Nomad

Yes, I believe that Mark, John and Paul are independent of one another.

Nomad

Dialogian

Vinnie,

In one of your Dec 5 posts you stated:

Yes, you did say as much. On your site it says:

This portion was also quoted in Vorkosigan's first Dec 5 post.

You include no qualification in the above passage, such as "Many of these come from...." You might want to add one.



--Dialogian

Vinnie

Thats what the big fuss is about

yeah, yeah, we all know Mt and Lk were depdnent on Mark but we also know they had indepdnent material of their own that went into their Gospels (e.g. Special L and M for starters). I also mentioned Q seven or eight times in the paper!

I'll alter the wording slightly with the next update. I'll add "(or have indepdnent strands)" right after the statement.

Vinnei

Amaleq13

1. Sanders appears to have arbitrarily chosen the D.O.B. suggested by Matthew over that suggested by Luke (i.e. 6ce) but Paul offers nothing to support either. There does not appear to be any legitimate basis for reading that information into Paul.

4. Paul reports that the Risen Christ appeared to men whose names are elsewhere assigned to disciples of the living Jesus. Paul, himself, makes no such identification. There does not appear to be any legitimate basis for reading that information into Paul.

9. There are no disciples described in Paul’s reference to the origins of the eucharist tradition. This information is obtained elsewhere and, again, there does not appear to be any legitimate basis for reading that information into Paul.

11. Paul offers nothing explicitly supporting this very specific claim but his identification of crucifixion as the mode of death requires and, thus, implies Roman responsibility.

From Sander’s list, only number 11 can be said to be “found” in Paul’s letters and the actual state of the evidence supports a more general claim of Roman responsibility than the specific identification of Pilate’s personal involvement.

14. Paul tells us that the Risen Christ appeared to a group called “the twelve” but there is no indication that these were disciples of the living Jesus. There does not appear to be any legitimate basis for reading that information into Paul.

15. Paul’s gospel claims that the Risen Christ is coming soon but where is it described as a “return”? Regardless, the claim is made about the Risen Christ and not about an historical man. This cannot be considered evidence of an historical Jesus.

16. James is called “brother of the Lord” not “Jesus’ brother”. There are good reasons to question the authenticity of this phrase and, assuming authenticity, good reasons to doubt that it was meant literally. At the very least, argument is required to establish that Paul could not possibly have been using Lord to mean “God” or could not possibly have been (in agreement with Origen) using a title based on the piety of James.

17. Cephas is named as the first to have witnessed the Risen Christ but is never described as a follower of the living Jesus. There does not appear to be any legitimate basis for reading that information into Paul.

19. First, Paul appears to be relating a revelation from the Risen Christ rather than a remembered teaching of the living Jesus. Second, somebody doesn’t have it straight because Matthew’s version includes an exception (i.e. fornication) where Paul’s unequivocally denies that a man may divorce his wife. Either way, there is no good reason to assume this pronouncement came from the living Jesus.


Thus, there is only one undisputed example of “shared information” and that depends upon the implied responsibility of the Romans given a crucifixion. The other example, as mentioned, is arguable but has the most potential for establishing an historical Jesus in Paul. Unfortunately for those who wish to declare historicity confirmed, there are good reasons to question the authenticity and, if authentic, to question how literally the title was intended. The historicity of Paul’s Jesus boils down to a 4-5 word phrase that could be an interpolation or could have been intended non-literally. What is clear is that the claim that Paul contains historical information about Jesus is drastically overstated. I would suggest that the conclusion describe in the quote above was actually obtained from a body location much lower and significantly more entrenched that the upper cranium.

Yuri Kuchinsky

No it doesn't!

Such material could also have been added to "Paul's letters" at a much later date.

Yuri.

Vinnie

Amaleq13, Grab a dictionary and open it up to "circa". Look uo the word (abbreviated as c.) and then retract statement one.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Why not? Cause they are slightly different? Please! The argument is not that Jesus said either statement exactly as recorded. The independent multiple attestation of sources and forms (given also Paul is no creator of HJ Material!) of this first stratum datum makes it highly probable that Jesus taught something on divorce.

Vinnie

Vinnie

and IIRC there are two forms of the saying found in Matthew!

Amaleq13

No.

The D.O.B. suggested by Luke is 10 years after the death of Herod. A decade might an acceptable margin of error for dating texts but not for dating the birth of Jesus and claiming support for it in Paul.

The point stands that Paul offers no support for either date. It has no place in your argument.

Amaleq13

Either way, there is no good reason to assume this pronouncement came from the living Jesus.

Paul asserts a revealed teaching from the Risen Christ about divorce. Some 30-odd years later, the author of Matthew either repeats it or adds an exception.

There is still no good reason to assume "this" (whichever one we arbitrarily decide is genuine) pronouncement came from the living Jesus.