Rick Sumner

Jewish scripture usage common to both authors does not explain the timing--one emphatically states, and the other strongly implies, that the end should have occurred in the first half of the first century CE.

Unless I got ripped off with my Bibleworks CD, I seem to be missing anything relating to the first century CE in all forty-some translations of Daniel.

Can we do it double blind though? How many people are going to attempt to exegete texts they aren't familiar at all with sheerly for posterity's sake? How many will be able to do so effectively?

I'll take you up on it though--Baum didn't use Hebrew scripture on The Wizard of Oz. I'll take that end. Matthew and Luke did use Mark. Someone take that, and let's see where we end up.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

See my post above--if you'll take up the Synoptic end, I'll do the Wizard of Oz. My end is really quite simple--Hebrew scripture is simply too vast, too vague, and too well known not to find parallels in virtually any work of literature.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

See above. I'm not doing it for sport, I'm doing it to falsify the validity of the method. It will fail twice.

Comparing a Jewish story with an Homeric Epic seems every bit as absurd to me.

I already did show it "right down to Auntie Em." Baum had access to such scriptures, it's doubtlessly feasible that he'd have known what "em" meant, and Auntie Em plays a maternal role. That's gold, using MacDonald's methods.

I'm aware of that.

Where the falsity comes from is meaningless.

We aren't asking whether or not Jesus said it, we're asking if it's multiply attested.

It's a question of timing. Both Matthew and Paul attest that it should have occurred in the first half of the first century CE.

Are you aware of the distinction between peshar and midrash? (Strictly speaking, it's neither, I've suggested many moons ago that the terms "Compilation" and "Interpretation" be used instead, I'd like to reiterate that).

It makes a huge difference.

Find me a written text that places the eschaton in the first half of the first century of the common era.

I already told you what it was contingent upon--the multiple attestation of the expectation of an imminent eschaton.

Sanders is arguing that Jesus was apocalyptic, in contrast to other reconstructions, which make him sapiental. The multiple attestation of the expectation of an imminent eschaton is integral to his case. He has that, whether it's the same saying or not.

Doesn't matter. The source can be anything you like, I'm arguing that it's a multiply attested tradition--it is known to Matthew and Paul independently from each other and from a common source. Who said it is irrelevant to my case, though of course pertinent to Sanders'.

Separate issue, and one I'm not going to bite on.

You would have me believe that two Christian authors decided by fiat that the eschaton would come in the first half of the first century CE, both using the same texts, entirely independently of each other?

That's absurd.

Sanders isn't arguing for historicity. Neither am I. This is still a separate issue.

Still not biting.

Sanders generally condemns methodologies at large. You might try reading him sometime. Go with Jesus and Judaism rather than The Historical Figure of Jesus though.

Still not biting. Keep to the topic, which is whether or not this is multiply attested.

Still not biting.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

We're left the same problem--the timing. Both Matthew and Paul believe that the eschaton should have occurred in the first half of the first century CE. They can't draw that from the Hebrew Bible. It has been alleged that they both drew their quotes from Daniel--they used the same passage to make the same point about the same time, add to that that they are part of the same group which formed a very distinct minority at the time and the odds become infinitesimal that they happened to do so by chance.

He doesn't. I quoted all he has to say on the matter.

That doesn't make it any less multiply attested, which is the original question for this thread--whether or not it meets the criteria of multiple attestation.

Wishing just one thread wouldn't denigrate into a debate about the Jesus-Myth,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Do I really need to point out the innappropriateness of this?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

It is only a problem for JM if, in apparent agreement with Sanders, these passages must be understood as originating with a saying spoken by a living Jesus.

On a somewhat related note, Crossan has concluded that the living Jesus very probably did refer to himself as "Son of Man" but as an indirect self-reference rather than in an apocalyptic sense. He thinks the apocalyptic/Daniel application was a post-execution/resurrection development of his followers. His consideration of the evidence seems to me quite reasonable but I can't ignore the fact that Paul never uses this allegedly historical phrase.

I would consider any use of this phrase by Paul to be significantly damaging to the JM case given its apparently strong connection to a living Jesus yet it is utterly absent. Can any explanation of Paul's "silence" with regard to a living Jesus really account for his total avoidance of this phrase?

Rick Sumner

It's not a problem for the JM at all. You either accept the prima facie case or not. That's really all it boils down to--there are no irreversible arguments in either direction.

He follows Vermes' lead on this. I'm unpersuaded. He may have done so in a broad sense ("the son of man has no place to rest his head. . .") referring in a broad sense not just to himself, but to all men, but that's not what the gospel authors mean, and there's no reason to presume that any other version existed.

As an aside, I recently read Vermes' latest book, _The Authentic Gospel of Jesus_ (yet another sayings analysis--like we need more of that vein), which has seriously jaundiced my view of Vermes' work on Jesus.

I agree. Curious that Paul hasn't heard it, but has heard an apocalyptic message--one seemingly in keeping with his peers, at least if the absence of noted dispute on the matter is worth anything. You'd think he'd have been all over the Danielic Son of Man.

Sure. Jesus never used that phrase in that sense. It's unrealistic to presume he did--why would this man believe he was the Danielic Son of Man? I'd suggest he probably thought of himself as some sort of Messiah. That's not quite the same thing.

Are you aware of a reason to presume he did? In the titular, rather than generic sense, most particularly. A generic usage isn't worth much one way or the other. For your argument to hold, it should take the form, loosely, "If Jesus existed, he must have used the phrase "Son of Man" in the titular sense in description of himself because of reasons X, Y and Z. Because of reasons X1, Y1 and Z1, we should expect Paul to refer to this in his epistles at points P, P1, P2. Paul does not cite this phrase, thus this silence indicates there was no Jesus."

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

I already addressed the timing. Paul's comes from his belief that the resurrection experiences (especially his own) represent the "first fruits" of The End. Subsequent believers (including the author of Matthew) continue to deal with this fundamental tenet created by Paul's ecstatic enthusiasm. The imminent nature of The End is hedged with appeals to the ultimately unknown nature of the timing with the author of the Fourth Gospel creating a "placeholder" in the form of the Comforter to essentially eliminate any sense of delay completely.

As far as my arguments are concerned, you're the one dragging it into the mix. All I've been questioning is whether the sense of an imminent End conveyed in both Paul's letter and GMt require the assumption that it originated from the preaching of the living Jesus. So far, despite Sanders' apparent assertion, the answer appears to be "no".

As a somewhat related aside, this seems consistent with the notion that the apocalypticism in Q is a development subsequent to the death of Jesus.

Amaleq13

I've only read Jesus the Jew but I liked it. What did he do in the new book to yellow your eyes?

Exactly. Damned annoying, IMO.

I asked: Can any explanation of Paul's "silence" with regard to a living Jesus really account for his total avoidance of this phrase?

Wouldn't the alleged former disciples from whom Paul presumably learned anything he knew about the living Jesus have done so?

At the risk of creating a tangent, doesn't Mark's "messianic secret" suggest this was a development subsequent to the death of Jesus? Or would you consider Jesus believing himself to be some sort of conduit of God's Wisdom to qualify as "some sort of Messiah"? I find that to be more likely than a belief in himself as the Messiah but I'm also operating under an assumption of a layered Q/originally sapiential Jesus.

Only that this is how he is portrayed in the Gospel stories.

Even if it was a sort of known "catchphrase" he used frequently while preaching?

My thinking is more or less along the lines of: If the living Jesus frequently used the phrase "Son of Man" in his teachings, then recollections of those teachings are likely to have been replete with it as well. The fact that Paul never uses it argues against his familiarity with the teachings of the living Jesus or the recollections of those teachings.

Are you trying to trick me into putting FAR too much weight on an argument from silence?

Rick Sumner

I should note beforehand for this post at large that I do accept the historicity of Jesus. What I suggest here is based upon that framework--the historicity of Jesus is my working hypothesis. It's a position I've researched, at least in my opinion, more than adequately. Barring a new approach to the Jesus-Myth, it's not one I'm likely to change. That's why my discussion on the matter is largely restricted to questions of the validity of negative criteria, with little interest paid to establishing the positive, at least in terms of establishing the historicity of Jesus. My responses will reflect that. Call it a priori if you like, though by definition it is not.

He succumbed to the increasing pressure of mainstream methodology--he stopped relying almost solely on explanation, and started trying to justify his explanation, sometimes over-exegeting, as he did in this case. It's quite possible that they reflect the same saying. It's also quite possible that a first century apocalyptic Jewish prophet said things like that a lot, and they're drawing on entirely different sayings that simply reflect the same theme. It really wasn't necessary for Sanders to do so, Jesus and Judaism was just fine as it was--there's a reason Jesus and Judaism is recognized as something of a benchmark--almost requisite reading--and The Historical Figure of Jesus is not.

For what it's worth, I am not wholly in agreement with Sanders either. He's hinged too much on the temple.

What evidence would you suggest indicates that anyone contemporary with Paul knew anything about the phrase as applied to Jesus? It seems to be a later addition to an already existing theme. Jesus was viewed as the Messiah. Later Christians equated the Messiah with the Danielic Son of Man.

I'm persuaded largely by Sander's argument on the matter in Jesus and Judaism--notably, there were "12", presumably to recall the twelve tribes. The general outline of the career attributed to Jesus fits neatly into the category of a known type--the apocalyptic prophet. If Jesus has 12 tribes, and is viewed as the leader of them, the presumed position for himself would be something of a King. The Titulus attested across all the canonical gospels attests to this as well. Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews.

I think Mark's "Messianic secret" is intended to explain why Jesus was rejected, far more than to ascribe beliefs to Jesus that he did not hold.

But why should this be accepted? It all goes back to explanatory power--what best explains the development of the phrase: That Jesus said it? Or that it was later attributed to him?

Again, does it seem likely that a man would think himself the cosmic Son of Man of Daniel?

Sure, nutters exist, hell, nutters even start cults. But they're the exceptions, not the rule.

I'd suggest the fact that Paul never uses it argues against Jesus having said it at all. I'm not sure that the length you take it to necessarily follows.

Also of note; Would Paul's converts have understood what was implied?

Not at all, just outlining what a position such as you implied might be found would entail. "You" was generic, not specific to yourself

Regards,
Rick Sumner