Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 05-12-2004, 05:01 AM

A question for those who think the Gospels can be used to derive historical facts about Jesus.

How many times did Jesus demonstrate in the Temple?

Please show your reasoning behind your answer.

GakuseiDon · 05-12-2004, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

A question for those who think the Gospels can be used to derive historical facts about Jesus.

How many times did Jesus demonstrate in the Temple?

Please show your reasoning behind your answer.

Do you mean against the money-changers? Once, from memory. My reasoning is that the Gospels referring to it mention it once.

Celsus · 05-12-2004, 05:40 AM

Couldn't we perhaps ask slightly broader questions about historical methodology?

Joel

Roland · 05-12-2004, 08:18 AM

Actually, the gospels mention Jesus doing it TWICE, if one accepts the historical validity of each of the four gospels.

The Synoptics record Jesus as doing it at the beginning of Passion Week, right after he enters Jerusalem.

John shows Jesus as doing this at the beginning of his gospel, YEARS before Jesus' alleged crucifixion.

Vinnie · 05-12-2004, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

A question for those who think the Gospels can be used to derive historical facts about Jesus.

How many times did Jesus demonstrate in the Temple?

Please show your reasoning behind your answer.

At least and presumably once since as Crossan, Sanders and others argue, it was linked to his death (but see Fredriksen in opposition). At any rate, Mark and John presumably had the same event in mind. This is axiomatic if John knows the text of Mark but also granted the examples of overlap between Mark and John we see that John had access to some of the same general traditions. So even if independent John is widely known to have placed it at the beginning so that it may serve as a vehicle for Christology.

Of course the exact timing of the event can stand until detailed argumentation is presented, but the point is both incidents are in all probability, the same event cast in different spots for theological purposes.

There is also a saying in Thomas (#71?) against the temple.

As far as methodology goes, I think I have the most detailed and comprehensive piece on the whole net in the works right now:

Here is the first draft of my new and improved discussion:

http://www.after-hourz.net/jesusmethod.html

I discuss Crossan's method, Meier's method, Crossan's criotique of Meier, the necessity of stratification and incventory, why the gospels can be used to mine for some historical details and so on.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 05-12-2004, 08:34 AM

A few excerpts in the section on Crossan and Meier:

Quote:

Crossan then lays out three objections: The first asks how those five criteria are theoretically based and two examples are introduced in regards to the first criterion. "There is a lot of very embarrassing material in Mark about the discples and relatives of Jesus, including, for example, the sworn denial of Jesus by Peter at his trial. Is that material historical from Jesus' time or editorial from Mark's purpose? Did Mark, in other words, polemically create that embarrassment for Peter and Jesus' main disciples?" (p.144)

Lest this is misinterpreted, Crossan uses the embarrassment criterion himself in relation to establishing 1) the crucifixion, 2) the baptism of Jesus and 3) the betraying of Jesus by a close confidant. Also we note that Crossan does exactly what he accused Meier of. Neither Judas nore the handing over of Jesus is explicitly mentioned in the first stratum (Paul's mention of Jesus being "handed over" could very well have had a "by God" connoitation with it and need not assume "a close confidant" or any relation with the "Judas" story whatsoever.

Crossan writes, in Who Killed Jesus (p. 71): "Judas's existence and betrayal are historical because Christians would have never made up such a character as one of their own and especially as one of the inner circle of twelve apostles. He is too bad to be false." On p. 75, "I accept Judas as a historical follower of Jesus who betrayed him."

On what grounds? The attestation of Judas in Mark and John, the independent versions of his death in Luke, Matthew and Papias, and also due largely due to the embarrassment criterion.

This meets only two of Crossan's own criteria. We include 'embarrassmnt in cross cultural anthropology because naturally it is a subset of this field. What was embarrassing to "them" might not be the same as what "we find embarassing". But we note that this detail is NOT found in any first stratum source, intracanonical or extracanonical.

Quote:

Another issue concerns Crossan and baptism. Crossan is on record saying that the baptism of Jesus by John is one of the surest things we can know about Jesus (see The Historical Jesus and Jesus A Revolutionary Biography). But does Crossan expect a consensus here? If so why? He feels the baptism of Jesus has first stratum attestation. Somehow he manages to date a completely non-existent work of which only seven shake patristic citations survive, not only as independent (direct and indirectly) of the six or so other later Gospels we now possess who mention the baptismal account (all dependent --ultimately--upon one source: Mark), but he also manages to date this largely invisible and non-existent text to the first stratum!

So if a sober scholar does not share Crossan's judgement of dating GHebrews to the first stratum, can we still call the baptism of Jesus by John very secure? Suppose we reject that Q ever had a baptismal account (as Crossan does over and against Meier and co.). Suppose we also reject that John (who doesn't narrate the baptismal account!) did not know it or knew of it ala the synoptic traditions (as Crossan believes over and against Meier and co.). Suppose also that we not Ignatius has two divergent explanations of the baptismal narrative. One is clearly dependent upon a Matthean redactional element concerning John so this casts suspicion on whether the other fourth stratum explanation of the baptism should really be seen as totally indepdnent of the synoptic accounts--specifically the Matthean version whic his dependent upon Mark.

So in reality, we have a second stratum source (Mark)that mentions the baptism of Jesus. We have no solid multiple attestion here outside of difficult to substantiate manuvering (e.g. John, Q Ignatius etc).

Does Crossan really expect consensus here on this tradition with his methodology? He affirming of this tradition, which is deemed the securest of any that we possess, largely is predicated on ithe imagination that a non-existent text is first stratum and independently preserves the baptismal narrative.

We grant that it is possible Q knew a baptismal narrative, we grant it is possible GHebrews was indepdnet of the synoptis here based upon the meager 7 citations that surive, we grant it is possible and even likely John knew the baptismal narrative (given JBap at the beginning of his narrative despite never narrating a baptism), we grant John knew this possibly independently of Mark, we even grant Ignatius may have possibly had access to an indepnent tradition. All of these statements of "may" and "possibly", at best, lead to a weak argument from the multiple attestation criterion. Chief in the case of the baptist then, is a single individual criterion: embarrassment. We also note that given John's preaching in Q and some sayings of Jesus on John they must have had some sort of relation. Rather, a confirming argument can be built into this in a round about way. What we have is embarrassment and coherence with all the Christian apologetics. The apologetics being the Lucan infancy narrative, those evident in the baptismal narratives themselves (which were retained by later evangelists after Mark), the fact of John's preaching in Q and three units (discussed here) found in early Christian writings: 1. GThomas 78, Q//Luke 7:24-26, 2. Mark 2:18-20 and Q 7:33-34 and 3. GThomas 46 and Luke 7:28.

Se we have embarrassment and a weaker argument from coherence and an even weaker argument from multiple attestation. In light of issues like these I am not totally sure I understand Crossan here. What is he actually objecting to? That other scholars use the same basic tools as him but come up with different interpretations? If Crossan wants to critique how Meier applied this Criteria he is free to do so, but how does he use them himself yet critique others for doing precisely this?

Quote:

Also on p. 173 in the context of multiple attestation Meier writes, "Once again, we are reminded that that no criterion can be used mechanically and in isolation; a convergence of different criteria is th best indicator of historicity."

Of course, many scholars deviate from this principle when it comes to Jesus being a carpenter. Both Crossan and Meier are two of them! Crossan, in Jesus A Rvolutionary Biography designates a small haeding and section to Jesus' class based upon him being a tekton (pp.23-26). Up front he writes, "What does that admittedly single independent source tell us about family and carpentry?" (p.23) Though tentative Crossan clearly takes the affirmative here. Chief here is that this is stated in Mark by doubters in an antagonistic fashion agaisnt Jesus, its otherwise an incidental detail and Matthew softens it by having Jesus be the son of a carpenter. So here I would not three potential criteria from my listing above (common to friend and foe, incidental detail and a slight embarrassment and no negative criteria save possibly poor attestation but this is explicable given the slight embarrassment and incidental nature of the tradition). I do not need to deviate from my methodology to account for this tradition or the Judas tradition or the baptismal narrative. If we axe GHebrews Crossan would have to do this for all three [ hbaptism, betrayal by confidant and tekton]. So much then for scholarly consistency!

If we have good historical reasons for believing a tradition comes from Jesus then our methodology, which should be predicated on the same historical-critical grounds, should be able to include it. We should not have to suspend it.

Vorkosigan · 05-12-2004, 08:39 AM

Quote:

If Crossan wants to critique how Meier applied this Criteria he is free to do so, but how does he use them himself yet critique others for doing precisely this?

That, essentially, is my reading of Crossan. He talks a good line, but he suspends his methodology whenever he doesn't like its conclusions.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon · 05-12-2004, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

Actually, the gospels mention Jesus doing it TWICE, if one accepts the historical validity of each of the four gospels.

The Synoptics record Jesus as doing it at the beginning of Passion Week, right after he enters Jerusalem.

John shows Jesus as doing this at the beginning of his gospel, YEARS before Jesus' alleged crucifixion.

Yes, I think that's what Steve was wanting to bring up, and the whole question of movable pericopes and how that affects historicity. Not sure why he doesn't just ask directly. I just wanted to get the ball moving...

judge · 05-12-2004, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

A question for those who think the Gospels can be used to derive historical facts about Jesus.

How many times did Jesus demonstrate in the Temple?

Please show your reasoning behind your answer.

We don't know how many times, but it seems he is recorded as doing it at least twice. He seems to have been really pissed off about it though

so I suppose it may have happened on more occaisions.
If the money changers were making good money they probably returned to it once they thought Jesus had gone.

Then when Jesus showed up again he would have been pissed of yet again and done it again I suppose.

Toto · 05-12-2004, 06:56 PM

A question (or 2 or more) for those who think that Jesus cleared the moneychangers from the Temple:

1. What are the odds of single man, armed only with a whip of some sort, committing an act of such violence and disruption at a major institution and not being arrested and/or executed immediately? 1%? less?

2. How did this single lightly armed man clear out the Temple, which I understand was comparable to a football field? A few money changers together could have foiled him and wrestled him to the ground. End of disturbance, end of messiah.

3. What was Jesus' motivation? He claimed to want to uphold the law, and the moneychangers were a vital part of the law and the Temple administration.

4. Is it not more likely that "clensing the Temple" had some sort of symbolic meaning for early Christians, relating to clensing the body?

5. Given that this act probably never happened, why was Jesus crucified? Isn't that also more likely to have symbolic as opposed to historical implicatoins?

05-12-2004, 05:01 AM	#1
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Historical Methodology A question for those who think the Gospels can be used to derive historical facts about Jesus. How many times did Jesus demonstrate in the Temple? Please show your reasoning behind your answer.

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

05-12-2004, 05:40 AM	#3
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	Couldn't we perhaps ask slightly broader questions about historical methodology? Joel

05-12-2004, 08:18 AM	#4
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: California Posts: 748	Actually, the gospels mention Jesus doing it TWICE, if one accepts the historical validity of each of the four gospels. The Synoptics record Jesus as doing it at the beginning of Passion Week, right after he enters Jerusalem. John shows Jesus as doing this at the beginning of his gospel, YEARS before Jesus' alleged crucifixion.

05-12-2004, 06:56 PM	#10
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	A question (or 2 or more) for those who think that Jesus cleared the moneychangers from the Temple: 1. What are the odds of single man, armed only with a whip of some sort, committing an act of such violence and disruption at a major institution and not being arrested and/or executed immediately? 1%? less? 2. How did this single lightly armed man clear out the Temple, which I understand was comparable to a football field? A few money changers together could have foiled him and wrestled him to the ground. End of disturbance, end of messiah. 3. What was Jesus' motivation? He claimed to want to uphold the law, and the moneychangers were a vital part of the law and the Temple administration. 4. Is it not more likely that "clensing the Temple" had some sort of symbolic meaning for early Christians, relating to clensing the body? 5. Given that this act probably never happened, why was Jesus crucified? Isn't that also more likely to have symbolic as opposed to historical implicatoins?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.