Ted Hoffman

Jeffrey,
How did you obtain this address? Sanders was recently on Duke TV on Jesus and Judaism yet the best James Todd can give me is Sanders' Duke's online directory email ad listed as is epsan@duke.edu, which expired in June 24 2005.
At any rate, the address above didn't yield any replies.

bacht

Sanders used the first two approaches in Jesus and Judaism I think.

#4 is the one I'm curious about. Is it still believed that the epistles pre-date the gospels? I know there is much debate about dating, but isn't there more speculation now about interaction between the two groups of texts, eg. epistles like Galatians responding to Acts?

aa5874

People can and will believe anything, but if you ask if there is any credible evidence to support the belief that the epistles pre-date the gospels, the answer will be a resounding "NO".

bacht

Well, I guess the issue is clouded by later editing/interpolation. Maybe the question should be: Are the core/primitive passages in the epistles earlier than any written gospel? Is there any evidence either way, other than the testimony of early church spokesmen?

I would hope that contemporary biblical scholars are less credulous about seeing the NT texts as pristine copies of autographs. The substantial apocryphal literature must make us wonder about the Xtian text "industry".

Ted Hoffman

I think the epistles pre-dating the gospels is all centered around mention of the destruction of Jerusalem. But I also think an argument can be made about the level of Christology in the epistles and in the gospels among other things.
There is also a general pattern of having a HJ appearing in later Xstianity - like Ignatian epistles etc so documents that don't reference a HJ are likely to be early.

Toto

It is generally agreed that Marcion used the Pauline Epistles, and that he put together the first "canon" which consisted of a stripped down version of Luke's gospel plus the Pauline Epistles.

The idea that the Pauline Epistles were written in the mid first century comes from the chronology of Acts, which is now not regarded as reliable history.

It is most probable that the Epistles and the Gospels all evolved (i.e. were edited and interpolated), and were all subject to revision in the first part of the second century. But I think you can make a case that the Epistles were earlier, based on references in other works.

Ted Hoffman

Crossley took a stab at the review. Sanders has not replied to any of my emails. Make of Crossley's remarks what you will.

CROSSLEY: I’ve made some comments on your review of Sanders. As it happens, I agree quite a lot with Sanders’ work on Jesus so I try to defend him in places below. On the other hand, I’ve got to say I’m a bit sceptical about getting any dates for Jesus’ birth from the infancy narratives because they are so obviously secondary and it is clear that Matt and Luke really didn’t know anything serious about Jesus’ birth.

JACOB: I would be interested in knowing how you determined that whereas they didn't know anything 'serious' about his birth, they nonetheless knew OTHER stuff about him. Why did they proceed to write stuff about his birth if they didn't know about it? On what grounds would we lend credibility to what they wrote on Jesus elsewhere?

Still, having the views on the historical Jesus that I do, I suppose Jesus being born roughly at the time suggested would make sense.

JACOB: Why?

CROSSLEY: Second para: do you mean 20th century?

JACOB: I mean 18th Century from Hermann Samuel Reimarus

CROSSLEY: On Meier, what do you mean bout miracles and resurrection? In terms of historical accuracy etc doesn’t Meier back off from the precise issue of whether they happened?

JACOB: I am not aware that he does that. Where?

‘Sanders relies on the canonical Gospels for his reconstruction of the historical Jesus without explaining why Paul does not speak of an earthly Jesus
in his several letters. Germane questions include: Why does Paul state in 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 that demons (arcontes) killed Jesus and not that Pilate
killed Jesus as narrated in the Gospels?’
CROSSLEY: I don’t think this is necessarily contradictory.

JACOB: Not contradictory; just questionable. Incomplete work, unturned stones, that kind of thing.

CROSSLEY: Plenty of people were able to view the ‘real world’ in terms of the ‘spiritual world’ (or whatever we want to call them). In at least some strands of early Jewish thought, nations had their representatives in the spiritual world. The Dead Sea Scrolls clearly have the overlap between spiritual and this worldly. Another comparison might be that satan was said to enter Judas who was still said to have betrayed Jesus (Luke 22:3; John 13:27). So I don’t think the issue of demons killing Jesus tells us very much one way or the other. Incidentally, as you probably know, twn archontwn (w = omega - I can’t seem to get it transliterated) of the age in 1 Cor. 2.6-8 can mean ‘the rulers’ on earth as well of course...

JACOB: If you are right (the overlapping view and all), you are obliged to adopt an agnostic position, not a historicist one.

‘Why does Philippians 2:8-11 say that a god humbled himself by taking the form of a man and dying and as a result was exalted by being named Jesus? Why does Paul totally fail to mention historical markers like Pilate and Herod while speaking of Jesus? Why is the Pauline Christ devoid of earthly markers like Nazareth, Bethlehem and Galilee?’

CROSSLEY: Simply because his interests were elsewhere.

JACOB: First of all, even if this were true (and it has not been demonstrated), it would not explain why he presents Jesus and presumably earthly activities (like the crucifixion) in purely mythological terms. And there are several incidences where Jesus Paul was involved in debate that could have easily been resolved by reference/quote to an earthly Jesus as a teaching authority, yet he did not.

CROSSLEY: Jesus the ordinary Galilean isn’t much to develop views and focus a new movement.

JACOB: This is assuming that Jesus was an ordinary Galilean, which has not been demonstrated. Plus, I thought you favored him as being an eschatological prophet? Were "ordinary Galileans" eschatological prophets who pilgrims spread clothes in roads for them to walk onto as they entered Jerusalem?

CROSSLEY: Paul presumably also had some kind of vision so after this it is not a surprise that he has lots on the heavenly Jesus.

JACOB: There are many incidences where he could have quoted a saying by an earthly Jesus but he keeps resorting to the Old Testament.

‘Why is it that almost every unit in the first gospel can be traced back to the Old Testament? These are questions that the Jesus Myth Hypothesis can answer more meaningfully than the mainstream position.’ This only tells us how Matthew framed his story. It says nothing on the issue of historicity, does it?

JACOB: It has not been demonstrated that the OT references are merely "frames." Around an actual story. Again, this would at the very leat leave you agnostic.

‘Sanders' historical criticism fails to recognize literary, tendenz, and redaction criticism.’
CROSSLEY: To be fair to Sanders, he has worked with such methods elsewhere and written intro stuff on the Gospels in such contexts.

JACOB: He does not apply them in his reconstruction so it doesn't help that he has written about them - unless you want to argue that they are not applicable here?. Its like someone involved in solving a problem that requires calculations and who does not do any calculations and explaining away that failure as "I have written math books".

‘He states correctly that Matthew likely "derived elements of the birth narrative stories from stories about Moses", and that both Luke and Matthew may have had no information regarding Jesus birth--and therefore resorted to "transferring" birth stories from the Old Testament into the Gospels. But then he simply sets these literary critical ideas aside and proceeds to extract "history" from the Gospels.’

CROSSLEY: I’m not sure why this is a problem?

JACOB: Nothing deters him from his task, thats what. He ignores problems with the sources and still proceeds to extract a historical Jesus from them without addressing the problems cogently.

‘He maintains, in the face of gathering difficulties, that "Something of the real Jesus was certainly preserved", and that, although the evangelists had
theological views, "nevertheless the Gospels contain material that the theological views did not create." - These are statements of faith since they
are not supported by evidence, and they betray that Sanders did not start his research with a blank slate.’
CROSSLEY: To be fair to Sanders, isn’t his book an outworking of a quest to sift through the theology, get back to early material which would thus be best attributed to a historical figure.

JACOB: It is, but it doesn't mean it can be done. If someone decided to write a book about alien abductions, if everything he has indicates there is no sufficient evidence that they happen, should he still proceed to lay out how they happen? IMHO, what matters is not what the book is about, but what is supportable by evidence and historical methods.

‘Instead, he presumes that the historical Jesus is the fountain that brought forth the Gospel narratives. This concept forms an axis around which all his
ideas circulate, and his conceptual and interpretive framework are ineradicably grounded by this basic but unfounded belief. Whether a historical Jesus existed is not at issue for Sanders in HFoJ, but his model of representation and interpretation is caught up in a rhetoric of historicist assumptions and tropes
that entirely control his logic. Alongside the alternative theory of a mythical Jesus, there is a question about what literary genre the Gospels can be grouped
under which would influence what Sanders can and cannot derive from the Gospels.’
CROSSLEY: Again, to be fair to Sanders, he has worked on such issues before (see Studying the Synoptic Tradition with M. Davis)

JACOB: Refer to the "math author" analogy.

‘Mark's portrayal of the disciples as ignorant clods, his reversal of the expectations of the disciples (Markan irony), and the use of doublets,
triptychs, and other literary devices, among other reasons (like deriving thematic units, speeches, and structure from the Old Testament almost
entirely), dispel the idea that Mark was writing actual history.’
Why? Plenty of contemporary historians use literary methods and skills. And structure has to come from somewhere… This is the same for anyone. Narrative and narrative structure for anyone, historian or otherwise, is inevitable.

JACOB: The problem with the gospels is almost everything can be explained as narrative structure /literary style hence it appears more likely to be a work of fiction. Which historical books have been written with literary styles like doublets? If you cannot cite examples, as I daresay you cannot, then you have no defense for Mark being historical.

‘He argues that "Son of God" designated one standing in a special relationship to God, and that early Christians did not view Jesus as a … Sanders is trying to argue away two blatantly conflicting genealogies, first by faulting Matthew and Luke for sowing the seeds of hybridism, and then quickly vindicating them for nipping the problem that they had created in the bud...The rest of his efforts are expended on valiantly downplaying the import of the virgin birth narratives (which he reminds us would have been heresy in creedal terms) and emphasizing that "Son of God" had no metaphysical connotations…At this point, Sanders is engaging in apologetics, not scholarship, and this is one of the lowest points in HFoJ. He focuses on one bit of the evidence and is wholly preoccupied with extracting an eschatological Jesus from the bricolage of myth and invention found in the genealogies and birth narratives.’

CROSSLEY: While I’m not so sure on Lukan and Matthean views of Jesus, I wouldn’t rule out Sanders so quickly. There is no hard development of a ‘son of God’ Christology in any strong sense. Old Testament figures were born in remarkable ways and rabbinic literature expands the details more dramatically. The term ‘son of God’ had (as I think Sanders mentions) a wide range of uses, from good Jew or king through to supernatural figures. Given the lack of Matt and maybe Luke expounding the details, I think Sanders could still be right…

JACOB: You express uncertainty on Lukan and Matthean views of Jesus then conclude by saying you still think Sanders is right. With respect, I think it would be more consistent to say something like, since you are not sure about Lukan and Matthean views of Jesus, you are not able to tell whether Sanders is right?

CROSSLEY: I’m also not sure why Sanders is ‘engaging in apologetics’? If anything, it is not a very Christian idea to suggest the Jesus of the Gospels is not really that much of an elevated figure.

JACOB: It depends on his brand of Christianity, whether he is liberal or conservative and so on.

On other aspects of Sanders’ book, it may be that Sanders is assuming conclusions from earlier work (e.g. his more detailed Jesus and Judaism). I
don’t have either of the books at hand, but from memory I seem to recall that I always believed Sanders was being a little tongue in cheek with his comment on the more ‘modest’ triumphal entry. I may very well be wrong and I’d of course have to check it but maybe it is worth you re-reading it too...?

JACOB: I have read it. Either way, he presents it as a historical event. That is what is at issue.

CROSSLEY: As it happens, it may be that he noticed that there are not particularly elevated claims made about Jesus (which Matt and Luke immediately rectify), and there is focus on the coming kingdom, which in turn may suggest an early view with less concern for Christology and so possibly back to Jesus. I don’t know and I can’t speak for Sanders but that would be one way of defending the historicity.

JACOB: An early view with less concern for Christology may lead back to Jesus? This is unclear.

CROSSLEY: Similarly on the Temple incident of Mk 11.15-17, where I think Sanders did get it wrong. I actually think there is a good case for an early passage here (perhaps Jesus, who knows) because it is not based on a replacement or anything like that. The passage looks to the ideal function of the Temple away from perceived economic exploitation (others e.g. Dead Sea Scrolls vigorously critiqued the Temple for perceived exploitation and one rabbi criticised the overcharging of sacrificial birds). Even the scriptural quotations fit neatly into this pattern: den of robbers and house of prayer for all nations. Incidentally, it may well be significant that the Isa reference mentions the importance of sacrifice. I say all this because the material has concerns that are not typical of what we know about earliest Christianity and are far more typical of interests of Jewish figures around roughly the same time. This again may suggest that we are dealing with early material.

JACOB: That may be so (early material) but it does not tell us about the historicity of the event; just that it was constructed from Jesiwh sources (the OT).

CROSSLEY: As for the problem with money changers, I don’t see that the objections necessarily carry weight. They were there and Jesus could have got angry. These things happen. But we simply don’t have enough detail to speculate e.g. that money changers would have wrestled with Jesus. What if there was a large crowd around him? What if the moneychangers were more concerned with the loss of money everywhere?

JACOB: That very concern would have made them restrain Jesus.

CROSSLEY: What if it were a small scale incident?

JACOB: No one would have noticed. It is not narrated as a small incident since the narrative claims that he "drove" the money changers out of the temple hence shutting down economic activity. You dont think you ought to address Paula Fredricksen's concerns at all?

CROSSLEY: Of course Jesus wasn’t ultimately left unmolested: this incident led to his death and the solution prevented a possible riot. Whether this is right or wrong, this seems to me a perfectly plausible explanation.

JACOB: Please note that you haven't done anything to address the objections? You simply erect your own set of questions. Plus this was a violent incident that would have drawn immediate reaction from the people involved from the moneychangers and the Roma soldiers on standby. You only talk of an ultimate consequence.

CROSSLEY: The lack of reference outside the gospels does not against its historicity.

JACOB: With this simple statement, you have declared as not useful Robert, E. Van Voorst's work, Jesus outside the New Testament.

CROSSLEY: Josephus may simply have been unaware of it and it is not really the sort of thing that Paul would have much interest in.

JACOB: These all need to be demonstrated, not just asserted.

CROSSLEY: Anyway, hope that gave you a different perspective and make of it what you will of course.

JACOB: Thanks for your time.

Ben C Smith

Thanks for posting this, Jacob. I wish to focus on two points:

Which ancient historians have you searched for doublets?

This is a non sequitur. References outside the gospels can be useful without being necessary to the case for an HJ. Utility is a broader concept than necessity.

Ben.

Ted Hoffman

Um, Josephus?
Generally true. But back to the discussion; this is a discussion on historicity and without them the Jesus of the gospels is ipso facto not Multiply Attested which impairs historicity.

Ben C Smith

Why the question mark? Do you not remember whether you searched Josephus or not?

Doubtless, however, in your search for doublets in Josephus, you encountered the numerous scholarly discussions that exist of the doublets present in Josephus. What did you mentally do with these discussions? Did you simply disagree that the doublets identified in Josephus were really doublets? Did you dispute their relevance to the matter at hand? (Were they, for example, the wrong kind of doublet?)

Furthermore, I think you will agree that searching a single author for doublets hardly satisfies a daresaying that one cannot produce any historical works containing doublets. Did you search other authors, too?

Does this not assume certain source critical results that are by no means uncontroversial? For example, does it not assume that John is dependent on the synoptics?

Ben.