maryhelena

That is a side issue - that proponents of a historical Jesus use Q as evidence for this assumption. The issue over Q is not its use as 'evidence' for HJ. The issue over Q relates to the Synoptic problem. A problem that is itself the result of the HJ assumption. Without that assumption there is no need for Q.

The Synoptic gospels are contradictory with each other. Different versions of the same story. That is fine if the story is not historical. But if the central figure of that story is assumed to be historical - then a better degree of harmony should be evident. Eye witnesses are notorious for their inconsistencies; oral traditions likewise. Thus the need for something more substantial - a written source - the hypothetical Q.

Rejecting Q leaves one with the gospels as they are. A developing storyline regarding a mythological figure, a symbolic or figurative man. That storyline is open wide for developments re theology or spirituality. Developments that allow for an onion like framework - layers to be eased off in order to get to the earlier parts of the storyline. A much more appropriate method - a method that seeks to understanding the gospel contradictions, and its developing storyline, rather than trying to resolve them into the pre-determined mold, the assumed HJ.

The historical Jesus assumption requires Q - it requires a hypothetical document in order to try and resolve it's assumed Synoptic Problems. Problems that are themselves the result of the historical Jesus assumption. So round and around go the arguments trying to create a historical Jesus picture out of the gospel contradictions...

Why would a mythicist want to play at that game? All I can fathom is that Q is being used for something other than a non-historical Jesus theory. It is being used as a source for theories re the pre-Paul communities. In other words - the hypothetical Q is being read into Paul - and thus clouding any historical, independent of the hypothetical Q, research into these pre-Paul, pre-christian, communities.

Great reluctance on the part of historical Jesus scholars to ditch Q. Understandable once ditching Q means ditching their last refuge for their HJ. But ditching Q also means that the pre-Paul communities would have to be considered in the light of history and not in the gloom of a hypothetical Q document.

spamandham

Here's 1 Cor 15 (the part of interest)

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Wouldn't Jesus have "appeared" to James first if, as you argue, James is the blood brother of Jesus and "appear" here refers to knowledge of Jesus in any form, physical or spiritual? But no, Jesus "appears" first to Peter, in the exact same sense as he appears to Paul himself, and to all the others. No distinction is made between these types of appearances, but in the case of Paul, we know it was a vision. The clear inference is that Paul is referring to spiritual appearances in all these cases, not just his own.

Note also that Paul emphasizes "according to the scriptures". Why must he refer to scriptures about the death and resurrection if these are historical events of living memory?

spamandham

I don't really see how an HJ alters the arguments for or against Q. The argument for Q is rooted in textual similarities that suggest one or more common sources.

The best argument against some hidden Q text is what Price has argued... that if we assume the usual sequence of Mark->Matthew->Luke, then there is no need for Q at all, since Matthew's "Q" is simply Mark, and Luke's "Q" is simply Mark and Matthew.

ApostateAbe

I have before speculated that James, the brother of Jesus, was somewhat lower on the totem pole than the disciples, receiving less respect than we may expect of a blood brother of Jesus. This passage seems to confirm that view. I can't explain why he received so little respect. It may have been because he was a poor leader, bad at playing politics, or maybe he called Jesus a nutter while he was still alive, and his change of heart may have seemed insincere and opportunistic.

I don't think the inference about what Paul meant follows from the evidence. If there was a distinction between spiritual vision and physicalist appearance, then it wouldn't necessarily be in Paul's interest to make that distinction clear, or else it may come off as the bullshit that it really is. You can be sure that there were some Christians in the other camps who had serious doubts about Paul's story, which serves to explain why Paul tells such a ballsy lie with as much humility as he can--least of the apostles.
That is a good point, and I think that the two times Paul uses the phrase, "according to the Scriptures," is best understood as, "just as the Scriptures predicted," not necessarily, "as we know only from reading the Scriptures." Christians drew a scriptural connection between both three days of burial (Jonah and the fish, Jonah 1:17, per Matthew 12:40) and sacrificial atonement (suffering servant, Isaiah 53, per Matthew 8:17).

maryhelena

Fine, I don't have any argument with that re the argument from Price. That is an argument that is free flowing - allowing for other storytellers to add their own bursts of creativity. And if it really is that easy - why the need to keep the hypothetical Q? The only reason that I can see is the underlying assumption re a historical Jesus - and thus the need to present some unifying strand that can confine the synoptic gospels to some purer source than the contradictory source that presents itself.

Elijah

Do you have the vice-versa for this? Where an argument is made that Matt didn't use Luke making Q necessary? Seems like a lot of evidence that Luke didn't use Matt, just wondering what it looks like going the other way.

spamandham

The passage specifies a *sequence* of appearances, not a listing in priority order. Your notions that James is the blood brother of Jesus and that this passage refers to appearance in any form simply can not both be true, because James would obviously be first in the sequence being the blood brother of Jesus. Which of these premises are you willing to part with?

In this passage, Paul refers to "the twelve", but never says they were disciples, and they are mentioned distinctly from Peter - you know, the same Peter that's supposedly one of them! Come on Abe. None of this adds up.

I haven't seen your argument that James is lower than the disciples, but considering that Paul never even mentions any disciples of Jesus, I don't know how you could have come to that conclusion. James plays very little role in the gospel story possibly because he's one of the few historical people involved. Paul's James is the leader of the Jerusalem church, and was known as "James the Just".

There is no distinction between physical vs spiritual appearances, because there only ever were spiritual appearances! This fits just fine with a mythical perspective, but does not add up for a historical Jesus perspective. How can James, the blood brother of Jesus, have been one of the last ones to see Jesus!? This makes no sense at all.

Please, think carefully about this.

James is Jesus' blood brother. James must surely have seen his own blood brother before all these hundreds of other people did, at least at Easter dinner ( :Cheeky: ). Peter is one of the 12 disciples according to the gospel legend. Yet Paul says Peter saw Jesus before the 12 did. Therefor Peter saw Jesus before Peter saw Jesus.

I have no problem accepting that Paul is full of shit, yet, he is still the best we have in regard to early Christian history. The gospels are even more full of BS than Paul. At least Paul doesn't claim miracles in every other sentence like the absurd gospel fantasies.

I've seen it argued that "in accordance with" is a possible interpretation. I really don't know if that's a valid and ordinary translation since I don't know Greek. According to the concordance at blueletterbible.com, "kata" implies direction or motion, and neither "in accordance with" nor "as foretold by" are listed as definitions of it.

As an HJer you *must* interpret it that way. But that still doesn't explain why Paul interjects it at this point. Was the idea that there was a physical death and resurrection controversial, requiring emphasis that it's in accordance with the scriptures? What is the point of interjecting it here, when Paul talks about the crucifixion and resurrection 1000 other times without it?

I agree with this much. Can we at least also agree that the resurrection and the 3 days of burial are not historical, and so when Paul refers to these in reference to the scriptures, there is a strong chance that at least those aspects of the story really were derived from scripture rather than simply being in accordance with them?

show_no_mercy

Also note that Cephas is playing second fiddle to "men from James" which leads to Paul chewing him out in Galatians.

Solo

You should know that the phrase 'according to the scriptures' (kata tas graphas) is one of a number of non-Paulinisms identified in the short passage which most exegets take to mean that Paul was reproducing a church credal manifest rather than presenting his own ideas. Paul uses uniformly 'gegraptai' (it is written) in the corpus when he refers to the scriptures.

The improbability of Paul referring to LXX. in 1 Cr 15:3-4 with respect to the scriptures was discussed by G.A.Wells who suspected that it was a reference to the later gospels, and thus a manifest interpolation. But he did not think the evidence decisive. (G.A.Wells, The Jesus of the Early Christians (or via: amazon.co.uk), Pemberton 1971, p.137)

Jiri

spamandham

Thanks for the insight.

I did a quick search, and it appears to me that in every instance that "it is written" appears in Paul, save one (Gal. 4:22*) , it is used to introduce a direct quote. 1 Cor. 15 is not introducing direct quotes but is merely referring to ideas found in scripture, so this doesn't seem like a compelling case for non-Paulism of 1 Cor. 15.

I've argued here many times that all of 1 Cor. 15 is a later addition, but that wouldn't change that fact that some author, be it Paul or a later editor, nonetheless felt the need to interject that the death, three day internment, and resurrection are all "according to scripture".

Even if it's an anachronism, this still indicates that there was some controversy regarding these ideas. Otherwise, why interject it?

* In Gal 4.22, "it is written" is used to refer to scripture indirectly instead of as a direct quote

This is certainly possible, but if so, we are still left with the puzzle as to why the interpolator felt the need to interject "according to the scriptures" in regard to ideas that a traditional model would proclaim to have been firmly established in the earliest stage of Christianity. Why does Wells discount the idea that Paul really was stating that the death, internment, and resurrection were rooted in Jewish scriptures? Those ideas really are in there afterall, if a sod method of exegesis is used, and every indication is that Paul used such a method.