no historical reference points and which could have been floating in the oral tradition for decades, if not centuries, before they were transcribed by the authors of Q and the synoptics.

To reiterate the statement that seems to have gotten this particular ball rolling:

As far as we know, in the first century, the "historical" Jesus was overlooked by everyone but Mark! So it was MARK'S GOSPEL that was taken note of, not a man who matched his description of Jesus.

Didymus

RUmike

I personally think the most significant information to be known about Jesus is his system of ethics, views on God, etc, which is exactly what the sayings offer. You apparently were looking for biographical information (e.g. was born here, lived there, did this and that).

I don't understand this statement. Q is, by definition, simply the source of the material common to both Matt and Luke that cannot be found in Mark. Therefore, Q is already part of the canon. It represents more than half of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the synoptics. Which Christian denominations don't accept that material as "historically accurate"?

Fair enough. I agree there is no good reason to find much of Mark's narrative as fact, except maybe for some key items such as the baptism by John. It just seems that you completely disregard all the sayings as having nothing to do with the historical life of Jesus simply because they are not biographical facts such as where he was born or the year he died. However, it is the sayings of Jesus that would truly define him, and so it seems to me that Q was quite interested in the historical Jesus.

Didymus

Yes. With pitfalls of oral transmission and transcription, and the apparent propensity of early writers to put words in the mouths of the great, e.g., the speeches "recorded" by Thucydides, I put virtually no credence in the attribution of any such sayings, let alone those of a figure whose historical attestation is so faint.

You're right, of course. I meant that it's not universally recognized as having predated the synoptics.

In any case, once you cull out all the dependencies, including those on the LXX, there is scant first century evidence of the life and deeds of Jesus.

Didymus

Doug Shaver

Yes, I can, but must I bother to? Are you really trying to say that there are none?

I have no interest in a proof-texting duel. Christians who believe the Bible to be God's inerrant word cannot agree among themselves on what it says about anything, including the divine nature of Jesus of Nazareth, but the notion that Paul affirms his godhood is not exactly a heresy.

But I'm not trying to be evasive. I'm just trying to avoid unnecessary work. If you will declare your agreement with this statement, I'll dig up some citations: "Paul nowhere suggests that he thinks Jesus is a god."

RUmike

Yes, I agree with that statement. Now please convince me otherwise.

Doug Shaver

OK, those writings are later than Paul's, so they are not among the earliest Christian writings. Why should we think they document the beliefs of Christians who were contemporary with Paul, rather than of Christians who were contemporary with their authors?

Paul's, mainly.

Well, let's see. Can you quote some first-century Jews talking about Moses the way Paul talked about the Christ?

Whether they thought he was a god seems to hinge on interpretation of the writings. All I can say about my interpretation is that it seems reasonable to me, not that it is the only one that could possibly be correct.

If it is correct, though, I think it is a strong argument against a historic Jesus. I think it quite improbable that a group of Jews, large enough and influential enough to deflect the course of Western history, would have come to believe that any man was God incarnate. I think it very unlikely that a noticeable number even of gentiles would have gotten such a notion, but anyway I don't see a plausible hypothesis that combines a historical Jesus with a gentile origin for Christianity.

Doug Shaver

If that's what this debate is about, then I'm conceding right now. You win, I lose.

For the lurkers' benefit, though, I'll do the research and post some citations in the morning.

Amaleq13

What about God's Wisdom incarnate?

Chris Weimer

We can examine Paul as well, but I implore you to have a closer look at what I actually wrote, especially the first link.

What specifically in Paul are you referring to?

That's a Red Herring. Jesus was purpoted to be the Messiah and Son of God. I thought we were talking about divine aspects of a personage?

I'm willing to listen. What passages are you referring to?

Let's take it a step at a time, shall we? Does Paul think that Jesus is God incarnate?