Amaleq13

I think I could have done a more thorough job of identifying that evidence by focusing on Paul's identification of his enemies:

1) ...called the crucified Christ cursed (1Cor 12:3)

2) ...denied the resurrection of the dead (1Cor 15:12)

3) ...taught another Jesus, another spirit, and another gospel (2Cor 11:4)

4) ...specifically identified as Jewish Christians (2Cor 11:12-23)

5) ...perverted the gospel of Christ (1Gal 1:6-11)

Surely all this cannot simply be the result of a dispute about circumcision? Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 5 seem to be referring to folks claiming to represent the same faith as Paul while number 4 specifically identifies them as Jewish Christians.

You seem to be returning to the notion of a mythical Jesus here. Not to sustain the tangent but I thought we already covered this in a previous discussion of mythicism. The time frame for the narrative is established by the timing of the resurrection appearances.

Unless I am mistaken, the dating of Q generally follows from an assumption of a historical Jesus as well as an assumption that the general timing given in the Gospel stories can be relied upon as historically accurate. Without those assumptions, I'm not sure any specific date could be given to it except that it preceded the Gospels of Mt and Lk.

Not if he considered them to be two entirely different figures and even less so if the name "Jesus" was a later modification of Q. Again, this is drawing us away from imagining a historical Jesus to questioning mythicism. Get back on the road!

I think it would help if you kept in mind that, in this thread, I am joining you in assuming there was a historical Jesus. You seem to be confused about what my "case" is here. Q represents an entirely different depiction of presumably the same Jesus at around the same time as Paul.

Where do you get this? Not only is "a righteous man" entirely inadequate to describe Paul's Son of God, it is not something he ever uses to describe even the lowly incarnation.

Regardless, I think it will be more productive to focus on this from the other direction (ie positive evidence of what Paul's enemies were preaching) with the passages I referenced above.

Does that suggest that all the apostles suffered as well?

OK, we've got something we can say about our historical Jesus! The historical Jesus was focused entirely on his fellow Jews. Does this suggest that, like the Pillars, he would focus his efforts on Jerusalem rather than wandering the rural areas as depicted in the Gospels?

spin

I was pointing out that there is no way to justify even 1% accuracy. Try it: you won't like it.

As the only near contemporary report on JB is Josephus (if we can trust this literary source, and I tend to with reservation), there is very little to go by for such a figure, though JB is obviously better attested than any other gospel character. The rest get silence and we would certainly waste time on them.

I was trying to point out that it would be vain trying to rule out figures like Trimalchio or Judith. These I consider to be taken from completely ahistorical sources. How do you separate Jesus from the other figures drawn solely from literature?

Generally, Paul knows nothing about a man called Jesus who took part in events in this world of ours. The major exception is quite detailed knowledge of the last supper, which makes it to me a certain redactional element. There's no knowledge of Bethlehem or Nazareth or Jesus's being a Nazorean or even him being from Galilee. He just knew some messianists from Jerusalem. I would expect a few minor details of Jesus's life had a historical Jesus been around prior to Paul, but there's nothing.

So, no, I won't rule out Jesus, just as I won't rule out Judith or Trimalchio. That gives me too much unnecessary work. The task is for the positor of the notion of Jesus's existence in the real world to demonstrate it, otherwise this Jesus remains in the ranks of the Trimalchios and Judiths of literature.

I'm sure you'll understand if this unsupported claim seems to be twaddle to me. It might be helpful to see all these things that give you signs. I have the feeling that readers will be generally unimpressed with these lots of things.

This human nature stuff is the food for fiction. Good fiction requires good perception of human nature. As a criterion for historical research it is quite useless.


spin

spin

"[H]ate" is not the right word. The approach to me seems vain and useless.

Interesting, isn't it, when Paul knows nothing about the gospel Jesus and Q is a theoretical construct to explain similarities in Mt and Lk missing from the Mk version? There is no way to date this hypothetical source, so it need be written before those gospels found their final forms, making little hope for recovering historically reliable material from "Q".

Well, I must admit I can't see any. On what grounds do you pursue such an endeavour (other than entertainment value)?

My mother once talked about lying on her back, looking at the flyspecks on the lightbulb, but never at clouds....


spin

Amaleq13

I don't pursue anything that I don't find entertaining and feel little need to obtain justification beyond that but I consider this discussion to have two other potential benefits:

1) Ted might suggest or point out something about which I was previously unaware or had not considered in a particular way.

2) I might do the same for Ted.

I'm sure her imagination got just as much exercise but I think the fresh air would have been to her benefit.

TedM

I"m not sure. It may be a waste, but like Amaleq I hope to maybe see something in a way I hadn't before, or maybe learn some real facts I hadn't known too.

I don't agree that Paul knows nothing. I would say that Paul doesn't reveal a knowledge of very many details of Jesus in the letters that we have from him. It's an important distinction. Whether that is significant enough to say that Paul's Jesus was a myth depends on to what extent we should expect Paul to have mentioned things like Nazareth or Galilee in those letters. What I think we have to be very careful of doing is allowing the appearance of 'silence' to affect our interpretations of the 'earthly-sounding' references that do exist, as it should not increase the odds that any particular passage has a redactional element nor that it should be interpreted more along the lines of Doherty. Those passages should be examined without any such presumptions, on their own terms. Would you agree?

ted

TedM

Ok, I'll try to stay on track. It seems to me that this early Q that portrays such a different Jesus than Paul does can be reasonably explained in the context of the rise of Paul's Christianity if that were based on a human being, as follows:

Let's imagine Jesus lived, died, and was believed to have been resurrected by some like Paul, who also believed that this Jesus was the Savior who was ushering in God's kingdom.. It seems reasonable to me that there would be a wide variety of responses to these kinds of claims. One response could be to reject the Savior element but accept the idea that Jesus must have been a prophet or great teacher, even though some like Paul may not have emphasized that aspect, ie "we heard he has followers so he must have been a wise teacher". This could have been supported by the observation that Jesus' followers lived a very 'righteous' lifestyle in some places. If there already existed some Wisdom or Logos sayings, this group may have simply attributed and/or adapted them to this new prophet or teacher of righteousness.

If Jesus had lived and there is no saving atonment in Q, that would expain the use of his name in Q DESPITE the fact that Jesus means "Savior". It would explain the attribution of teachings. It would explain the chronological element to Q. And, it would explain any absence of references to atonement or salvation. Finally, it would explain why scholars are not dating Q to prior to Jesus lifetime, as far as I know.




I don't think we can say that #1 is an example of another gospel variety. It is what non-believers would say. #2 could be an example of another gospel variety, but I don't see how that defeats the idea of a HJ, since it is addressing what happens AFTER death. #3&4 are tricky because it is a long book yet we see so little description by Paul as to what these others were preaching. The Young's version calls these apostles 'cheifest', which makes me wonder if Paul is talking about the pillars here, and as such whether the book is missing some interesting explanations about what they were saying...But, I digress To me, #3 just isn't specific enough to tell us whether the enemies were talking about a Jesus that is incompatable with a HJ. As I said in the other post "another Jesus' could mean just about anything having to do with attributes Paul claims for that Jesus. It could be one that saves by works instead of faith--ie the reference is to Jesus' heavenly role as opposed to his earthly role. The same explanation applies to 'another Spirit', and 'another gospel'. As I mentioned before the only reference I could find in 2 Cor to what the specific issues of dispute may have been WAS related to that very issue, in 2 Cor 3: The issue of the role of the laws of Moses. Notice Paul's reference to 'the spirit' in that chapter: 3:6 "who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but in the Spirit gives life". Vs 17 "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." Freedom from what? The law. I really think this 'another Jesus' and 'another spirit' is referring to differences with respect the the role of the Law for Christians. Paul says it doesn't need to be, and his opponents say it does.

#5 is the same issue IMO, but with a lot of emphasis on circumcision in particular.

To me none of these are incompatible with a HJ who either didn't address the issue of whether the obedience to Moses' laws was necessary for salvation, or was even ambiguous or confusing about it, as Mark portrays (ie follow the spirit of the law, but don't worry so much about certain traditions), or was fairly clear with regard to the Jews but not at all regarding Gentiles.

I"m not sure why, since Jews existed in those rural areas, and if those rural areas were around where he had grown up (ie he was more comfortable there).

ted

spin

On what specific basis do you disagree?

Specific indicators of knowledge of the traditional Jesus which the gospels would later evince. Anything which would show Paul got his knowledge of Jesus from someone else.

How about some of these "'earthly-sounding' references" listed, so we know what is being talked about?

Redaction is a fact of life in these texts. We find added material in Paul's letters, colophons, extra chapters, different works cobbled together, some even just aren't by Paul at all. By all means read texts for what they say, then try to contextualise them... why were they written, do they reflect the author to whom they are attributed or even the time of writing...

What we find is a Paul who plays his cards so tight to his chest that it appears that even he doesn't see them. Had gospel material been available to Paul, he should have been very interested, as this Jesus became the central driving force in his life. Paul's silence about the gospel Jesus is deafening. It's as though the data that would eventually become gospel material didn't exist in Paul's era. Just think of a girl who has taken a strong liking to a particular rock band and she learns everything she can about that band, it's members, all its songs, the history of the band and its members; it becomes part of her consciousness. This is what I might expect from a Paul about his Jesus, but astoundingly he didn't do it.

It's very hard to remove all one's presuppositions, but we should attempt to neutralise them as we do our research. No text exists on its "own terms". A text is always an embodiment of a genre, a work of an author, a work of its time, a work to be read by an audience with that audience's knowledge and presuppositions. If you don't know these things, then the text becomes harder to analyse.


spin

TedM

I don't want to get off track, but I would point to various references Paul makes to Jesus as though he were a man (lived, died, crucified, bled, never sinned, suffered, was meek, humble, was as man, was of the flesh, was born of a woman, was born under the law, etc.). These things can be debated, as can more specific mentions that are more controversial (crucified by rulers, gave testimony in front of Pilate, had a Eucharist supper, was betrayed (or arrested) that night, etc..), but I don't want to do that here. These are the basis on which I say that we can't state that Paul" knows nothing about a man called Jesus who took part in events in this world of ours."


That would be nice to have, but I'm not sure I would say that it should be expected in the letters we have from Paul.


Jesus could have been historical and only really done a small percentage of what is in the gospels, so I think if one is looking for evidence of a historical Jesus in Paul's writings, it is a mistake to expect him to be that as potrayed in the gospels. I also don't think we can presume to know HOW interested Paul should have been in an earthly Jesus, because it wasn't the earthly Jesus that became the central driving force in Paul's life: It was the post-death Jesus. While Paul may have had an interest in a historical Jesus, in his letters he appears very focused on issues that don't require an appeal to a historical Jesus to address, so it isn't enough to just say we would expect Paul to be interested. We have to also be able to say we expect Paul to have said X or Y in a particular letter.

ted


My description was vague. I agree with you--we need to look at the text in various ways, but without personal bias.

ted

Amaleq13

I agree but suggesting that they might completely ignore the central point of Paul's gospel and focus on something he never says about his Christ does not seem very reasonable to me. It is difficult to imagine anyone accepting Paul's gospel in this very odd way unless they were, themselves, actually more (or only) familiar with the man described in Q than the Christ described by Paul.

The standard HJ conception has the Pillars as the former disciples (or brother) of Jesus. If that is the case, wouldn't Q describe them as they followed him around the countryside?

Paul doesn't just fail to emphasize this aspect of Jesus, he essentially ignores it and seems to deny it would be relevant even if true (ie denigration of the desire for wisdom). In addition, it seems to be quite a leap from hearing he had followers to depicting him as the incarnation of God's Wisdom.

It seems to me these people would be more likely to seek out his former followers rather than fabricate a novel depiction and attribute sayings to him.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here but a coincidence of a really common name would explain this.

I've already addressed this and it isn't really an issue given an assumed HJ since that seems to be the primary basis for the date suggested.

It seems pretty clear to me that Paul is speaking of men who claimed to be speaking by the Spirit of God yet were calling Jesus cursed (presumably on the basis of Scripture -> crucified = cursed). Paul is arguing that while there are different gifts given by the Spirit, only a different Spirit could motivate someone to say something like that. This only makes sense if the individual in question claimed to have the same Spirit (ie a fellow believer).

Ah, so quick to fall of the track! It suggests a rather significantly different gospel than Paul's, I would think. Certainly more than just the question of circumcision.

He seems to have already covered the specifics in his earlier letter. They taught another gospel and spoke by another Spirit when they called a crucified Jesus a curse and/or denied the resurrection of the dead. Whether these claims come from a single group or two different groups of enemies can't be determined, I think.

Once off the track, you continue to be lost! I take Paul at his word that his enemies were preaching "another Jesus" and that included one that wasn't crucified and/or one whose own resurrection did not require belief in a general resurrection of the dead.

Looks like some significant variety under the same "Jesus" tent to me, amigo!

I agree that this would have been part of any Jewish Christian gospel opposing Paul but it seems clear to me that it goes beyond that to some pretty central differences.

Why would the Pillars make Jerusalem their base of operations?

Speaking of the Big Three, should we consider their association with the Ebionites and their alleged belief in a Jesus who was only human?

TedM

I don't see why not since that is exactly what many people do today--they don't believe or appreciate the resurrection, but believe Jesus was a wise teacher. IOW they make him into what is most comfortable to them. A wise teacher would be a lot more comfortable to some Jewish people in Paul's day than a crucified and resurrected Savior. However, as you ask, why would they go so far as to attributed Wisdom teachings to this Jesus? What would make them do this? While I agree there isn't much in Paul that would lead to this, he still did describe Jesus as sinless, and righteous--which implies that Jesus was wise and knew God's truth. Perhaps Paul's opponents, who apparantly from Paul's works preached a Jesus who was more interested in people upholding the law--a more down-to-earth kind of religious practice by works rather than pure faith. I address this more a bit further down.

It depends on what Q is supposed to be. It looks like it is primarily a book of sayings, many attributed to Jesus. A couple mention his disciples, but the emphasis seems much more on the messages of wisdom that anything else.


Paul speaks positively about the wisdom of God, and negatively about the wisdom of men who don't seek God. I agree that it is a leap from hearing of followers to the incarnation of God's wisdom.

Maybe your are right about seeking out former followers..It seems to me that Paul's message was not the orthodox message of the early Jewish Christians. We just don't have much from them, but we do have the book of James, which could be the James of the Pillars. This is possible evidence from someone Paul knew (and whose teachings Paul would have known), who taught ideas that are similar to those in Q, so perhaps this is a more reasonable inspiration for Q Its 5 chapters have a number of teachings that sound very similar to some Q sayings. The book states early on in verse 5 the idea that WISDOM is given to those who ask God in faith. Some teachings in just the first 2 chapters of James which I am paraphrasing below that sound Q-ish are, based on Q saying numbers in a book I have by Marcus Borg:

Be glad when you meet trials, James 1:2, Q13
Don't just hear the word, do it, James 1:22, Q2
God honors the faith of the poor, not those who rely on possessions, James 2:5, Q 50
Those that show no mercy, will receive no mercy, James 2:13 Q 12
Faith without works is empty, James 14 Q22
Share food and clothes with those in need, James 2:15 Q2

So, if the traditional early date of 45AD is correct, this is evidence tying a pillar who taught Q-like sayings. I realize that James doesn't attribute these sayings to Jesus, but it isn't a big step for developers of Q to link the two up if James was considered the leader of the early Christian church.


I"m saying that if the name of Jesus was in an original Q that didnt' have sayings about atonement, then the fact that such a document still used a name for this 'teacher' that means 'savior' can be reasonably expained by the existence of a real person named Jesus to whom the authors of Q attributed the sayings. It can also be explained by coincidence, but it seems odd to pick out of thin air the name of Jesus for someone not described as a savior, and to venerate him as a great teacher who teaches about the long-anticipated kingdom of God, without knowledge of another Jesus at the same time who is also greatly venerated, is also associated with the kingdom of God, but in this case is strongly described as a savior.


About Q's early (but not too early date)I"m a bit confused. It seems to me we have to ask what the implications are of dating Q so that it co-exists with Paul. It also seems to me that there are a couple of other reasons for such dating than assumptions of a HJ: First, the mention of John the Baptist seems to require a Jesus co-existing with him, around 30-36 AD. Second the unlikelihood of using the same name as Paul does at the same time as Paul, for two venerated people, yet choosing a name that means savior when only a teacher is presented, though Paul's theology is about salvation. It seems to me that these are reasons to suggest a date not prior to Jesus' alleged lifetime for these parts of Q. These don't assume a historical Jesus, they argue for one.

I"m wondering how we can argue for co-existing portrayals without appealing to an assumption of a HJ. You have before suggested an 'idea' as inspiration for Jesus. Something in that isn't clicking with me as it pertains to Q and Paul. First, if just an 'idea' of a Jesus inspired Q as well as Paul, why do you claim 'coincidence' in the use of the same name by both? Second, if just an 'idea' of a Jesus inspired Q how does this idea translate to the picture of Jesus as a teacher (not savior), co existing with JTB, as well as the somewhat chronological nature of the book--beginning with JTB? Third, what 'idea' at nearly the same time produces both this Jesus and Paul's if Jesus never really lived?

It seems to me that if we only focus on the question of how could such a different portrayal of Jesus in Q and Paul have come from a real person, we are overlooking some hard to answer questions that arise from an assumption that the two portrayals really did co-exist.


I'll address the rest of your post later.

ted