Toto

aa5874 - it is not censorship to ask that you remain on topic. I will entertain splitting off your posts above, and will split off any futher comments along these lines.

Note that Jeffrey only presupposes a human Jesus who is behind the stories in the gospels. He does not assume that the Wilderness Temptation is a historical event. In fact, at p. 51, he explicitly says that the Wilderness Temptation is not historical, and is not based on historical events with even a minimal resemblance to the gospel story.

So if your only concern is the existence of someone who closely approximates the gospel Jesus, this thread is not for you.

Newfie

Presupposed that the devil was a real human being? I've never heard of that interpretation before. Of course, you’re right, anything could have happened to account for the gospel writers getting a hold of the story. You could just as easily plop Anderson Cooper and a CNN news crew on the site as well, but I think that the simplest answer is probably that the entire incident is mythical; a later evangelical invention to signify some deep Christian truth.

aa5874

I have definitely not shown in any way concern for the existence of one particular entity, but for the presupposition of historical existence for a wide range of entities in the Temptation stories.

I have been completely on topic.

I have not challenged Jeffrey's presuppostion that Jesus was a figure of history.

I have just asked that the Devil, God and the angels be treated as figures of history as was done to Jesus, bearing in mind, as can be clearly seen in Matthew 4.8-11, these characters are all mentioned in the Temptation stories.

JoeWallack

JW:
Oh you are too kind Toto.:

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/0MFwSOA...10%20Times.pdf

Page 50

JW:
Jeffrey does provide supposed evidence that "Matthew" and "Luke" have historicity behind their WT (Wilderness Temptation) stories. This contradicts his following conclusion which you provide above. Jeffrey provides little and no quality evidence though that there is any historicity behind these W's of mass temptation.

"There is no compelling reason to doubt the claim of Matthew and Luke that prior to engaging in a public ministry (and as a concomitant to his baptism), Jesus had some sort of experience in which his resolve to follow a particular understanding of faithfulness to the God of Israel was “put to the
test”.164" [emphasis mine]

Referring to Sanders is no basis for such conclusion regarding historicity (and the bold phrase even sounds like what Sanders would say) and neither is ten more references. All of the quality points Jeffrey makes himself in the following paragraph support the conclusion that there is no historicity.

Jeffrey has no general discussion here of historical methodology. What are the sources? What are the objectives? You can not construct this type of conclusion without considering the relationship and reaction to sources (especially "Mark"). "Matthew" and "Luke" may have some historical evidence but it can not be assumed. Jeffrey provides detail reasons to doubt any historicity in an individual story.

Jeffrey needs to make up his mind whether there is "minimal resemblance" to WTs. If Jeffrey continues to Assert:

1) "There is no compelling reason to doubt the claim of Matthew and Luke that prior to engaging in a public ministry (and as a concomitant to his baptism), Jesus had some sort of experience in which his resolve to follow a particular understanding of faithfulness to the God of Israel was “put to the
test”

2) It may even have taken place both in the particular locale

3) as well as within the context of, or after, and as arising from, a period of fasting

than there is "minimal resemblance" and for the most part the WTs have embellished with the Impossible.

Again though, you don't make conclusions of historicity without going through "Mark".



Joseph

HISTORIAN, n.
A broad-gauge gossip.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Toto

Joe:

Jeffrey's writing style is convoluted in the extreme, and he follows a pattern of stating various arguments, then discussing the reasons for rejecting them, then following other possibilities. I have barely touched this article, but I find that I need to read everything twice and then integrate the next few paragraphs' disclaimers and retractions, and perhaps diagram the sentences to sort out the subordinate and dependent clauses before I even dare to think that I might possibly have understood him. And even then. . .

But in this case at p. 51, Jeffrey goes on to say, after intimating that there might be some remote historican basis for the "WT"

and then Jeffrey gives some reasons that he does NOT view as good reasons, without actually rejecting them. . . and then says the best reason the "WT" is not historical is that it was all a dream anyway!

Then, of course, Jeffrey must argue against the claim that his putative Historical Jesus might possibly have related this vision to his followers, as opposed to the idea that it was a "church product." But he couches all of these arguments sympathetically, so if you don't continue reading, you would miss his reasons for rejecting them:

At this point, you might feel the need to come up for air, or perhaps a stiff drink. If American lawyers can learn to speak in plain English, why can't academics? Does Jeffrey have an editor? But if you push on, it does improve, except for that "not, not" connundrum:

A telling point, indeed. If Jesus had argued with the Devil, would he quote a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures?

At this point, on page 54, there are some blank spaces where I think some words have been dropped, and I can't quite make sense of what's going on. (Jeffrey?)

I hope this helps.

Jeffrey Gibson

Wherever did I speak of "mass temptation"?

So .. what is your reason [and what is the methodology you employ] for saying that Jesus did not experience at the outset of his ministry some kind of testing of his resolve to follow the path of Sonship he seems to have felt had been laid upon him at his baptism?

More importantly, aren't you confusing the question of the historicity of a pre-ministry testing experience with the question of whether this experience transpired in exact conformity with the the way Matthew and Luke set it out?

Why should I at this point when I am summarizing scholars views?

Objectives of what?

I do? Why? Because you (who have misread what I am actually saying when I use the expression "minimal resemblance") say so??

Whyt the silly capitalization of "assert"?

I'd be grateful if -- before you tell me imperiously what I must and must not do -- you'd actually read what I wrote (and what I was speaking of) when I used the expression "minimal resemblance".

Why? And how would "going through 'Mark'" help one way or the other in determining the historicity of the WT event? Are you saying Mk. 1:12-13 represents historical tradition?

In any case, please note that the issue of the historicity of all that is set out in Mt. 4:1-11//Lk. 4:1-13 is NOT my major concern even in the section of my article in which I deal with it. There I am focusing more on the sources of the tradition that we find in Mt. 4:1-11//Lk. 4:1-13 than on the historicity of all of its details.

How about focusing on the article's main theses -- that the "temptation" recounted in the WTS has nothing to do with enticement to sin (and why it is wrong to think it does) , that the WTS does not present Jesus as a thaumaturge, and that what the devil is "up to" is trying to determine whether Jesus is intent to follow the path of the servant/εἰρηνοποιός?

Jeffrey

Toto

You didn't, but the "temptation" to attempt a wordplay on WT or WMD = W[eapon]s of Mass Destruction was probably too great (the Devil made him do it.)

Jeffrey Gibson

Could you be more specific? The only blank spaces I see on p. 54 are in footnote 176.


Yes, thanks!

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Right. Too bad he thinks showing how "clever" he is trumps being accurate and/or justifies putting words in other people's mouths.

Jeffrey

Toto

What I see in the text near the end of p. 54 is

on the question of whether God actually demands, as Jesus thought and declared he did, that to be

a true Israelite, one must follow even unto death the path of the ei0 [blanks here to the end of the line]

compassion to those his adversaries (among whom his disciples sometimes numbered) deemed


The "ei0" before the blanks is epsilon iota ’