Toto

The existence of Q (which is a hypothetical document) indicates that there was a community that wrote down some sayings. But Q contains little that indicates that the sayings came from a definite historical person. The community could have written sayings down and invented an author. Or the sayings could go back to an author who did not have 12 disciples, was not from Nazareth, and was not crucified under Pilate -- but his sayings were incorporated into the crucifixion story. Would you say that this person was THE Historic Jesus?

Vinnie

Unfortunately when Q sayings are known independtly by Mark (Mark//Q overlapps, a few by Paul, numerous ones in GThomas) and other sources what we have here are "Jesus sayings". They may not all go back to an historical Jesus but the overlapp means that Q constitutes evidence that there was an historical Jesus. Q simply does not help us reconstruct any narrative details of Jesus' life except by way of reconstructing specific sayings that need to first be argued are authentic. For instance, it is possible to reconstruct that Jesus was an itinerant wanderer from some sayings in the Christian record if they are deemd authentic and interpreted as such. This is a second step in the process, however. The first step, in my estimation, supports a historical Jesus. Its the overlapp. Things which are widespread like the inaugural sermon and so on.

Oh yeah, some also think the twelve are mentioned in Q (e.g. John Meier) and and also some exegetes think the baptism was in Q. The nature of Q is not a closed case given its hypothethical. So Q would be capable of supplying narrative details.

Be wary of attemopts to reconstruct the exact wording and earliest layer of Q.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

If Q was a layered document and if the initial layer was a collection of unattributed (Cynic-like?) sayings , then the statements would be understood as eventually attributed to a mythical founder figure. If Q was built in layers, the possibility exists that neither the name "Jesus" nor a reference to any particular individual existed when the list was first compiled. Even if we assume that there was an historical founder of this collection of healing, preaching prophets, we might still start with an unattributed collection. It seems like something that is done after the founder is dead but, even if he still lived, the original collection would be for their own use so attributing the wise teachings wouldn't be necessary. The Gospel of Thomas offers numerous sayings where only "Jesus said" or something similarly minimal could be seen as later additions. At the very leasts, it seems that the author(s) of that text have placed words in the mouth of Jesus.

If the above initial assumptions are not accepted, however, it seems more likely than not to me that Q (and whatever is earliest of GTh?) represents the closest we get to the living, historical Jesus.

Gooch's dad

Which moderate NT scholars require that the gospels be accepted as fully historical accounts, in order to use those accounts as evidence?

I think the case has been presented quite well by such IIDB posters as Rick Sumner and Peter Kirby. The gospels do seem to contain a great deal that most likely has a basis in history.

But aside from the gospels, I have yet to see anything resembling an actual argument as to why the Antiquities 20.9.1 reference of Josephus is an interpolation. Paul certainly met James. It seems extremely likely that Josephus also met James. Both record him as Jesus' brother.

QED, the man Jesus existed. That is not an extraordinary claim. End of story.

Vinnie

Absolutely NONE!

Vinnie

GakuseiDon

Isn't that what Lowder has done? I know it is via a review of a book, but still, he seems to have looked at most of the evidence available.

Toto

The question is not whether they are "fully historical." The question is whether you can find any history in them at all.

I do not recall Peter Kirby pointing to anything in the gospels that is historical. (He might think that sections of Acts reflect history, but not the sections that mention Jesus..) He seems to be tending towards believing that there was a HJ on the basis of Josephus, not the gospels.

Perhaps he will clarify if he reads this.

When would Josephus have met James? It seems unlikely that Josephus met most of the people he wrote about.

The case against Antiquities is here.

If all you want is some reason to believe that there was a Jesus, these scraps of evidence may be enough so you can accept them and go about your business. If you are looking for a more in depth understanding of early Christian history or how religious movements grow and become dominant, you might want something more.

I mean, if Jesus was not extraordinary, the question of his existence is not extraordinary. And if Jesus was ordinary, why should anyone care?

Lowder did not consider the mythicist case as an alternative explanation for early Christianity, so he did not explore which explanation is the best.. He only decided that Jesus' existence was not extraordinary, so a little bit of evidence was enough.

Bookman

Thanks everyone for the replies. I always learn a lot in here.

I guess I would, at least to the degree that the sayings make me willing to accept the existance of HJ without necessarily accepting any of the details of the gospels as established history.

This is a good point. I suppose it is difficult to know much about what Q actually contained and more importantly what purpose its compilers had for it.

Bookman

Gooch's dad

Toto, Josephus was right in Jerusalem during the first Jewish revolt, and one of the top Jewish generals.

That doesn't mean that he definitely met James, but he sure was right there in the middle of things when James was killed.

I think such verses as John 7:42 show that the historical Jesus *was* from the Galilee, for example, rather than Bethlehem. I do think that there is a core of history behind the oral traditions that led to the gospels.

Toto, surely you can do better than argumentum ex URL? You give a link to Doherty as a supposed complete refutation of Antiquities 20.9.1. While Doherty is a decent classics scholar, he seems to be in the minority opinion by a LONG shot on Antiquities 20.9.1.

Just as an example--his point about Josephus using the phrase "called Christ" as something being unfamiliar to his readers is an unsupported assertion. Tacitus indicates that there were Christians in Rome about 30 years before Josephus was writing. Bing, that point is shot down.

Much of the rest is special pleading. Doherty seems to just assert that the phrase is a marginal gloss, and by asserting it, that makes it true.

Cheers,

Kelly

Toto

Here's a chronology of Josephus' life. He could have known James, as he appears to have been in Jerusalem aligned with the Parisees from 56 CE to about 62 CE, and returned in 65 CE, in time to be appointed a commander in Galilee in 66 CE.

However, if he did know that James was the brother of the historical Jesus, who was important enough to use as an identifier for James, that raises other questions. Why did he not include a description of the Christians, or the pillars of the "Jerusalem Church"? Why did he not report on any Christians in Galilee? Of course, it may be that Josephus did include material about Jesus and the early Christians, but it was so unflattering that the early church excised it and replaced it with the obvious forgery in Antiquities 20.

I can't think of a way of finding any reliable history behind all of this speculation.