Vorkosigan

Hi Vinnie! I am moving this here to start a new thread later. One thread at a time.

_______

"""""""Yes, there was no oral tradition at all. At least, there is no evidence for one. """"""

The movable gospel pericopes and all the pregospel sources evident in them, and the sayings source(s) behind the double tradition and the saying source(s) behind GThomas.

See sections 2b and all of section 3 on the Gospel of Mark study I have started:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/mark.html

The material underneath Mark and all these other sources points directly to an oral stage. Even Papias demonstrates knowledge of the oral era. Problem is we do not know much about it. The Gospel of Mark, written ca 70C.E. shows evidence of it.

For Jesus disciples you state:

""""There is no evidence that Jesus had followers in his own lifetime, outside fictions.""""""

This is not demonstrating your point at all. Contemporary, primary source data is not required. A first or second generation source is sufficient to demnonstate the existence of Jesus--which is by no means extraordinary.

Second there are no contemporary references to John the baptist. Double standards?

And you assert the Gospels are fiction.

First, Josephus has lots of purposefully false statements (claims to be Pharisee, baptists minsitry) and presumable, many theological ones as well and has mentions and appeals to the supernatural if I am not mistaken. Is he dismissable as mere fiction as well?

Certainly the passion narrative strongly reeks of fiction but there is still a tiny detectable core there and evidence of ongoing "passion prophecy" (see Crossan, who killed Jesus! EXCELLENT work!) which one must strain to argue stated with a non-existent figure.

Secondly, many of the pericopes are not easily dismissable as mere fiction. Yes, many have been reworked to fit current needs and thrown into a theological framework but there is garbled history in many of them (e.g. the divorce statement..see section 5b of Mark paper) and sources detactable behind a fair amount of Marcan material.

Finally, I note Thomas, the synoptic sayings source, Mark, the traditions about the Twelve, Traditions behind Acts (NOT a 2d century text!) and so forth all argue towards Jesus having followers.

Peter is attested independently in Thomas and Mark (Multiple Attestation of Source and Form!) explicitly in the context of a follower of the HJ. We may have special L and a few other sources mentioning Peter independently as well (John, Acts and so on).

Paul provides contemporary primary source data that Peter was a live actual person and was a pillar. As was James and this should also authenticate many of Jesus other followers. I can list the attestation for all of Jesus' followers if need be.

The fact that we have a first stratum source which proves (eyewitness--contemporary primary source data) all these figures so strongly multiply attested in the second stratum and on is sufficient.

You also appeal to Robin Hood again. This has been refuted more times here than asking why Christians didn't worship the place Jesus was crucified.

Robin Hood has nothing remotely like the source attestation as Jesus. If it does please list how the source material for Robin Hood and Jesus is similar enough to be compared in such ways.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Cool. THose were my thoughts above in response to the starred (***) statement uttered by Vork. I shall list some more stuff:

The Q Gospel or the Synoptic Sayings Source.

The source of all these sayings is consistent with a framework of oral preaching to Jesus followers. He said it, they and others remembered some and passed them on and small lists developed as was natural in the ancient world.

See also and specifically Q//Luke 10:2-12 which has mission instructions.

The Gospel of Thomas

GThomas, a late frst century, non-Gnostic (save a rudimentary form) text which has sayings of Jesus given to his followers. S the whole thing esp vv. 12 and 13. James is mentioned, Thomas, Matthew, Peter, Mary and Salome. Jesus is also presented with various Jewish opponents throughout.

Gospel of Mark
See the whole thing. As my above post show, we have all the pericopes in Mark which can easily be deconstructed into an oral stage starting with the HJ. Mark has a number of traditions in ca 70 c.e. about Jesus having followers.

Gospel of Luke

Luke has a lot of special material not found in the other Gospels which also traces itself back to this same type of oral tradition. Luke also has a different list of the Twelve than Mark's as there are no known redactional reasons as to why Luke would change the names. Thus, most of these disciples are attested as original followers of Jesus indepdnently attested by two lists from the firts century.

Gospel of John

See the whole thing, which even if dependent upon Mark, has independent traditions about Jesus' followers.

Josephus Partially Reconstructed Testimonium Flavianum and the James Passage.

The value of Josephus here is not greater than Christian texts. Josephus writes, in the reconstructed Testimonium Flavianum, that Jesus won over many Jews and Greeks. The hsitorical accuracy of the second half of this can remain open for present purposes. Also certain traditions in Josephus on Jesus may be able to be traced back earlier (e.g. Jame's death Jesus' brother, see Mark).

Special Matthean Material

If you subscribe to Q and not just a synoptic saying source(s) (which is mandatory regardless) then we also have this material.

Gospel of the Hebrews

Has synoptic type material and may date towards the end of the first century. It appears independent of the canonical Gospels but given that only 7 patristic citations are found we fully evaluate it. This is a possibility, however.

Gospel Egyptians
This mentions Salome. Possibly another texts coming from ca 100 C.E.

Papias

He also connects Peter with the historical Jesus and in case yo usay he got all this solely from Mark, preserves an independent continuation of casting Judas' death in horrible terms. Papais connects himself with those who heard the original Lord's disciples speak. Papias attests to ongoing oral tradition at the beginning of the second century.

The Gospel of Peter tends to preserve some eary material regarding the passion in it in places.

Pre-Gospel sources and lists (e.g. miracle list shared by Mark and John, signs source in John?).

Some sources are questionable and iffy but there is a very broad stream of first century tradition in favor of the notion that Jesus existed and had followers.


Epsitle Barnabas verse 5:9--14

9 but when he chose out his own Apostles who were to preach his Gospel, he chose those who were iniquitous above all sin to show that "he came not to call the righteous but sinners," -- then he manifested himself as God's Son.
10 For if he had not come in the flesh men could in no way have been saved by beholding him; seeing that they have not the power when they look at the sun to gaze straight at its rays, though it is destined to perish, and is the work of his hands.
11 So then the Son of God came in the flesh for this reason, that he might complete the total of the sins of those who persecuted his prophets to death.
12 For this cause he endured. For God says of the chastisement of his flesh that it is from them: "When they shall smite their shepherd, then the sheep of the flock shall be destroyed." 13 And he was willing to suffer thus, for it was necessary that he should suffer on a tree, for the Prophet says of him, "Spare my soul from the sword" and, "Nail my flesh, for the synagogues of the wicked have risen against me."
14 And again he says: "Lo, I have given my back to scourges, and my cheeks to strokes, and I have set my face as a solid rock."


The sheep of the flock being destroyed supprots the notion that Jesus had followers. We note that in the synoptics when they shepherd was struck the sheep scattered.


Let us now List Some Specific Followers of Jesus and their attestation:

Peter 5x-6x (Paul, GThomas, GMark, GLuke's List of Twelve, GJohn, Special L (5:1-11)).
James (brother Jesus), Josephus, Mark and Paul (At least CPD that was real person).
John 3x-5x (Paul with Acts confirming, GMark, GLuke's List of Twelve, and GJohn confirming Zebedee).
Mary Magdalene 3x-5x (GMark, GJohn and GLuke 8. Also Paul and GThomas mention an unspecified Mary)
Unspecified Mary (see above) 1x-3x (GMark and Paul and GThomas mention an unspecified Mary
Salome 2x-3x (GMark, GThomas and GEgyptians
Matthew 2x-3x (GMark, GLuke's List of Twelve and GThomas)
Thomas 3x-4x (GMark, GLuke's List of Twelve, GJohn and GThomas)
Andrew 2x-3x (GMark, GLuke's List of Twelve, and GJohn
James Zebedee = John's brother 2x-3x (GMark, GLuke's List of Twelve and Zebedee confirmd in GJohn)
Levi 1x-2x (GMark and GLuke's list of Twelve. Levi is also an toll collector potentially fitting the EmCrit.
Philip 2x-3x (GMark, Guke's List of Twelve and GJohn)
Judas Iscariot: 4x-5x ( or more) )GMark, Luke's List of Twelve, GJohn, Stray trdition behind Judas' death found in M and L and also Papias. The EmCrit also factors in here.
Philip 2x-3x (GMark, GJohn and GLuke's list of Twelve


Looking at Peter

Clement on Peter

I Clement mentions Cephas but doesn't explicitly connect him to the earthly ministry of an historical Jesus (aka he calls Paul an Apostle as well). But compare Chapters 16 and 42. He believes in an earthly Jesus crucified and who later appeared to his Apostles. He also mentions "burial". These similarities with the passion details lead one to most easily read Clement as having a human Jesus (and presumably) with followers.That the historical Jesus had followers should be called attested by Clement.. We know Clement was at least partially depdnent on Paul. He mentioned Paul's reference to Peter (Cephas) in Corinthians.

We do not press this as an indepdnent witness to anything more than the crucifixion of Jesus and the fact that he had disciples a la the crucifixion argument presented above.

Paul on Peter:

1 Cor 1:12: What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas[ 1:12 That is, Peter] "; still another, "I follow Christ."
1 Cor 3:22: whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas[ 3:22 That is, Peter] or the world or life or death or the present or the future–all are yours,
1 Cor 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas[ 9:5 That is, Peter] ?
1 Cor 1:5 and that he appeared to Peter,[ 15:5 Greek Cephas] and then to the Twelve.
1 Cor 15:3-5a "3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,
1 Cor 15:5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
Gal 1:18: Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[ 1:18 Greek Cephas] and stayed with him fifteen days.
Gal 2:7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews
Gal 2:8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.
Gal 2:9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.
Gal 2:11 "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong."
Gal 2:14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
**** 1 Cor 11:23-26: 23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

It may be contended that none of these verses explicitly connect Peter to an recently crucified historical Jesus. This of course is not probvative of anything because if this was common knowledge at the time we might not expect such a link (e.g. does Paul need to go around telling people Peter was an follower of Jesus?). Further, we see that all of Paul's references to Peter are very easily read with the backdrop supplied independently by numerous other texts.

Paul has several sayings of Jesus (e.g. divorce which is attested in several other independent sources), he has Peter as a pillar (see Acts and the Gospels), he has Peter receiveing resurrection appearances (see the Gospels), he has the Lord's supper tradition which makes little sense without actual disciples.

But for the mythicists, they must concede that Paul provides contemporary primary data that the existence of this Peter figure mentioned by Thomas, Mark, Barnabas, the Lists of the Twelve, John and all indepdnent traditions we can reconstruct underneath these sources was a real live person. These sources all mention Peter indepdnently as well. There is NO reason whatsoever not to connect him with an historical Jesus.


Peter and Gospels

There is a host of material on Peter in the Gospels. For now we note that there are two separate lists of the Twelve in the synoptics (Lk and Mk) and that it is our belief that the Gospel of John independently attests to Peter's status an an follower of an historical Jesus.

Much of the Petrine material is clearly attributed to Christian creativity (e.g. Peter walking on water). Others are more difficult to assess (e.g. Peter's mother-in law being healed, the denials?). What is important is that many of these traditions predates the Gospels.

The possibility that a special L tradition attests to Peter as an follower of Jesus must be noted as well (Lk 22:31-32). But this would require a lengthy discussion as scholars are divided on this issue ( See Meier, v 3, Marginal, pp. 238-242 = final judgment of non liquet).




Sources Which Mention Jesus' Family:

21. Matthean Infancy Narrative (Mary and Joseph)
22 Lucan Infancy Narrative (Mary and Joseph)
23. Mark (whole family)
24 John (cofirms Jesus had brothers)
25. Josephus (James)
26. Paul (James)
27. Gospel Hebrews (James)
28. Others include possibly: GThomas & EJude (James)

(Mind the numbers as I copied it from something else I was working on).

Miracle Lists and Sources

Q (has two miracles)
Mark (very broad spread, which must pre-exist this Gospel author, see especially exorcisms!)
John
Special L
Special M (if you accept two source)
Miracle source shared by John and Mark

Let us look at the exorcism material by Jesus in the synoptics:

1. Exorcisms by Jesus

a: Mark 1.23-8 // Luke 4.31-7 (Jesus heals a man in a synagogue in Capernaum)
b: Mark 1.32-4//Matt 8.16//Luke 4:41 (summary: he cast out many demons)
c: Mark 1.39 (summary also in Matt. And Luke, but they do not mention demons)
d: Mark 3:11// Luke 6:18 (summary)
e: Mark 3:20-30 // Matthew 12:22-37 // Luke 11:14-23 and other passages (Beelzebul controversy)
f: Mark 5:1-20 // Matthew 8:28-34 // Luke 8:26-39 (Gerasene demoniac)
g: Mark 7:24-30 // Matthew 15:21-28 (Syro-Phoenician woman)
h: Mark 9:25 // Matthew 17:18 // Luke 9:42 (epileptic child)
i: Matthew 4:24 (summary; ‘demoniacs’ not in Mark and Luke)
j: Matthew 9:32-34 (dumb demoniac)
k: Luke 8:2 (Jesus exorcized seven demons from Mary Magdalene)
l: Luke 13:32 (tell Antipas ‘I cast out demons’)
Notice that most of the exorcism material comes from Mark but there is some material not from Mark (special L and M) as evidenced by Lk 8 and Mt 9:32-34. This would make the notion that Mark invented Jesus exorcisms even more problematic than it already is! We could also point out two other headings:

2. Exorcisms Attributed to Others

m: Mark 3.15;6.7, 13; Matt. 10.1, 8; Luke 9:1 (disciples given authority to cast out demons or unclean spirits)
n: Mark 9.38 // Luke 9.49 (the strange exorcist)
o: Matt. 7.22 (hypocrites will point out that they cast out demons in Jesus’ name)
e: Matt. 12.27 // Luke 11.19 // Beelzebul Controversy above // (‘by whom do your sons cast them out?’
p: Luke 10.17 (the seventy [-two] report that demons were subject to them ‘in [Jesus’] name’
3. Other passages Revealing the Theory of Demon Possession


q: Matt. 11.18 // Luke 7.33 (some people say that John the Baptist had a demon
r: Matt. 12.43 // Luke 11.24 (description of the movement of an unclean spirit)

There is wide and early eattestation that Jesus was seen as a miracle worker. Paul mentions no miracles but twice mentions miracles in the capacity of people in the Jesus movement.

He was also writing to Christians which, if this broad spread of tradition is correct, this would have been common knowledge and not in need of teaching from occasional letters.

I think Jesus did work "exorcisms" and the evidence favors this. Notice that GJohn will not attribute such material to Jesus for whatever reason.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I think the strongest case for historicity is made here. A host of sources and forms (Thomas and Mark--compare narrative vs sayings Gospels) independently has figures like Peter, Matthew Thomas, Salome, James, Mary_M and numerous others being actual followers of Jesus. We have no reason to doubt the historicity of these figures and Paul even provides eyewitness testimony that some of them were real live people (whom he met and so does Mark by the saying "some wil lstill be alive"). If the followers of Jesus mentioned and necessitated by a host of independent second and third stratum material are accepted to be actual, real live people with contemporary primary source data (which they are!), them being actual followers of an historical Jesus is the natural conclusion--not that all this material was made up and spread into such a broad stream of the tradition as such an early date.

The HJ's followers were real people and we have all this real sayings material, parables, miracle workings, some narrative details and so on. There is no reason to deny a figure underneath it all.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

Paul, assuming the kerygma of 1Cor15 is authentic, writes about a man named "Peter/Cephas" as the first to witness the risen Christ and who was apparently considered a leader of a group of likeminded believers in Jerusalem. Neither he nor anyone else is never described or referred to by Paul as a disciple of a living Jesus.

Later, the author of the Gospel of Mark tells a story that has a disciple of Jesus named "Simon" who was given the nickname "Peter" by Jesus.

Later still, the Gospel of Thomas has a single saying (a second saying with "Peter" in it is understood to have been added even later) in which a man named "Simon Peter" is portrayed as a disciple of Jesus.

Upon what basis do you assume that these later depictions are historical when there is nothing to support them in Paul's letters?

Vinnie

Paul is not required to support them for their historicity. They support themselves through mulitple attestation along with all the other Peter traditions.

You again assume a straight line development from Paul to every other work. This erroneous methodology assumes Paul was uber-popular and influenced all streams of the tradition with his occasional letters (and preaching) that were not collected until around the beginning of the second century and not presumably, by all the Christian communities as a whole.

As noted, Paul is not required to state Peter is a follower of an HJ. In HJ circles this is obviously little more than common knowledge. I also doubt Paul was as popular in the first century as he appears to moderns today. No doubt he was somewhat popular but he was not an original and ran into much opposition and actually converted to an already existent movement. His brand just eventually won out in the long run.

GTHomas is first century text (both layers) but this is somewhat irrelevant since it is independent of the canonicals (this gives us source and form) and retains many early traditions and contains numerous mentions of Jesus' followers who are not mentioned in Paul but in Mark and other works independnently.

Your rebuttal is essentially this:

Paul is silent and doesn't state Peter and others followed an earthly Jesus.

My counter: Paul doesn't need to as evidence by the large number of independent Petrine traditions we have in second and third stratum trafitions.

When two groups indepdnently attest to something it logically predates both of them. Thus Peter being a follower of an HJ is ancient tradition. It certainly goes back well into the first stratum.

I also pointed out Paul was familair with sayings of Jesus (e.g. Divorce, last supper, et al).

This was (presumably) little more than common knowledge in Paul's Christian communities--communities who must have known about those reputed to be "pillars".

Vinnie

Amaleq13

Repeating a claim does not make the claim historical.

I make no such assumption. I am simply observing the evidence as it exists. Paul, our earliest evidence, describes a guy named "Peter" as the first witness to the risen Christ. The author of Mark later describes a guy named "Simon" but nicknamed "Peter" as a disciple of Jesus. I'm questioning your assumption that Paul also knew Peter as a disciple of the living Jesus. There is nothing in his letters that appears to support this claim.

Wrong again. All that is required is that Peter be well known as a leader of the early movement/belief system/Jesus cult. Paul depicts this figure as a contemporary he knew personally and even defeated in at least one argument. The authors of Mark and Thomas depict this figure as a disciple of Jesus. That the latter two may have created this depiction independently is hardly an incredible leap. Unlike Paul, both also depict Jesus as actively teaching so it would seem the obvious choice to portray the earliest leaders of believers as the folks being taught.

No, but it would make your argument credible. As it stands, we have no reason to assume that Paul thought any such thing.

It is a common assumption based on an initial assumption of an HJ.

Those are not sayings of a living Jesus but revealed knowledge from the Risen Christ.

Vinnie

Wrong again. All that is required is that Peter be well known as a leader of the early movement/belief system/Jesus cult. Paul depicts this figure as a contemporary he knew personally and even defeated in at least one argument. The authors of Mark and Thomas depict this figure as a disciple of Jesus. That the latter two may have created this depiction independently is hardly an incredible leap. Unlike Paul, both also depict Jesus as actively teaching so it would seem the obvious choice to portray the earliest leaders of believers as the folks being taught.

If we keep Paul on the line as capable of going either way which is what a true silence would do here (I do not agree with the silence itself though but am granting it for argument sakes) then on historical grounds, the independent witnesses spread across so many traditions for so many followers of Jesus lead only to one conclusion. Many start occuring occur only slightly after the time of Paul and show no dependence on Pauline letters and the fact of so much tradition and different witnesses of independent sources and forms shows how very ancient this material is.

The material about all these people being followers of Jesus would have to have been massively created by a number opf authors. Not to mention we have all this tradition in THomas, the synoptic sayings source, Mark, Special L and so on which need explaining. All our sources call this Jesus material.

You simply want to find a lack of details in Paul and then imagine eveyone made all this stuff up within two decades after Paul's existence. THomas materials are attested in the synoptic sayings material which means your argument must revert to there was all this material floating around of which a non-existent person was attached to by a large number of independent sources. The "they made it up" works for the passion narratives when you are talking for me, but not the other individual pericopes and sayings material or any of the embarrassing details.

Your theory struggles incredibly with all the data here as we have it and you have to revert to special pleading like "Jesus" was added to Thomas later which is the silliness Doherty reverts to here. Reading your vew into the texts is different than gleaning it from the texts. Basically you want to erase Jesus from the Jesus material that we have from Christian texts in the first century and there is no valid reasons for doing so.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

I don't consider Paul "silent" with regard to Peter. I find him to be either deliberately avoiding making any reference to anyone as a former disciple or being totally ignorant of any such tradition. As I've mentioned in other threads, I also find it difficult to reconcile his dismissal of the relevance of the "pillars" reputations with that reputation being founded on their prior close relationship with the living Jesus.

The number of "indepdendent" witnesses seems based on the somewhat tenuous grounds of discerning traces of earlier material within extant Gospels as well as assuming oral traditions that cannot be confirmed. Crossan, in The Birth of Christianity, tried to tease evidence of an oral tradition out with a consistent methodology and he was not impressed by his own results.

Massively? That is "somewhat" of an exaggeration.

Sticking with the focus on Peter, Thomas has one saying naming him as a disciple, Q offers no names for any disciples, and the author of Luke is clearly aware of the contents of Mark. I think Crossan makes a good argument for understanding Q and Thomas as splitting from a common origin but I question the confidence with which you date the latter. What details it acquired over time and when would seem to be significant.

My alleged "wants" are not relevant to the lack of details that are evident in Paul. I don't see this "everyone" you keep talking about. I see the author of Mark and possibly the author of Thomas choosing to portray the Jerusalem leaders as disciples. Subsequent authors followed suit.

The disciples are not named in Q. In one saying of Thomas, a disciple is named "Simon Peter".

Continually reasserting the existence of "embarrassing details" does not constitute a rational argument.

The fact remains that 75% of the sayings in that collection are simply attributed to Jesus with either "he said" or "Jesus said" stuck onto them.

That is completely untrue and you should know better. I'm just trying to understand the texts as they were intended. I can't and won't join you in pretending that adding up the number of authors who use the name "Peter" is meaningful when that figure is clearly not portrayed the same way in their texts. That said, I'm still entirely willing to accept rational arguments that there was an historical figure whose identity has been severely distorted by subsequent theologies. I'll let you know when I run into any that I consider sufficiently credible.

Vinnie

Bumpity Boo.