Chris Weimer

A major hurdle in the Quest for the Historical Jesus is the lack of consensus on the earliest Christian traditions. Back at my website, I brought this up, but it received little response. Let me post it here:

This contains two ideas for two different studies: Joe, if you're reading this, the last paragraph explains why I think Matthew used a pre-existent genealogy (though it's evidence more for Luke); the second idea and one relevant here is that the earliest Christian traditions know of the Messianic expectation of the restoration of Israel to the Jews.

Perhaps anyone can identify some more?

Things to think about: crucifiction, raising from the dead (whether by physical or spiritual body), the Gospel of Thomas, anti-Pharisaic remarks, Gentiles...

Chris Weimer

How about eschatological end-expectation? Paul certainly feels as though the time draws near, 2 Peter attests to many people thinking so, and gThomas seems to hint at it also (although, I must admit, it can only be inferred).

Zeichman

Chris, I'm not sure if I'm alone here, but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're going for here- messianic expectations in pre-gospel Christianity, restoration of the temple as an eschatological act, or something completely different?

Chris Weimer

I'm just surveying what might be the earliest Christian traditions out there. What do the gospels tell us about the times before the gospels? How much of Mark is completely by Mark? What about Paul? The Gospel of Thomas? To answer your question - all three!

Ben C Smith

IMHO some form of the apocalyptic tradition embodied in Matthew 24 = Mark 13 = Luke 21 has a good claim to be very early. It appears to be reflected in 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11, and Alan Garrow has recently argued that Didache 16 represents an even earlier cross section of that tradition than Paul. Not sure yet how to connect it directly to the historical Jesus (which is of course a problem with any of the traditions), unless perhaps we look for what other evidence converges to make Jesus out to be an apocalyptic prophet of the kind who would have uttered such oracles, but it appears we might have good reason to date it to the forties or earlier.

Ben.

Chris Weimer

Ben - the most recent post on my blog addresses the concerns of the historical Jesus research. In short, the only way to distinguish the historical Jesus, or at least the best approximate to what we can possibly know, is by the intersection of all the primary sources about Jesus. This is, though, the most important.

About apocalypticism, yes, I agree that it can be inferred through all the sources. So what we have so far is an apocalyptic Jew who believes in the restoration of the Temple for Jews only?

JoeWallack

JW:
Trying to Peace together the Birth of the Birth of Jesus is like working with a Cross"Word" Puzzle. The Borders are the Impossible claims which we can be Certain are Impossible. Remaining Peaces have been Destroyed, Added and Changed shape by subsequent Christianity. Subsequent Christianity went back in time, like one of those Spielberg Back To The Future movies and created its own History based on what it wanted to Believe and not History (not unique to Christianity).

For most of its History Christian Bible scholarship started with the Assumption that the Impossible was Possible. It's only relatively recently and with Apologies to Mr. Carlson that Christian Bible scholarship has shifted into Neutral on this Subject. However, trying to do X-Uh-Jesus by ignoring claims of the Impossible reminds me too much of talking about the Twin's chances of winning the World Series if you ignore Hitting or the Cub's chances if you ignore Curses.

Rick Sumner mentioned Brown as illustrative of objective Christian Bible scholarship. I say Brown was illustrative of biased Christian Bible scholarship. An example of an objective Christian Bible scholar relative to his time was Bultman. Bultman moved CBS (Christian Bible scholarship) closer to the Truth by pointing out that Christian writings were not generally primary evidence for the history described. They were primary evidence for the history at the time of writing. Bultman had the ability to think outside the tomb (which I've copywrited). Now let's move Christianity one step closer to the Truth:

Christian writings are generally not primary evidence as to history at the time of writing, they are primary evidence as to theology at the time of writing.

The earliest known Christian writings are the authentic letters of Paul. Note that Paul's letters are basically Possible with regards to first hand observation - The "Mark" of authenticity as opposed to Act's Paul with its claims of the Impossible. Paul's letters are a Reaction to previous Christian writings and his Rejection of them is Evidence of No coherent and credible Early Christian Tradition before him. Paul's letters are priMarily Conclusions, selected by subsequent Christianity, and not at all any significant Early Christian Tradition in Narrative Form. El-go, Christianity wrote its Conclusions First and then wrote its Narratives later (a B-L-T to go. PM me on what "B-L-T" means).

That brings us to "Mark", the earliest known Narrative. "Mark" is primarily an Apology as to why the Original Jesus movement Failed when Jesus died ("He's dead James.") "Mark" is all about "Reactions" and has Cast Pee-Wee HerMan as God, so that when "The Jews" ask God why he made them a big practical Joke, the response is "I meant to do that" (to fulfill prophecy). Eventually Christianity will Retreat to a Position that "Mark" is an Apology and at that point this will be the best Evidence against Doherty. If Jesus was mythical than what was "Mark" apologizing for?

Let's go back now to our basic Guiding Principle, The Impossible is Impossible. Since "Mark" is primarily about the Impossible the entire work is Impeached and we really can't be sure about anything he wrote and what the Source was. I will note here how well the Timing works for a Natural explanation. Say there was a historical Jesus who dies around 30 CE. After two generations (Judge - look out!) there would be relatively few who would have known the historical Jesus or even someone who knew the historical Jesus. At this time one could write about an Impossible Jesus which would be easier to believe because of the lack of available contradictory witnesses. And this is exactly what we see, "Mark" is written about two generations later. Subsequent Gospels also use "Mark's" Impossible Jesus as a primary source which is further evidence of the lack of authentic witnesses to the historical Jesus available to them. This is also supported by the ablility of Paul to become the primary proponent of all things Jesus. At the time Paul writes there are still people who remember the historical Jesus but their Real memories of a Historical Jesus are no match for the Imagination of Paul's Fictional Jesus.

Now, with that Background, here's why I think the Gospel Genealogies are Original compositions:

1) The first Gospel, "Mark", has no Genealogy, indicating no significant genealogy tradition at that time.

2) "Matthew" and "Luke" select Different Genealogies indicating there was no one authoritative genealogy available to them.

3) Presumably "Matthew" and "Luke" would have considered the Jewish Bible the most authoritative source for Genealogies and this by itself makes Original genealogies the default position.

4) The Style of the Genealogies fits the theology of each. ""Matthew" emphasizes Kings and seed of Abraham while "Luke" emphasizes the connection to all men, going back to Adam.

5) The Divergence of Solomon/Nathan likely has a Jewish Bible source - uncertainty regarding Solomon's line.

6) The convergence of Shealtiel/Zerubbabel likely has a Jewish Bible source - rebuilding the second Temple.

7) The idea that "Matthew" unintentionally falsely claimed groups of 14 generations by selecting an existing genealogy is also a Christian Apology to preserve "Matthew's" witness integrity. "Luke's" list appears contrived as well to get to 77 names. A pretty big list to have disappeared if it already existed.

8) It's generally thought that Christianity started with a belief that Jesus was resurrected. Subsequent Christianity gradually reflected on the Origins of Jesus and worked Backwards. We can see this in the Gospels. "Mark" has no infancy. Original "Matthew" has a genealogy and is Edited to add a virgin birth. "Luke" extends the genealogy back to Adam. "John" goes Back To The Future to place Jesus at the Beginning. Therefore, Genealogies are a relatively later Christian development compared to resurrection belief.

9) Even if "Matthew" and "Luke" took in whole or in part existing Genealogies they still had choices to make as far as what to take and Edit. Is there much Practical difference then between a completely Original composition or one not entirely original but made by their choices?

After Previewing my post here I think it might be a good idea for me to actually adress the main point of your OP:

"Why is this significant? Because Zerubbabel and Jesus son of Jozadak were the rebuilders of the temple after the return from Babylon. Foreigners had asked them if they could help, but they explicitly denied them, for the temple was only for the Jews. Thus, if we extend the temple as a metaphor for Israel, then Israel was for Jews only. The messiah, then, would come and "rebuild" the temple for the Jews only, and that means no Gentiles. This would lead to the assumption that the ECTs was still wholly Jewish."

Christ, you have the Logic there that putting Zerubbabel in the genealogy is support for an earlier wholly Jewish outlook. But as I mention above puting Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in the genealogy makes sense too for not wholly Jewish Gospellers as the names are in the Jewish Bible chronology, are important names and are specifically associated with rebuilding the Temple out of Exile ( a theme you like with "Matthew"). "Matthew" and "Luke" are entirely One-Way Proof-texting. They'll use anything to support a theological point and if it also works against them they don't care (just like Christians supposedly feel about Life insurance). It's weak Chris, weak.

By The Way, what I Am doing at EW is Creating a special Genealogy page that will give details and statistics for every name in the Genealogies for English, Hebrew, Greek, Textual Variation and Possible reasons for Variation. Everyone is welcome to help except for Harvey Dubish. See you on the other side Christ.



Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Julian

I am currently reading Koester (Introduction to the New Testament Vol. II) on this topic and he also puts a passion narrative in writing before the gospels as well as a eucharist of the type described in Didache, i.e. of a form not related to the death of Jesus.

I also suspect, seeing how a few elements of the nativity agree between Luke and Matthew that it was probably 'known' that Jesus was of the line of David, was born poor in a humble location, that his parents were Joseph and Mary and that she was, in the fashion of the day, a virgin at this time.

Julian

Chris Weimer

Well, Mary for sure was associated with the earliest traditions. This probably led to the Mary's being separated into Mary Mother and Mary Magdalene. The line of David of course, but wasn't that a Messianic expectation anyway? His family's ignorance and the lack of the name Joseph for his father in Mark probably mean the virgin birth and all that were added later.

Julian

I agree, the virgin birth does seem like a product of its time rather than a tradition. Of course, that still makes it a tradition albeit a short one. It would still have to predate the gospels, however.

The messianic connection does seem rather feeble as Jesus fails to fulfill most of the criteria. I suspect that the initial 'christians' were probably sufficiently Jewish that they felt the need to apply that appellation onto him, unwarranted as it obviously is. That could be one of several likely reasons for the whole Jewish/Christian debacle in Jerusalem, also a pre-gospel event but not relating directly to Jesus.

The nature of Jesus' itinerant cynic lifestyle, if he was historical, would probably be well known and a practice of the early church considering the many writings regarding wandering 'prophets.'

I don't know nearly as much as you about the genealogies so I cannot add anything to that issue, however, the fact that both Matthew and Luke has them, besides showing that they both knew that he descended from David, makes me wonder what prompted them to both include them. Maybe it was a common practice back then, considering putative parallels in something like Justus.

Julian