Vinnie

I honestly don't know why Paul doesn't quote any of their sayings. Maybe he didn't feel as a non-original follower that was he job? Instead he boasts of his qualifications and the cross. I red Paul is a weird light here. He goes on and on about the "wisdom" of the world and it being foolishness in 1 Corinthians. Read the entire first four chapters noting wisdom themes.

And I did not mean to suggest that the group can be shown to have used GThomas. Their sayings cluster probably has a similar "theological atmosphere" (in the fifties!) as that which is found in GThomas and possibly was one of the sources used by GThomas.

If you have Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels see pp. 55-63 and also Stevan Davies whole book on Thomas is available online:

Here is chapter 8:

http://www.miseri.edu/users/davies/thomas/eight.htm

Vinnie

Bernard Muller

Vinnie:
As explained here:
Q
As explained here:
GThomas
I thought you put now GThomas as intra-gospels (70-100) and therefore likely to be dependant on the gospels.
What evidence do you have to support your contention?
What evidence do you have to support your contention? "Matthew" knew about GMark and Q, with their parables.
What evidence do you have to support your contention? "Luke" knew about GMark and Q, with their parables.
"Mark" was creative with almost everything else. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
I understand you changed your views about stratification of Q and GThomas. Theories based on stratifications are multiple, very contested and not solid at all.

Here is an extract from my first page on parables:
"The 'parable of Jesus' genre is introduced by "Mark" as follows:
Mk4:2 "He taught them [the crowd] many things by parables, and in his teaching said:"
Jesus is said to have taught to the crowds by parables. But next, it appears this teaching to them is rather superficial:
Mk4:33-34 "And with many such parables He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it. But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples."
Jesus is reported to have spoken to the crowds only in parables and provided explanations solely to his entourage. They are certainly very necessary for understanding:
Mk4:13 "Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand that parable? how then will you understand any parable?""
Mk7:17b-18a "... his disciples asked him about this parable. "Are you so dull?" he asked. ..."

Mk4:10-12 "When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but not perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven.'"
So according to GMark, Jesus' compatriots (except his followers) were not supposed to perceive/understand the parables, and since Jesus taught to them only in parables, they did not have the opportunity to be saved (or knowing the secret of the kingdom of God).

Only two parable explanations by Jesus (to his followers only) are recorded in the gospel (Mk4:14-20,22). And in order to understand the saving message and the secret of the Kingdom, the Christians (in the community where the gospel appeared) had to get the interpretation of the parables.
But by whom? Jesus and the apostles were not here anymore. In the best position to do so were the early Christian presbyters, and even better, the one who wrote (anonymously) the gospel.
If the (unexplained and obscure) parables were of no value for the crowds addressed by Jesus, the author thought they were very relevant for his Christian audience, as we will see next."

Go to my aforementioned page on parables to see what comes NEXT.

Later, I wrote:
"As we saw, most of these parables (if not all) make a lot more sense in a latter Christian environment than in Jesus' context. No wonder "Mark" indicated that the parables were not meant to be understood by Jesus' main audience of Galilean villagers! And his own disciples would not figure them out by themselves either!
But then, how to explain Jesus taking the trouble to issue messages in a form (parables) not meant to be understood, and useless for saving his country folks?
Why would the people not be asking for clarifications (as Jesus' followers in Mk4:10) or not getting them?
Why would the rural folks tolerate a steady stream of obscure stories, unrealistic propositions or gibberish unrelated to their times & context? And from someone who was like them, not educated?
It simply does not make any sense!
Therefore, it is very likely that the nine parables were designed by the author of the gospel. "Mark" used the parable genre mainly to have Jesus prophesied (situations and events, up to 70C.E!) above the head of his contemporaries, on matters of the greatest concern for his Christian community, such as:
- Interference from latter followers of John the Baptist (and of Pharisees)
- Jesus not being on earth to propagate the gospel
- Christian message being rejected or abandoned by many
- Delay in the arrival of the Kingdom
- The destruction of Jerusalem, its temple, people & priests

The Christian flock was being reassured that these upsetting events (including the last and most disturbing one: the "desolation") had been predicted (Mk13:23b "I have told you everything ahead of time") and were part of a God's plan. That would cause the believers to keep the faith (and consequently be saved!), at a most crucial time, when the second coming was allegedly due to happen very soon:
Mk13:30 "I tell you the truth, this generation [the one of Jesus] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
[according to Mk13:5-27, various events, including earthquakes, famines, wars, persecutions, then the destruction of Jerusalem in 70C.E. and finally the second coming]"
With the understanding of the parables, the Christians would comprehend "the secret of the Kingdom of God":
An extended and arduous path strewn with the unexpected, "But he who endures to the end shall be saved." (Mk13:13b)"

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Vinnie:
The simplest explanation: most sayings and all the parables came after Paul's times. They were fabricated in order to address issues within the respective gospels/Q communities.
On my pages on 'parables', I noted those parables borrowed some of the imagery appearing in Paul's epistles and 'Hebrews'.

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

If he wasn't producing impressive wisdom teachings, what was Jesus doing to obtain a following?

Vinnie

I was going to ask the same thing. Teachings and parable unimportant.

Miracle worker preaching imminent intervention by God is really all that I see left.

And I was speaking of the Cor 1-4 community Bernard, not the sayings of Jesus which I clearly see echoed at several points in Paul.

Vinnie

Toto

Wenham's books:

Paul: Founder of Christianity or Follower of Christ? (recommended by Layman as more thorough)

Paul and Jesus: the True Story

Amaleq13

So the apocalyptic pronouncements in Q would be more authentic than the wisdom teachings?

I suppose that can be made to at least appear to work but such an effort only serves to make Llyricist appear correct when he claims the layered view of Q is ultimately circular. Can't have that.

On the other hand, Paul doesn't mention anything about Jesus performing miracles so I'm not sure why those, too, shouldn't be considered a later addition along with sayings and parables.

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13:
Good question, which I answered in details on my main pages:
historical Jesus

Please refer to them for the details and supporting evidence.

It's a long story. I already summarized it on this list and the JM's one long ago.
I'll try again (and will save it this time):

a) Pilate, very early on, provoked an event which was very unique (but described in Josephus' works). The Jews won, Romans soldiers left Jerusalem, no blood was poured. A miracle!
b) JB came soon after that, preaching the Kingdom is to come. Because of "the miracle", Jews believed him. Some of them thought that JB would become the King of that Kingdom.
c) Jesus, a lowly Galilean, spent months around JB, and was a follower of him.
d) JB is arrested. Jesus goes to Capernaum. By two small happenings, he caused a short-lived hysteria around him and is considered as a healer.
e) Another hysteria occurred later and got noticed as far as Jerusalem. That was at the time JB was executed.
f) Jesus had also a message, very much borrowed from JB. The Kingdom will come soon (on earth). Jesus added (or stressed) the elects of the Kingdom will be the poor Jews. That, and the perception he was a (sporadic) healer, gave him a (soft) following among some poor, Aramaic speaking Galileans.
g) However, in Jerusalem, some activist, pharisaic, Diaspora Jews picked Jesus, because of the "signs", as the replacement for JB.
So the royal welcome in Jerusalem next spring, which motivated Jesus to make the disturbance (against merchants, sight of money and wealthy "buying" remission of sins, all of that in the temple court).
Both of that caused his arrest and him to be summarily crucified, with a deriding charge, "king of the Jews".

I explained how Christianity, slowly at first, started from that on this page:
Beginning of Christianity

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13:
Miracles working is described to have been performed by Paul himself (in Paul's own epistles and Acts), by Peter (in Acts), by local Christians and other visiting apostles in Corinth (according to 1Corinthians). So it was not particularly uncommon. GMark, despite the embellishments, does not describe Jesus as a systematic healer (at least, not at first) and even suggest some failures.
The two hysterias appear to have started from very minor events:
Jesus rebukes an interruptor in the synagogue (disguised as exorcism by "Mark"). Then soon after, Jesus forcefully get Peter's mother-in-Law out of bed. Then, she is found without fever, which she claimed she had
Result: First hysteria around Jesus, short lived, because he left Capernaum.
Weeks later, in some village nearby, someone who had skin problems, claimed to have been healed by Jesus, because he was touched. "Mark" described the thing to be instant, but it is likely the healing took weeks and could have been caused by normal recovery.
Result: Second hysteria, which lasted for weeks, possibly months.

Many details here:
Jesus' public life

I do not think Paul would use that in his teachings, more so if HJ was known to be an accidental healer, which "Mark" (and his community) appear to have known.

Best regards, Bernard

Dr Rick

Carr never claimed that you were "writing anything about what Wright wrote;" his claim was infact the exact opposite of what you imply it was:

Carr is obviously criticizing you and Vinnie for not defending the words that Wright wrote.

There is nothing in the above statement that makes the 'silly claim' that Wright is responding to Doherty; Wright is clearly responding to a position that Doherty holds, even if it is true that Wright has never heard of Doherty, and I see no claim from Carr on this thread to support any allegation of "dishonesty" against him.

Carr didn't post anything of the sort that you are disputing. He posted:

BTW, Steven, thanks for the thread and links. I'm following this closely, and am enjoying watching the scholarly discourse unfold. Good stuff and great analysis by you, Vork, Bernard, Vinnie, Toto and others.