gnosis92

www.earlychristianwritings.com

If so we have three early documents, perhaps on par with Paul, that attest of a historical Jesus. Granted these documents are themselves hypothetical constructs. The current Gospels may have used very early material.

Malachi151

Signs Gospel: No.

Q: If it even existed, possibly, possibly not.

pre-Markan: I used to think so, but now I think that the author of Mark invented the first passion narrative.

I think that the author of Mark invented the concept of a "life of Jesus".

gnosis92

The Signs Gospel lists the healing fountain as still standing so I think it is.

Malachi151

I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything, but the SG looks like a harmonization Gospel to me, harmonizing between the synoptics and GJohn.

Which came first, SG or GJohn? I don't know that anyone can say for sure.

If SG came before GJohn, I still think it came after GMark. Perhaps GJohn is based on SG + GMatthew + some other purely philosophical work that had no narrative of Jesus at all.

Or perhaps SG is a harmonization of GJohn and a synoptic. I haven't seen any detailed case on this issue one way or the other.

gnosis92

Evidently the signs gospel was what John's Gospel's Author used in writing his own fiction.

Malachi151

Perhaps. I'd have to see a detailed case for this. It may be true, I don't know. I do know that various Christians and historicists would like it to be true so that they can claim SG as an early tradition that shows Jesus existed.

A major problem with this, however, is that SG is highly mythological, almost purely dedicated to things that we can reasonably say aren't true, so that it could be considered a "witness" to anything I would certainly dispute.

I think it defiantly came after Mark, but other than that, I can't say for sure.

Ben C Smith

Signs gospel: Century XX.
Signs traditions: Many of them before 70.
Q (at least as we know it today): Century XIX.
Q traditions: Many of them before 70.
Passion narrative: If it existed, it was taking shape sometime in the forties. Hard to say exactly what was included and what was excluded, however.

The best evidence, IMVHO, for a passion narrative before Mark is that Mark himself presumes that the last supper was a Passover meal, but his source seems to presume that Jesus died on the day before the Passover meal that evening (thus agreeing with John). Refer to Meier, volume 1 of A Marginal Jew.

Every conclusion above is subject, of course, to vigorous debate.

Ben.

gnosis92

If this is correct, doesn't this pose problems for the MJ speculation?

Zeichman

Signs, by definition, is what John used, if one accepts its existence. Fortna lays out the definitive case for this, though Mack discusses it in Myth of Innocence (or via: amazon.co.uk) and Who Wrote the NT? (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Your objection about the historicity of the events in SG is irrelevant to the historicist claim. The presupposition of the generic identification of the document is what is in question. Plenty of implausible things have been attributed to historical figures.

As for the dating,
Q: seems to have been completed before 70, whether composed in stages, or from a variety of sources. Confirmation is found in 13:35 which states that the Temple will be "desolate;" this is to not say that it will be "destroyed." The Temptation scene, despite Mack's assertion otherwise, does not indicate any familiarity with the events of 70CE. I've yet to see any convincing basis to date Q's completion after 65 CE.

Signs: gnosis calls attention to the fountain, which would be important. The dating also depends on whether or not it made use of another, more primitive miracle source as Mack proposes. The existence of this document (both signs and the miracle source) are rightfully debated.

Pre-Markan passion narrative: I doubt that it existed, so I can't comment. Crossan's discussion is worth reading, though, if you're interested in a liberal-mainstream perspective.

gnosis92

I am referring to this:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/signs.html

"On the dating of the Signs Gospel, there is little to go on. The reference to the Pool of Bethesda as still standing in 5:2, even though it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE, suggests a dating before the year 70 CE or not too long afterwards. The latest possible date is set by its incorporation into the Gospel of John."

Here's the wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pool_of_Bethesda

A second pool was dug during the third century BC by Simon the High Priest. These pools were used to wash the sheep prior to their sacrifice in the Temple. This use of the pools gave the water of the pools a halo of sanctity, and many invalids came to the pools to be healed.

The pools are mentioned in the New Testament. In John 5, in the Bible, Jesus was reported healing a man at the pool. Its name is said to derive from the Aramaic language beth hesda, meaning "house of grace" -בית חסדא - Alternative renderings of its name include Bethzatha and Bethsaida.


Displayed in the west transept of St. Mary's Episcopal Cathedral in Memphis, Tennessee, this stone is part of one of the columns of the balustrade that surrounded the Pool of Bethesda.According to the Easton's Bible Dictionary Bethesda means house of mercy, a reservoir (Gr. kolumbethra, "a swimming bath") with five porches, close to the sheep-gate or market (Nehemiah 3:1; John 5:2).

Eusebius the historian (A.D. 330) calls it "the sheep-pool." It is also called "Bethsaida" and "Beth-zatha" (John 5:2, RSV marg.). Under these "porches" or colonnades were usually a large number of infirm people waiting for the "troubling of the water."

Prior to archeological digs it was identified with the modern so-called Fountain of the Virgin, in the valley of the Kidron, and not far from the Pool of Siloam and also with the Birket Israel, a pool near the mouth of the valley which runs into the Kidron south of St. Stephen's Gate.

In digs conducted in the 19th Century Schick discovered a large tank situated about 100 feet north-west of St. Anne's Church, which is, as he contends, very probably the Pool of Bethesda. But most archologist identify it with the twin pools called the "Souterrains," under the convent of the Sisters of Zion, situated in what must have been the rock-hewn ditch between Bezetha and the fortress of Antonia.