Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 09-30-2009, 11:14 AM

Let's see how many independent sources we can come up with regarding Jesus.

I'll start with Mark and Paul, though I think one knew the other.

So that's maybe 2.

show_no_mercy · 09-30-2009, 01:20 PM

Well Paul most certainly didn't know about Mark. But did Mark know about Paul? If so, that makes only one source - if Mark can be shown to be Pauline in theology.

TimBowe · 09-30-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Over the course of Christian history, probably the most religiously significant and theologically powerful account of Jesus life has been the Gospel of John. John say things about Jesus found nowhere else in scripture. A second rule of thumb that historians follow: accounts of Jesus that are clearly imbued with a highly developed theology are less likely to be historically accurate. The reason relates to our first rule of thumb later sources tend to be more theologically oriented than earlier ones, since the greater passage of time has allowed greater sustained theological refection. Over the course of the past fifty years, historians have worked hard developing methods for uncovering historically reliable information about the life of Jesus. As we’ve seen, we do in fact have a number of independent sources for the life of Jesus. It is probably safe to say, for example that Mark, the apostle Paul, and the authors of Q, M, L, and John all wrote independently of one another. Moreover, we have seen that the Gospel of Thomas, possibly the Gospel of peter, and certainly Josephus were all produced independently of our other surviving accounts. This means that if there is a tradition about Jesus that is preserved in more than one of these documents, no one of them could have made it, since the others knew of it as well, independently. And if a tradition is found in several of these sources, then the likelihood of its going back to the very beginning of the tradition from which they all ultimately derive, that is, back to the historical Jesus himself, is significantly improved.

Bart D. Ehrman
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Toto · 09-30-2009, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Quote:

.... As we’ve seen, we do in fact have a number of independent sources for the life of Jesus. It is probably safe to say, for example that Mark, the apostle Paul, and the authors of Q, M, L, and John all wrote independently of one another. Moreover, we have seen that the Gospel of Thomas, possibly the Gospel of peter, and certainly Josephus were all produced independently of our other surviving accounts. ....

Bart D. Ehrman
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Q, M, and L are theoretical sources, based on the idea that Matthew and Luke wrote independently of each other, and each had a core set of unique facts, while sharing Q and Mark as sources. But I don't think that the unique material in Luke or Matthew give much of a description of Jesus; and the Q material is mostly sayings, not biography.

The Gospel of Thomas is not clearly independent, and has almost no biographical data; the Gospel of Peter shares a lot with the other gospels; and the passages in Josephus are probable Christian interpolations, so are not independent.

I think we're left with Mark and Paul.

show_no_mercy · 09-30-2009, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Quote:

Over the course of Christian history, probably the most religiously significant and theologically powerful account of Jesus life has been the Gospel of John. John say things about Jesus found nowhere else in scripture. A second rule of thumb that historians follow: accounts of Jesus that are clearly imbued with a highly developed theology are less likely to be historically accurate. The reason relates to our first rule of thumb later sources tend to be more theologically oriented than earlier ones, since the greater passage of time has allowed greater sustained theological refection. Over the course of the past fifty years, historians have worked hard developing methods for uncovering historically reliable information about the life of Jesus. As we’ve seen, we do in fact have a number of independent sources for the life of Jesus. It is probably safe to say, for example that Mark, the apostle Paul, and the authors of Q, M, L, and John all wrote independently of one another. Moreover, we have seen that the Gospel of Thomas, possibly the Gospel of peter, and certainly Josephus were all produced independently of our other surviving accounts. This means that if there is a tradition about Jesus that is preserved in more than one of these documents, no one of them could have made it, since the others knew of it as well, independently. And if a tradition is found in several of these sources, then the likelihood of its going back to the very beginning of the tradition from which they all ultimately derive, that is, back to the historical Jesus himself, is significantly improved.

Bart D. Ehrman
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

By this standard, Marcion's docetic Jesus is "independent", the Sophia of Jesus Christ is "independent", Arius' non-preexistent Jesus is "independent", the Albigenses' Jesus is "independent", ad nauseum.

If this counts as "independent", then why not list every single piece of Christian apocrypha and say they are all "independent" as well? Maybe it's just me, but independence implies simultaneity of traditions. The "independent" traditions (besides the hypotheticals like "Q") listed are all in different time periods in strict chronological succession. That doesn't preclude dependence.

Elijah · 09-30-2009, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Bart D. Ehrman
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium

Q, M, and L are theoretical sources, based on the idea that Matthew and Luke wrote independently of each other, and each had a core set of unique facts, while sharing Q and Mark as sources. But I don't think that the unique material in Luke or Matthew give much of a description of Jesus; and the Q material is mostly sayings, not biography.

The Gospel of Thomas is not clearly independent, and has almost no biographical data; the Gospel of Peter shares a lot with the other gospels; and the passages in Josephus are probable Christian interpolations, so are not independent.

I think we're left with Mark and Paul.

What about GJohn?

Toto · 09-30-2009, 04:51 PM

In the first place, GJohn is a bad choice for a historical source.

And the author of the fourth gospel shows some evidence of knowing Mark. I don't think it can be shown to be an independent source, although it is not such an obvioius rewrite as Matthew and Luke are of Mark.

We're really left with Mark as a source for most historical details about Jesus, and Paul as a debatable source for a few basic facts of Jesus' mere existence, such as the crucifixion.

aa5874 · 09-30-2009, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Well Paul most certainly didn't know about Mark. But did Mark know about Paul? If so, that makes only one source - if Mark can be shown to be Pauline in theology.

There is really no indication that the author of Mark knew any Pauline Epistles. The short ending of gMARK does not reflect that there was a Pauline character who had churches all over the Roman Empire and had claimed for DECADES that over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state.

Not one single author of the Gospels show any PAULINE influence.

The biography of Jesus in gMark is not from the Pauline Epistles. The geography of Judaea in gMark is not from the Pauline Epistles. The theology of Jesus in gMark is not from the Pauline Epistles.

The Pauline writers are not a source of Jesus, he did not even claim he saw Jesus before he was resurrected.

Elijah · 09-30-2009, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In the first place, GJohn is a bad choice for a historical source.

And the author of the fourth gospel shows some evidence of knowing Mark. I don't think it can be shown to be an independent source, although it is not such an obvioius rewrite as Matthew and Luke are of Mark.

We're really left with Mark as a source for most historical details about Jesus, and Paul as a debatable source for a few basic facts of Jesus' mere existence, such as the crucifixion.

Does John knowing Mark (if you did demonstrate that) automatically discount the text from being a historical source of information? The texts are different enough, portraying Jesus saying different things, in a different manner, that it would be difficult to claim that it was a straight rewrite, obvious or otherwise.

Do you have a link to what is considered sourced from Mark by John?

show_no_mercy · 09-30-2009, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In the first place, GJohn is a bad choice for a historical source.

And the author of the fourth gospel shows some evidence of knowing Mark. I don't think it can be shown to be an independent source, although it is not such an obvioius rewrite as Matthew and Luke are of Mark.

We're really left with Mark as a source for most historical details about Jesus, and Paul as a debatable source for a few basic facts of Jesus' mere existence, such as the crucifixion.

Does John knowing Mark (if you did demonstrate that) automatically discount the text from being a historical source of information? The texts are different enough, portraying Jesus saying different things, in a different manner, that it would be difficult to claim that it was a straight rewrite, obvious or otherwise.

Do you have a link to what is considered sourced from Mark by John?

Off the top of my head, the clearing of the temple and the Barabbas scenario. The temple clearing probably isn't historical, and the Barabbas scenario most definitely is not historical.

This is from a quick google search.

09-30-2009, 11:14 AM	#1
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Jesus H. Christ, how about those sources? Let's see how many independent sources we can come up with regarding Jesus. I'll start with Mark and Paul, though I think one knew the other. So that's maybe 2.

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

09-30-2009, 01:20 PM	#2
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	Well Paul most certainly didn't know about Mark. But did Mark know about Paul? If so, that makes only one source - if Mark can be shown to be Pauline in theology.

09-30-2009, 04:51 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	In the first place, GJohn is a bad choice for a historical source. And the author of the fourth gospel shows some evidence of knowing Mark. I don't think it can be shown to be an independent source, although it is not such an obvioius rewrite as Matthew and Luke are of Mark. We're really left with Mark as a source for most historical details about Jesus, and Paul as a debatable source for a few basic facts of Jesus' mere existence, such as the crucifixion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.