Rick Sumner

Did it start with Paul? Why doesn't he seem to have any opposition to this tenet? Doesn't it seem more reasonable, given the absence of contrary positions among a group he engaged in considerable dispute with--you'd think it would have come up.

I haven't been arguing whether it begins with a living Jesus, and Sanders' position begins with the "a priori," (though the term may be inaccurately applied here, we don't know how Sanders decided Jesus lived, to my knowledge he's never expanded on the matter) supposition that Jesus lived. From where Sanders is sitting, accepting that premise, his outline makes the most sense.

My argument has nothing to do with Sanders contention that it can be traced to a living Jesus, my argument is that it can be traced to a pre-Thessalonian source that is common to both Paul and Matthew. That it's multiply attested (my position) does not indicate that Jesus said it (the position repeatedly ascribed to me)

It's important to remember than Vinnie isn't representing Sanders in quite the same way Sanders represented himself.

I'm not persuaded that this is accurate. For that matter, I'm not entirely persuaded that there was a Q, though these seem to be separate issues.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

I don't recall anything like it in any of the allegedly pre-Pauline hymns. This was certainly a significant part of his gospel and Paul claims he obtained his gospel directly from the Risen Christ. That suggests to me it originated with Paul.

"Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (1Cor15:12, KJV)

Isn't this Paul arguing against certain Corinthians who denied Christ's resurrection to herald the coming general resurrection?

Toto

Hi Rick:

I doubt that you can show that the Wizard of Oz is derivative of Hebrew Scripture. although of course Frank Baum had access to that scripture and lived in a society saturated with it. However, Vork has already demonstrated that the Wizard of Oz is a Theosophist parable overlaying a Free Silver parable.

I am not sure why you are so dismissive of MacDonald's comparison of a "Jewish" story (by which I take it you mean the gospels) and the Homeric Epics. The gospels may be a Hellenistic Jewish story, and the era was saturated with Homer and Homeric imagery.

MacDonald's critics have tended to charge that he has not proven his case by his own criteria, not that his criteria are invalid.

Well, no, it's not. It is one data point. You would have to find a series of data points like that, and you would have to show how assuming that the Hebrew Scriptures were the basis of Baum's work has some explanatory power.

ichabod crane

OK, Rick, I agree with you that the imminency of the coming was not a part of Jewish eschatology, but that hardly needs much explaining. In practically every religion, sects have appeared from time to time claiming that "the end is nigh". These sects have not become the mainstream generally, but all we have here is a case where someone thought that the end was indeed nigh and Jesus was about to return (maybe by interpreting OT writings in relation to contemporary events as so many people do today), and that belief established itself in the sect. A lot of people think George Bush, or Henry Kissinger, is the beast of Revelation; now that's pretty crazy exegesis, but people believe it. It makes their lives more exciting to think that the end is about to occur, and makes the news much more interesting. Paul may have been the originator (he may have had a vision that convinced him the coming was near), as Amaleq13 argues, or he might have learnt it from someone else; I think it's darn hard to tell. But given the human propensity to believe in imminent apocalypses, why is this particularly suprising? I tend to agree with Amaleq13 on this one - no human Jesus required, although certainly if Jesus did exist then he could have been the originator of the idea of an imminent apocalypse.

Regarding the "son of man" debate, it should be borne in mind that this phrase is used extensively in the OT (Num 23:19, Job 25:6, 35:8, Psa. 8:4, 80:17, etc.), and not just in Daniel; it's particularly common in Ezekiel. It occurs twice in Daniel, the one distinctive thing about its occurrence in 7:13 is that it's in Aramaic rather than Hebrew as it is everywhere else in the OT. But the point is that those who used the phrase may have had more in mind than just Daniel.

Ted Hoffman

Rick,
On being challenged to 'make good' his purported notes, Rick throws a counter-challenge. His 'tactic' goes like this:

Rick: I can climb mount Donald in two hours. This is a very tiny mountain.

Jacob: Show us that you can climb it in two hours, otherwise don't make that claim.

Rick: Well, if you climb mount Everest, I will climb mount Donald. Mount Donald is simply too tiny not to climb in two hours. I'm not doing it for sport, I'm doing it to prove that its a tiny mountain. I will prove it twice.

Task for the readers Identify the fallacy above.

Where the hell did you get the idea that I was willing to 'take up' any synoptic end? I have no end in this. You never consulted me when you were making the claim, so don't lump me or anyone with you when you are put on the spot.

This is a red herring Rick. Just provide the evidence for your claims - you can plead that it will take more than one grunt and we shall give you ample time - just don't attempt to lump me and you in this.

This is not an argument. Flat earthers thought a round earth was absurd.

You already did? When? Where? Does that mean I won't have to hold any synoptic end?

First half of 1CE? Where does Matthew do that? AFAIK, Matthew is situated in third Stratum (80-100).

I prefer contemporization (pesher) and interpretation/amplification (midrash).

And l'eschaton imminent is contingent upon...?
This thread, your post. Are you treating the time l'eschaton was expected with the time l'eschaton was promulgated by specific individuals as the same time?

Ok ok.

Now, I should mention that Vinnie, starting with Sander's argument, proceeds to argue that we can see a 'progression' of l'eschaton from Paul to John. He argues that suceeding 'attestations' of this early tradition in the other strata is evidence of 'dependency' and 'influence' of this tradition in the first strata to the other strata. On justifying the need for a methodology and strata, he relies heavily on Crossan, who argues, in BoC, that "there is, at the earliest stratum, the voice of Jesus".

This is the progression Vinnie puts forward:

1. First stratum: Paul at Thessalonica 1 Thess 4:15-17 (This eschatological 'tradition' is allegedly independently 'multiply attested' by Matt 24:27 and 16:27. Note that this is based on the premise that Matt is not dependent on Paul, even though Matt is on the third stratum).

2. Second Stratum: Vinnie states: Mark (see v. 9:1, et al) has Jesus say "Some standing here will not taste death."

"Some is important. In Thessalonians the community is concerned that "some have died" wheeas Mark, written when many of Jesus origial followers were probably dead or dieing off (ca. 70 C.E.) states that "some standing here." It shows that belief developed from expecting an immintnet return before any had died to somne will die.

3. Third Stratum: Vinnie states: The redaction of GJohn (ch.21) shows that a belief developed then (before the redactor corrected it) that at least one disciple would still remain and not taste death (vv. 22-23).

4. Fourth Stratum: Vinnie states: The author who redacted the Gospel of John cautioned it by saying, [Jesus speaking] "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?’"The author then explains, ‘So this rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?�’ (John 21.21-3).

5. The Final Progression Vinnie states: comes with the closing of the canon in 2 Peter (written ca 130 C.E.) where the return of the Lord has been postponed indefinately. Some scoffers ask, ‘Where is the promise of his coming?’ and the response is, ‘with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ The Lord is not really slow, but rather keeps time by a different calendar." (II Peter 3.3-8).

Vinnie concludes: This underlines the necessity of stratification. Earlier texts and reports influence later ideas. Clear progression of material is discernable at times.

Also, of course, the nature of literary dependence is extremely important. Is the temple cleansing incident in the canonical Gospels multiple attested (indepdnently) or did John know and rework Mark?

My response with regard to first and second stratum

First of all, if stratification is based on Crossan's premise that "there is, at the earliest stratum, the voice of Jesus", then in my opinion, it is fundamentally flawed because, for this specific eschatological 'tradition', the first stratum seems to be actually in Daniel, about whom Matthew is explicit about. The premise that there is a voice of Jesus narrows the scope of sources one can look at - thus, the premise 'doctors' the methodology.(and this argument I shall build in finer detail later)

Secondly, the premise "there is, at the earliest stratum, the voice of Jesus" renders this excercise of stratification to be one of drawing targets where arrows have hit. This means that the strata cannot be used as evidence that this eschatological tradition that can be traced to Jesus because the strata are based on a false premise.

Thirdly, with regard to Vinnie's statement: "Some is important. In Thessalonians the community is concerned that "some have died" whereas Mark, written when many of Jesus origial followers were probably dead or dying off (ca. 70 C.E.) states that "some standing here." It shows that the belief developed from expecting an imminent return before any had died to somne will die." [spelling errors removed - this same sentiments have been voiced by Rick in this thread]

(a) From the passage cited, we cannot reasonably infer that 'the Thessalonians community are 'concerned' that "some have died"'. Paul only refers to 'the dead in Christ'. He does not include (in his resurrection candidates) those who died and had not embraced Christ.

(b) The phrase "Some have died", that is in past participle tense, confers recency to the deaths referred to passage and some temporality.

One cannot discern any sense of recency of deaths from the passage. The passage explains the fate of those who have died in Christ and explains that they will arise and together with those that are alive, they will be 'caught up together' and always be with the Lord.

(c) The idea that the eschatology is impending or imminent can be discerned from both Mark 9:1 and Thessalonians because they both refer to those that are living being witness to the event.
The "some" in Mark 9:1 refers to those that believe or those that are chosen.

It cannot be taken to mean that the audience are being slayed and that only the survivors of the presumed Jewish war ( or of or the troubled times) will live to see the return of Christ. This is supported by Mark 8:38 (which precedes Mark 9:1) where Jesus says that he will elude those that are ashamed of him i.e. those that don't follow him will not join him when "he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels"

Rick,
Yes exactly, this must be why Josephus doesn't mention him among his nineteen Jesuses some of whom were messiahs and all of whom were contemporaries of the putative Jesus of Nazareth.

Rick Sumner

Jacob:

The timing of the expected eschaton is much easier to establish than you seem to think. Those at Thessalonica expected it within their lifetimes--so much so that they were puzzled by the death of some of the church's members.

Matthew likewise expected it in the generation contemporary to a time when Pilate was praefect and Joseph Caiaphas high priest.

That would be the first half of the first century CE. Multiply attested. By three sources, actually, though at least one is almost certainly dependent on Paul--the Thessalonians, Paul, and Matthew all expected it to come then. Two out of three had to do some fancy footwork to explain it, the last, we can presume, simply relied on the fancy footwork of Paul.

I'll make you a sweeter deal, since you don't seem to want to bite on the last--though it wasn't my idea, it was ichabod crane's, and the advantage of it is it compares sources we *know* are dependent, and sources we know are not, and sees whether or not MacDonald's method can tell the difference.

I suggest a formal debate. Topic: Resolved: Dennis MacDonald's method is wholly reversible.

We can hammer out the rest should you accept.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

Rick,
Look, I am too ignorant to understand the basis of your claim that 'Matthew likewise expected it [l'eschaton] in the generation contemporary to a time when Pilate was prefect and Joseph Caiaphas high priest'.

'Contemporary', IMO, doesn't (necessarily) mean early 1st century. Since you now mention Pilate specifically, as opposed to 'first half of the first century', are you backing off from the first half of 1st C range that you claimed earlier? Or are you using Pilate as support?

How do you date Matthew? Wouldn't we expect in Jesus' putative audience people in their early 20's? Or are you assuming the date into Matthew - as in, though Matthew is dated post 70 CE, you are assuming the story is actual and the crowds were addressed by Jesus say c. 20 CE?

If Matthew was written post 70 CE (as I believe it was), I don't see how we can get a 'first half of the 1st century' date range for l'eschaton (even if we assume it was written earlier) - unless people had such a short lifespan, or the crowd had only old people, or Matthew specifically wrote the date range - I don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that Matthew expected l'eschaton in the first half of the first century.

Just show how you arrive at that conclusion please.

I have always assumed Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians...?

And what will my role be in the debate? Wait,...thinking quickly...um... I can moderate it. Yes, thats it :I moderate it. What do you say huh?

Seriously though, I think the challenge is very attractive but I can't take it up now. I want to clear up this inquiry on methodologies first plus I am not so keen on MacDonald's criteria - I just wanted you to back up your earlier claim.

So, is there any other way of knowing MacDonald's criteria is wholly reversal without getting into a formal debate with you?

Rick Sumner

Jacob:

You're missing the point. Where I date Matthew is irrelevant. Matthew has Jesus tell people that "some" there will not die before the eschaton. The timeframe Matthew has placed the event in is the first half of the first century CE--relatively early in the first half of the first century CE. Thus Matthew's community expected the eschaton at that time. They were wrong, hence Matthew's addition of "some," at least according to Sanders argument. Perhaps it always was "some." It really doesn't matter on that front--Matthew was as wrong as Paul, and here we sit 2000 years later eschaton-free.

It's easy to date the expectation of the belief--Matthew has already provided us one.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

P.S.
We can stay the debate, if you like, and put the timeframe for the first post to c. 90 days or so from now. I suggested it would take me two months to put together a thorough treatment anyway. I'll even up the ante--I'll do C S Lewis' Narnia series as well--except I'll do it with verses in the Qu'ran that do not have Biblical parallels. Now *that* we can be damn sure is not Lewis' source. I may come across some others I'll add to the mix for good measure.

If MacDonald's method results in conclusions we know for a fact are false, his method is flawed to the point of uselessness.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Apologies, I'd thought you were asking why I'd favored Jesus and Judaism over The Historical Figure of Jesus--typing faster than I'm reading, apparently.

My issue with Vermes' new book is just his general approach. Anyone who has ever read any of Vermes' work won't be surprised by any of his rulings on the authenticity of sayings, which really isn't that much of a concern for me--Vermes kinda muddles through and is more than willing to admit that. What irked me was that most of it doesn't address authenticity at all: It provides a commentary. Many sayings go without a vote in the text, and one must check the appendix at the back to see what the final ruling was and why, and the explanations given frequently have nothing to do with the commentary given in the text.

Thus we're frequently left with flipping to the back of the book, and coming across "Touched blue made it true."

Adding to the problem is my distasted for emphasis on sayings. I'll give you a nice round number for how many sayings I think we can safely trace back, verbatim, to an historical Jesus: Zero. The best any saying should have gotten from the JSem was a pink bead.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

That was rather my point though--Paul has competitors about all sorts of issues. So much so, that it's reasonable to think that most of the major points of doctrine that he finds himself in dispute with would warrant mention--he'd need to defend himself.

He never needs to defend the idea that the eschaton is imminent. This indicates that there wasn't much dispute on the matter. We need to imagine continuity from Paul's predecessors to Paul, and should expect opposition in points where he diverges from that. There is no opposition, it seems to reasonable to conclude that this is because there is no divergence.

Regards,
Rick Sumner