Layman

Mine has the advantage of being from the first century! And of having corrobative points of contact with the Gospel of Mark on this issue.

I have no idea what you mean by Honi is one whose reported statements are consistent with someone who would have appealed directly to God with the address "Abba." I'm not sure you do either, actually.

Toto

You are making no sense. The only manuscripts of Paul's letters date from about the same century as the purported sayings of the Hasidim. And you appear to be reading a lot of information into Paul's remark, even if it does date from the first century.

And can you show that the gospel of Mark is corroborative, or is it derivative?

I was trying to summarize the discussion in the articles I linked to, reporting that Honi addressed God on intimate terms, such as "I am like a son of the house before you." This seems to be enough for Shmuel Safrai to conclude that the 1st c. Hasidim would have addressed God as Abba, as the 3rd c. Hasidim clearly did.

I suspect that you would only be persuaded if someone found a buried tape recording.

In short, it is a reasonable inference that the Hasidim of the first century would have addressed God as "Abba". There is a no inference to be drawn from Paul's writing that Jesus while on earth prayed to god using the familiar "Abba, Father."

Layman

I've stepped into New Testament Bizzaroland. I make no sense, but you can equate the earliest physical manuscript of Paul with document of the Hasidim dated to the third century? Are you back to arguing there were no Christians in the first century? Paul's letters were all written in the third century? Is that the argument now Toto? Of course, since 1 Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius explicitly quote those letters, that means they too are third century documents, right? But wait. Later church fathers quote 1 Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, so those church fathers must be dated even later than they are. My, my, that does make sense Toto.

So now Mark is dependent on Paul's letters?

I'm not clear on how many 1st c. Hasidism there actually were, but it is clear that Honi never left behind any indication of praying to God as "Abba." Nor did the 1st or 2d century Hasidim. Nor do you allow for the possibility of Jesus and Christianity from having any influence on their practices.

Just like it's reasonable inference that first century Christians believed Luke wrote Acts and that Jesus was a historical figure because Iraneus said so in the third century? Your hypocrisy is rank here, Toto.

You claim to have one reference to one mention in a third century document. You have no evidence for what was going on 200 years prior. Though you claim we have evidence of Hasidim beliefs prior to that, none of it represents what you claim must have been the case.

Toto

Do you deny that gMark was written after Paul's letters? Is it so unreasonable to think that the author of Mark heard or read Paul? Did early Christians not talk to each other?

The experts who spend more time than I do studying this seem to think that the 1st c. Hasidim had a lot in common with the gospel Jesus, including an intimate relationship with God. Honi is not quoted as using the term "Abba," but it sounds like he did address his God in an intimate fashion.

Proof?

Since Honi is dated 1st c. BCE, that would be interesting.

You seem to have completely misinterpreted me. I was trying to summarize for you some material that you don't want to read. My interpretation is that the scholars who write about the Hasidim addressing God as "Abba" are making inferences, which seem to be reasonable, but which do not constitute proof. I am not taking a dogmatic position on the matter.

Do you seriously think that this is comparable to Christian apologists infering that Jesus was historical because Irenaeus said so? I don't see the connection.

Have you actually read the articles? There are many instances of Hasidim using the term Abba in a document that is dated to the third century. There is evidence that the Hasidim existed 400 years before that, and their practices and beliefs appear to be similar. That's all, and that's why I qualified what I said as a reasonable inference. I don't claim that it is proof that the Hasidim used the term Abba in the first century. But considering all of the Jewish references to God as a father of Israel, the idea is not outlandish.

But if you're not convinced, that's okay. It's a side issue.

The main issue is whether Paul portrays a historical Jesus as praying to God using the term "Abba." I don't think that you have shown this, whether or not the Hasidim used the term.

Layman

So you are saying that the Gospel of Mark is dependent on Paul's letters? If so, why does he preserve a different Last Supper tradition than the one taught by Paul? We know that Paul's version survived in his churches for a while, because Luke used it rather than Mark's.

Of course the early Christians talked to each other. And one of the things they talked about was that Jesus referred to God as "Abba."


Ah, an appeal to experts. But the only evidence you have is a use in the third century. And I'm not that concerned about vague references to "intimate relationships with God." I'm more interested in Jesus' use of the term "Abba," and Mark and Paul's recollection of that usage with the term "Abba, Father."

Exactly, you've provided none.

Nice try at bait and switch. Honi did not pray to God with the address "Abba, Father." We are not talking about some vague concept of an "intmiate" relationship with God. We are talking about the use of the term "Abba, Father." You originally admitted that the only usage you knew of (of even the use of the term Abba to pray to God) was from the third century.

I read it.

No proof. Right. Got it. None.

It's quite obvious Toto. You claim that first century Hasidim types must have referred to God as "Abba" because third-century Hasidim types did--despite the fact you have no evidence that the first century types did so. Actually, the case is even weaker than with Irenaeus, because at lesat Irenaeus was making a claim about something that happened in the first century.

I read the most recent one. I also had the occasion to read Vermes' discussion of this in Jesus the Jew. Entirely unconvincing.

Right. What boggles is that you are so easily convinced here, but not by the much stronger such evidence for Christianity. There are many instances of Christians discussing a historical Jesus in the third century. Heck, in the second century. There is evidence that Christians existed a hundred years before. And their language and actions appear to be similar.

Actually, in some ways it is. Even if a small, disfavored sect incurred criticism from the Pharisees for referring to God as father, it simply reinforces that the phrase was uncommon. Of course, even then, the phrase is not "Abba, Father." That's the unique point of contact between Paul and Mark.

Toto

I am only saying that aMark might have picked the phrase Abba, Father from Paul's letters, so Mark cannot be used an independent corroboration of 1st c. usage.

We don't know that Paul's version survived to be used by Luke - it's possible, but it's also possible that the same editor inserted that version into Paul and Luke.

You have no proof of this, only a vague indication that it might have been so. But if the talked about it so much, why did Matthew and Luke not report it?

I am not offering the experts as proof. In any case, the references to the Hasidim's talk of intimate relationships with God is more concrete and reliable than references to Jesus using the term Abba

You don't know this. We don't have transcripts of all his prayers.

stop right there. I am not claiming that they must have, only that it is possible. This all started with references to material that indicated that they did, and your request for primary sources.

Irenaeus was an apologist with an agenda, operating in a political environment in which he battled heresy and shaped has arguments accordingly. The material on the Hasidim seems to lack a similar agenda and a similar motive to reconstruct the past, so it appears to have greater reliability. But it is not proof.

What evidence is there that Christians existed in the first century? It is actually pretty pathetic.

Using the same standards of historical analysis, I am convinced that there were Christians in the second century, and they may have traced their roots back to Jewish sects in the first century.

Please explain why you think that the Hasidim were "disfavored" and where they incurred criticism from the other Pharisees for referring to God as father. (I don't see any evidence that they were disfavored - they seem to have been treated as holy.) And why Paul's reference to the spirit of Jesus in one's heart saying "Abba, Father" is a point of contact with Mark's story about Jesus in person praying "Abba, Father."

Layman

Toto of the thousand possibilities. It is useless to try and rationalize with someone who gives every possibility, no matter how unlikely, equal billing.

So some unnamed editor in the second century (or third according to your dating) managed to gain control over all of the versions of Paul's letters (though widely distributed by the beginning of the second century) and all of the versions of Luke's gospel, and for some unknown reason changed both versions of the Last Supper to be similar (though not identical!) to each other. But though having such vast powers over the manuscript traditions of Christianity, he/she made no effort to change the Last Supper in Mark and Matthew.

No doubt all part of the devious plot of some early Christian who knew this issue would arise, and anted to show some independence of Mark from Paul's letters.

So the Gospel of Mark, and two of Paul's epistles, are no "proof" of this? But you can claim that a third century writing is evidence that the Hasidim did this all the time? (Or, in Totospeak, this make it "reasonable" to argue that such was the case even if there was no proof?). Like I said, the hypocrisy is rank.

Matthew and Luke simply record the prayer in Greek. Notably, in all the New Testament, all of Jesus' prayers but the last one are addressed, "Father."

So far, you've only given me one reference from the third century. How that is more reliable than a direct attribution by the earliest Gospel and two mentions by Paul clearly referring to Jesus as well is a mystery.

There is no evidence that he did. Is there? In fact, he followed the typical formal, awe-insprired opening in his prayer recorded in Josephus: "O God, the King of the whole world!" Ant. 14:24.

Yes, and you've provided no primary sources from the time period in question. Only reference from a couple hundred years later. Most things are "possible," but clinging to possibilities when there is no evidence that they are likely the case is an act of desparation on your part.

Irrelevant, since none of the heresies he was fighting denied Luke wrote the Gospel or denied that Jesus existed on earth.

Greater reliability as to what? That they prayed that way in the third century? Sure. But that's not evidence that they did so in the first century. Indeed, I've not seen any discussion as to just what form their movement existed in in the first century.

Right. First hand accounts by Paul himself, 1 Clement, and Ignatius are all pathetic. References by Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and the Emperor Trajan.

And since you take third century writings as evidence of first-century activities, I could add dozens more writers to this list.

Since Christianity undoubtedly started as a Jewish sect, this statement means nothing much.

Please tell me more about what constituted Hasidim in the first century. What are their writings? Who were there teachers? Were they known by another name?

I explained Paul, Mark, and "Abba Father" on the blog. Most of that discussion has been, and continues to be, ignored. I'll refer you back to it.

Toto

As pointed out by William O. Walker (see this thread) the Pauline epistles have no early surviving texts, and it is not implausible to see the Church of around 180 taking control of texts and standardizing them.



I think you should de-escalate the overdrawn rhetoric before it turns around and bites you.

I do not think it is possible to "prove" anything regarding the 1st century. There is a possibility that there was a historical Jesus who prayed using the word "Abba". But there are so many problems with the historical record that the hypothesis that late-first century early-second century Christians evolved a founder figure based on their reading of the Jewish Scriptures looks more reasonable.

Is there an alternative explanation for the Hasidim?

Mark is not a reliable historical document. We don't know if it was written to be history or parable or liturgy, or if there is any historic basis behind it. We have no reference to it before the second century. It is only dated to the first century on apologetic interpretation of internal evidence.

Your "mentions" by Paul are not clear quotes from a historic Jesus. You keep avoiding this issue.

No evidence, although some of your fellow Christians are happy to conclude that he might have used the term "Abba".

I am not desparate. In fact, I have no real stake in this. If 1st century Hasidim did not use the term "Abba" in addressing God, it does not prove your case at all.

The heresies that Irenaeus opposed claimed that Jesus was a mere illusion, that he could walk through walls, that he didn't die on the cross, etc. In response to these heresies, we find stories that emphasize Jesus as a man on earth. We find more details of his physical existence than existed in writings closer to his alleged existence. The motive appears to be theological, not remembered history.

But you claim to have read all the links...

Can you prove the dating of Paul's letters? Can you prove that Clement and Ignatius are not forged, that references to Christians in Josephus are not forged? It's actually pretty pathetic.

You don't seem to have updated your blog since I last visited it, so I am not sure why you refer me back to it. You have taken a vaguely mystical comment from Paul's letters and tried to turn it into evidence for the historical Jesus. I'm afraid it is not very persuasive.

Layman

But they are not standardized. That's the point. Mark's last supper differs from Paul's. Heck, the church could not get control and standardize the texts later when they were much more centralized, why should I think someone magically did this in the second century?

Are you speaking as a moderator, or a defensive poster?

Opinion-mongering. One reason this place is so boring now is that every debate has to be about the Jesus Myth.

The blog was not intended as a salvo at the Jesus Myth. If someone assumes that no Jesus ever existed, I didn't expect this piece to change that mind.

Alternative to what? How do I know they existed in the first century as they did in the third? What were they like? What did they write? Who were there writers? Who wrote about them?

There are plenty of nonapologists who date Mark to the first century. Most scholars, in fact, so date Mark. Even liberal ones like Burton Mack. Even your hero John Knox.

Avoiding the Jesus Myth issue you mean? I've written about it extensively.

And? They don't appear to have any more evidence than you do.

Right, no stake at all. That's why you volunteer so much of your time and energy to the Secular Web ("a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview...."), right?

Irenaeus' opponents, including Marcion, believed just as strongly that Jesus existed on earth. That they believed he was made out of different stuff than normal humans is beside the point.

Even Vermes is vague about what they were like in the first century. And no, I didn't claim to have read all of all of the links. But if you have seen the information, please provide it.

That's it? Your response is that all of Paul's letters, 1 Clement, and all of Ignatius' letters are forgeries? And not only forgeries, but forged when? When did Christianity become obsessed with inventing all these early writers? Part of the problem is how far back this would move EVERYTHING. As I indicated above:

I've stepped into New Testament Bizzaroland. I make no sense, but you can equate the earliest physical manuscript of Paul with document of the Hasidim dated to the third century? Are you back to arguing there were no Christians in the first century? Paul's letters were all written in the third century? Is that the argument now Toto? Of course, since 1 Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius explicitly quote those letters, that means they too are third century documents, right? But wait. Later church fathers quote 1 Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, so those church fathers must be dated even later than they are. My, my, that does make sense Toto.

You see, 1 Clement and Ignatius and Polycarp all explicitly refer to Paul's letters. And later Christian writers, in the mid to late second century/early third century, refer to Paul's letters, and to the likes of 1 Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius. So once you kick back Paul, 1 Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp all have to be facked later too, so we'd then have to kick back everyone who referred to them as well, right?

Pathetic stuff. But not as pathetic as your dodge of Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Emperor Trajan. Forgeries too, right? Who were those Christians and Jesus-worshippers they were putting on trial, complaining about, being blamed for setting fires?

Or do only apologists accept those references too?

Glittering, self-serving generalities.

Toto

Layman, what is your point?

This all started with your list of references to Jesus in Paul's letters - but now you are claiming that every discussion comes down to the "boring" Jesus Myth theory, which you can't help bring up (again).

No - the issue was the meaning of the Spirit of the Son in Galatians 4:6.

But in fact, I do not have an infinte amount of time to devote to this issue, whatever it is. And you have been reduced to recycling your insults, which are getting boring. ("Glittering, self-serving generalities?")