TedM

Does Paul really say that 'nobody' suspected? As far as I know he just says the cross is a stumbling block to Jews and that the archons didn't understand who Jesus was. I know that Paul doesn't come out and say that some people during Jesus' lifetime suspected that he was the Messiah, but I don't see that it is a possibility that we are to preclude from what Paul does say.


I agree, but am cautious to conclude that Paul should be expected to have revealed knowledge of a more prominent Jesus had there been one.

I think you have to ask what kind of information we would expect to find in a sayings book. Should we expect resurrection appearances? People that put together a sayings book it would seem are interested in teachings only. Some Q creaters and followers may be interested in the resurection, others may not believe in the resurrection, but it seems to me that those reactions are irrelevant to what information goes into a sayings book.

You ask--why not add something about the resurrection if other things were added. There is something about the resurrection--the parable about the son being killed, and the Jonah reference. As for the bodily appearances, I tend to believe those weren't part of the early tradition, which might explain their absence.


I found this article very interesting. It lists some Matthew references that are in Q. I listed some others earlier in this thread too : http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1361

ted

Amaleq13

He says it was a mystery until it was revealed (the resurrection appearances?).

We don't find it in Q and we find an apparent literary device in the Gospels to explain why nobody mentioned it while he was alive (ie Messianic secret). Seems to me that all the evidence suggests this was not thought of until after he was dead and possibly inspired by the resurrection appearances.

Actually, I think you have to ask why it would be limited to a "sayings book" even after such powerfully influencial experiences.

The general approach seems to be to assume that the people who collected the sayings, etc. were his former followers. Wouldn't they be the ones we would expect to have the resurrection experiences?

What parable about the son being killed? I don't think that Jonah argument is credible and I'm not sure how many scholars agree with it. It is my understanding that the generally held view is that there is no reference to the resurrection in Q.

I agree and have been assuming experiences similar to Paul's.

TedM

That does seem reasonable, but who knows? I know we would like more (any) references to an earthly ministry, but we'd also like more references to these appearances and revelations both of Paul and others. Sure would help with our questions..

re: people wondering if he was the Messiah before his death
If Jesus was historical, I'd expect SOMETHING about his life to inspire people to think he had been resurrected and therefore the Messiah. Q does have JTB's disciples asking if Jesus was the "one to come" or if they should look for another, Jesus asking why people call him "Lord, Lord" but don't do what he says, and in Q Jesus talks authoritatively about what the kingdom of God is like--which surely would have raised questions among the many who are said to have followed him, if not just he disciples, and he refers to himself as the son of man. Seems to me that the Jesus in the Q used by Matthew and Luke was likely considered by at least some people as being someone very special, and maybe even the Messiah.


Sorry, I was mistaken about that parable being in Q. I went back and read the Jonah reference, and agree that it is weak. Muller thinks the pillars didn't believe in the resurrection. I find that very hard to believe, as I'd expect Paul to reference it much more strongly than issues like circumcision, since that is what he preached--Christ crucified and resurrected. I think it may be that Jesus didn't plan for one, so there would be no sayings by him about it, and I wouldn't expect his direct followers to make up sayings.

ted

Amaleq13

I agree that is a reasonable assumption but it also has to be something that Paul would feel comfortable ignoring. Finding something that meets both criteria is clearly difficult.

Was the Baptist originally predicting the Messiah or God's Final Judgment? IIRC, Crossan suggests that his "one to come" may have originally been God and his message was changed by Christians.

That aside, it isn't clear what the Q community meant by identifying Jesus as "one to come". The Messiah is only one possibility and not necessarily the most likely. For example, you've got Elijah (JtB denies that identification) and The Prophet that are expected in Scripture as well.

I think it is more interesting if you replace "pillars" with "former disciples" and avoid assuming they are the same people. Then we're back to two independent movements that are combined in the Gospels (or sooner). One emphasized the ministry of a living man while the other emphasized the "good news" of a resurrected Christ with an assumed incarnation about whom nothing was known except through Scripture interpretation. At least some of the latter came to believe that the man revered by the former was the incarnation they knew had been sacrificed and the rest is "history".

spin

This is ridiculous. Before christianity what would make anyone think that a messiah would be resurrected? The messiah through positive intervention heralded the end of days. There is no room for resurrection in the messianic scenario of the 1st century.


spin

TedM

Ok, let's take off the "therefore the Messiah" part. If Jesus was historical, I'd expect SOMETHING about his life to inspire people to think he had been resurrected. Do you think THAT is ridiculous?

Now, let's go to the next step: Let' say some people did think he had been resurrected, and did so in part because something about his life had been worthy of resurrection. Would not the belief in resurrection lead those people to then believe Jesus had been the Messiah?

ted

spin

No. Just baseless assumption that wants a particular conclusion.


spin

Amaleq13

After thinking about this a bit more, I think the only thing necessary would be an emotional attachment to the man they subsequently believed had appeared to them after his death. To my knowledge and ignoring "ghost sightings" the only dead folks who are alleged to appear to others are folks they cared about while they were alive.

If we stick to Paul's expressed theology, the "something" was the revealed fact that he was actually the incarnation of God's Son.

Given the traditional expectations of that role, that doesn't seem like an obvious connection to me.

TedM

Great!. Now, are you able to move on and answer the next question that follows?

ted

TedM

That's reasonable for the cases that aren't soon believed by strangers that don't know him. How do you explain the growth of acceptance of this idea for a historical Jesus? Wouldn't that most likely require a more publically known Jesus, or belief that he had been publically known?


Not just the fact, but the belief in it. How does that belief get applied to a real historical person who recently lived if he isn't known by people, and with some kind of reputation?


It doesn't have to be an obvious connection, but don't you think a bunch of people who are desparately expecting a Messiah and who come to believe a man had been resurrected might consider that connection and test it out by comparing that man with the scriptures and immediately find passages to support it?

ted