JoeWallack

JW:
I've posted a response to MG's Podcast here:

http://podacre.blogspot.com/2009/12/...44729574976774



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Solo

Fair enough. Thanks, maryhelena.

Jiri

Solo

Well, DCH, that's quite a statement. What if - and that is the big IF - it just so happened that the historical figure of itinerant Jesus ran afoul of the authorities and was executed for real ? Then you would have the Q community (btw, I am inclined to Farrer & Goodacre on the reality of Q) or the Nazarene continue the wisdom teachings deriving from Jesus and develop an unfriendly attitude to those who killed him. It would not be apparent to a casual hearer of a dyed-in-the-wool believer that Jesus or Bhindranwale or Prabhakaran, larger than life they may have been, were in fact killed by authorities.

Paul, declaring Christ visions, began undercutting the Q (or Nazarene community) by playing up Jesus death as proof that no matter who comes in flesh (or believable likeness thereof), he/she will fail in the eyes of God, because flesh is sin. Paul argued that Jesus was sent for sin, i.e. that he was set up to fail as a prophet, wherein God's and Paul's wisdom. Flesh is doomed; kingdom of God is attainable in spirit only (and that itself is a maybe) by crucifying oneself to earthly desires and waiting to be beamed up. Spirit is what counts. Jesus in flesh is immaterial.

Now, obviously - since Paul's ideas and his success in spreading them would be of little interest to the Q (or N) proponents for a while - whatever they did not say on Paul's cross theology which made it into the gospels later, cannot be taken as an indication that Jesus lived to a blessed old age.

Jiri

maryhelena

And I also wrote to Earl Doherty (around 10 years ago.....don't have his book either - just read some articles on his website)

I don't, as I'm sure you have seen from my posts here, hold to the idea that Jesus of the gospel storyline was historical - so Earl's remark re historicity don't apply to anything I've written....

However, methinks, mythicists would do much better re getting their ideas across if they had something to offer on the ground.....so to speak

DCHindley

Jiri,

I have to confess I don't have much idea what you were saying there. We were talking about Wells', not your or my, opinions. Wells says that modern Q research has convinced him that some sort of figure like Jesus a sage existed in Galilee. However, the rest of his statements quoted suggest he feels Paul's resurrected savior is incongruant with that figure. Sounds to me like he is leaving open the possibility that myths from other sources became assiciated with that actual Galilean sage.

Personally I am not convinced of the theory that Jesus, and later his most devoted followers, were living an existance as radical itinerants. The Didache does not come across to me as a genuine early Christian document. No, not a forgery, but something like the Apostolic Constitutions, a romantic, but very artificial, "reconstruction" of early Christian communities as it should have been. I am especially not impressed by the socio-economic studies by Gerd Theissen (Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)) or Aaron Milavec.

Time for beddie bye zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

DCH

maryhelena

Luke does contradict himself - at least at a surface reading...
If his Jesus is born in 6 CE - then this Jesus was only 23 years old, and not about 30 years old, in the 15th year of Tiberius in 29/30 CE.

So, who is Luke referencing that was born in 1 BC - 30 years back from the 15th year of Tiberius?

Perhaps that is the date Luke is indicating for John the Baptist. Luke has the birth of John the Baptist announced during the reign of Herod - no mention of the Great - taking the reference to be Herod Archelaus, who ruled from 4BC to 6 CE - the census. Thus, a 10 year period in which to place the birth of John the Baptist - a 10 year period now shortened to a 7 year period by Luke's reference to 'about 30 years of age' in the 15th year of Tiberius. Notice however, that there is now a 7 year period between John and Jesus - indicating that number symbolism is being used - and thus open season for interpretations....

Composite figures, mergers, fusing - name changing - all the stuff of the NT storyline....

Matthew's Jesus, born anywhere from 37 BC to 4 BC, the true forerunner that Luke is attempting to fuse with his new model Jesus, the 'second coming' Jesus, who became God's son in the 15th year of Tiberius in 29 CE .....well, something like that...

John Kesler

Goodacre says that there are grammatical problems posed by reading Luke 2:2 as referencing a census before that of Quirinius, but he does not elaborate. However, there is a good article by Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, whose "textbook on intermediate Greek grammar...is used in more than two-thirds of the nation’s schools that teach that subject." Wallace writes:

I would also add that if there really were a census which required "that all the world should be registered" and then another one under Quirinius, it would seem rather strange for Gamaliel to refer simply to "the census" in Acts 5:37, which is apparently a reference to that under Quirinius since Gamaliel mentions "Judas the Galilean," who Josephus tells us revolted during Quirinius' census. Note, too, that in the Josephus passage, Judas is said to have called the census "an introduction to slavery," which seems odd if there had already been an empire-wide census circa 4 BCE.

Toto

For clarity, since the Wallace article uses a Greek font that my browser does not support, and which does not copy

Luke 2:2 in unicode:

αὕτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος τῆς Συρίας Κυρηνίου.

maryhelena

Another idea....

Luke has a 7 year gap between his two birth dates, for John the Baptist and Jesus - Jesus being 'born' in 6 CE and John being 'born' around 1 BC - 30 years back from the 15th year of Tiberius in 29/30 CE.

Interestingly, if 30 years are added to the 6 CE date for the 'birth' of Jesus - the year is 36/37 CE when Jesus starts his ministry..... a most important year re Herod Antipas and Herodias - i.e. the war with Aretas over the divorce of his daughter from Antipas. The re-marriage of Herodias to Herod Antipas following sometime after the death of her husband Philip the Tetrarch in 33 CE.

Having Herod Antipas and Herodias married sometime after 33 CE - rather than having them married around 29/30 CE - reflects more logically on the war with Aretas over the divorce of his daughter by Antipas - a war around 36/37 CE.

All this does, of course, play havoc with dates for the crucifixion story - usually fixed to around 30/33 CE....however, Nikos Kokkinos has no problem with a later date - as mentioned in the Ross S. Kraemer article in the JBL.
Luke's dating re his Jesus storyline is thus: 1 BC - 6 CE - 29/30 CE - 36/37 CE. Which amounts to two time periods of 7 years each - more likely than not, an indication that number symbolism is being used - hence a red flag that its not history that is being recorded but an interpretation of history...

A time-line that amounts to a nativity narrative involving two 'births' - in Luke's storyline, the birth of the forerunner, John the Baptist and Jesus. Two 'births' that have their stories intertwined and in which Luke leaves open space for interpretation i.e. re the 'about 30 years' and the length of time between the two ministries...

When Matthew's birth narrative is added to the mix that Luke has created - a 'birth' narrative that involves a time-line from 37 BC to 4 BC - then are we not dealing with a composite Jesus, a fused mythical or symbolic figure that is representative of actual historical individuals whose lives have impacted upon early Christianity? In other words, a developing tradition...

JoeWallack

JW:
The excerpt I gave from Carrier indicates that "Luke" does not necessarily contradict herself here but I'll simplify Carrier's observation.

We agree that per "Luke's" Quirinius' time marker, Jesus was born c. 6. The next relevant marker is:

Luke 3

The date here can be c. 30. Note that the time marker is the start of John's Ministry and not Jesus'. That is Carrier's point. "Luke's" narrative is describing a time lag between the Ministries:

"And he came into all the region round about the Jordan"

"And the multitudes asked him"

"Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptized"

The final time marker is:

So let's do the Matthew. Jesus born 6 (a sign of the devil?) CE. John's Ministry starts 30 when Jesus is 24. If Jesus' Ministry started 2 years later, than Jesus would have been 26 at the start of his Ministry. If Jesus was 26 here than "Luke" could have described him at this time at "about 30". As Chef Talltell would say, "Very simple, very easy, very niice."

What's strange here is that "Luke's" time marker for the Ministry is for John and not Jesus. My guess is that the original time marker was for Jesus here as evidenced by Marcion:

The Gospel of the Lord



Joseph

ErrancyWiki