Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gnosis92 · 04-13-2008, 10:25 AM

I recognize that the dating of some early noncanonical documents like the didache and GOT is contentious, and their (in)dependence on the NT is likewise contentious (i.e the didache may be dependent on Matthew) but if both facts were true, would this be strong evidence as to the historicity of Jesus?

Toto · 04-13-2008, 11:11 AM

Not strong evidence, in any case. The "Jesus" in gThomas has no biographical details to speak of.

A first century Didache might be evidence of first century Christianity (which is currently lacking) unless, of course, it was originally a Jewish document. But what part of the Didache supports a historical Jesus?

gnosis92 · 04-13-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Not strong evidence, in any case. The "Jesus" in gThomas has no biographical details to speak of.

A first century Didache might be evidence of first century Christianity (which is currently lacking) unless, of course, it was originally a Jewish document. But what part of the Didache supports a historical Jesus?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html

the teachings in didache overlap with Thomas, hypothetical Q, Mark, Pauline epistles to Jesus.

baptism and eucharist are both alluded to (as well as Gospels and Paul)

Doug Shaver · 04-14-2008, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

would this be strong evidence as to the historicity of Jesus?

No. It would help the historicist case a little bit, but not enough, in my judgment, to overcome the evidence against historicity.

gnosis92 · 04-14-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

would this be strong evidence as to the historicity of Jesus?

No. It would help the historicist case a little bit, but not enough, in my judgment, to overcome the evidence against historicity.

In a nutshell, what's the evidence against historicity

Doug Shaver · 04-15-2008, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

In a nutshell, what's the evidence against historicity

You've been posting here for almost two years, and you still don't know? I can say nothing that has not been said countless times already in this forum.

Obviously, the evidence against Jesus' historicity is, in your judgment, insufficient to establish reasonable doubt about Jesus' historicity. Very well, that is your call. But that doesn't mean there is no such evidence.

Even if you should be correct in your evaluation of that evidence, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means that it does not actually prove what some of us think it proves.

Malachi151 · 04-15-2008, 05:17 AM

Voted X.

I think that if Didache was pre-Gospel then it undermined historicity, and I think that its likely that Didache was pre-Gospel.

On the other hand I think that if Thomas was pre-Gospel then it would be a piece of evidence in favor of a historical Jesus, though it wouldn't prove it. I also think that Thomas was written after the other Gospels though.

gnosis92 · 04-15-2008, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Voted X.

I think that if Didache was pre-Gospel then it undermined historicity, and I think that its likely that Didache was pre-Gospel.

On the other hand I think that if Thomas was pre-Gospel then it would be a piece of evidence in favor of a historical Jesus, though it wouldn't prove it. I also think that Thomas was written after the other Gospels though.

How would pre-Matthew Didache undermine historicity?

Ehrman also thinks it was written after the Gospels, and I do agree with Ehrman that some logia can only be understood in a gnostic framework. I do think some statements can be traced to Jesus.

Malachi151 · 04-15-2008, 07:19 PM

From my JM article:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

Quote:

We can now move on to another controversial work that has received even more attention, Didache. Didache is a work that was known to some of the early Christian apologists, but was later lost. A copy of Didache was rediscovered in the 19th century and the work has puzzled scholars ever since. Scholars do agree that Didache as we have it today has had some alterations to it over time, but most also agree that there is still much original in the work as well. Most scholars call Didache the oldest non-canon piece of Christian literature, but just how old it is is disputed.

Didache contains many sayings which are similar to those attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, especially in Matthew, but these sayings are not attributed to Jesus in Didache. The work is also considered highly Jewish in nature, using several Jewish themes. Didache also goes into extensive discussions about rules concerning the treatment of apostles and prophets, making no mention of disciples of Jesus, but rather apostles in general. Unlike The Odes of Solomon, however, Didache does briefly mention Jesus in two passages dealing with the ritual Thanksgiving meal.

Chapter 9:
1. Now concerning the Thanksgiving [Eucharist], thus give thanks.
2. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever.
3. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever.
4. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.
5. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving [Eucharist], but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

Chapter 10:
1. But after you are filled, thus give thanks:
2. We thank You, holy Father, for Your holy name which You caused to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever.
3. You, Master almighty, created all things for Your name's sake; You gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to You; but to us Thou freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Your Servant.
4. Before all things we thank You that You are mighty; to You be the glory for ever.
5. Remember, Lord, Your Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Your love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Your kingdom which You have prepared for it; for Yours is the power and the glory for ever.
6. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen.
7. But permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire.
- The Didache, ?(Most scholars date to some time between 50 and 120 CE)

Christian scholar Burton Mack, of the Claremont School of Theology, had this to say about these passages in Didache:

The prayer of thanksgiving (eucharist) for the community meal in chapters 9 and 10 are also significant. That is because they do not contain any reference to the death of Jesus. Accustomed as we are to the memorial supper of the Christ cult and the stories of the last supper in the synoptic gospels, it has been very difficult to imagine early Christians taking meals together for any reason other than to celebrate the death of Jesus according to the Christ myth. But here in the Didache a very formalistic set of prayers is assigned to the cup and the breaking of bread without the slightest association with the death and resurrection of Jesus. The prayers of thanksgiving are for the food and drink God created for all people and the special, "spiritual" food and drink that Christians have because of Jesus. Drinking the cup symbolizes the knowledge these people have that they and Jesus are the "Holy Vine of David," which means that they "belong to Israel." Eating the bread symbolizes the knowledge these people have of the life and immortality they enjoy by belonging to the kingdom of God made known to them by Jesus, God's child. And it is serious business. No one is allowed to "eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the Lord's name" (Did. 9:5). We thus have to imagine a highly self-conscious network of congregations that thought of themselves as Christians, had developed a full complement of rituals, had much in common with other Christian groups of centrist persuasions, but continued to cultivate their roots in a Jesus movement where enlightenment ethics made much more sense than the worship of Jesus as the crucified Christ and risen son of God.
- Burton Mack; Who Wrote the New Testament

We can compare the passages from Didache to the Last Supper meal in the Gospel of Matthew to see the differences between the two:

Matthew 26:
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

As with The Odes of Solomon, is it more likely that the Gospel account would evolve into what we see in Didache, or that what we see in Didache would evolve into the Gospel account? Didache is a highly Jewish work, which has sayings in it that are similar to those in the Gospels, but not attributed to Jesus, and it contains rituals that cannot conceivably be tied to the Gospel accounts of similar rituals or the Gospel story.

In Didache we again see Jesus mentioned not as a real flesh and blood entity, but as a spiritual mediator, and the eucharist ritual in Didache makes no reference either the body or blood of Jesus.

Instead the eucharist ritual talks about bread that is scattered over the land and then collected together, which actually sounds very similar to the story of the dismemberment and scattering of the body of Osiris (also symbolized by bread), which was later collected together by Isis and resurrected, though this may just be a coincidence. The eucharist rituals in Didache really defy the Gospel account of the Christian story. It's not really conceivable how these rituals could have been inspired by the life, deeds, and words of Jesus if the Gospel accounts are accurate, which is something that most Christian scholars will not consider, so they instead try to gloss over this issue or explain it away as having been written by confused people. What makes far more sense, however, is that Didache represents a step in the evolution of the Christ myth, written by a people who had no concept of a human Jesus who had been on earth, and that these types of eucharistic rituals evolved over time and developed into the rituals that we find in the Gospels, focused on the "body" and "blood" of Christ. It is important to note that a eucharist ritual was also mentioned and practiced by Paul.

robto · 04-16-2008, 02:02 PM

I think this makes a strong argument for historicity. Mark, Thomas, Q: all first-century, all agree that Jesus was an important person, agree to some extent on what he said, but disagree totally on the mythical aspects.

Thomas is also an independent witness to some of the characters from the gospels: James, Mary, John the Baptist, and of course Thomas himself.

View Poll Results: If the Didache or the Gospel of Thomas were written first ce and independent of NT
it would provide support for Jesus historicity	7	50.00%
it would not provide support for Jesus historicity	6	42.86%
x	1	7.14%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll

04-13-2008, 10:25 AM	#1
gnosis92 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: usa Posts: 3,103	If the Didache or the Gospel of Thomas were written first ce and independent of NT I recognize that the dating of some early noncanonical documents like the didache and GOT is contentious, and their (in)dependence on the NT is likewise contentious (i.e the didache may be dependent on Matthew) but if both facts were true, would this be strong evidence as to the historicity of Jesus?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-13-2008, 11:11 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Not strong evidence, in any case. The "Jesus" in gThomas has no biographical details to speak of. A first century Didache might be evidence of first century Christianity (which is currently lacking) unless, of course, it was originally a Jewish document. But what part of the Didache supports a historical Jesus?

04-15-2008, 05:17 AM	#7
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Voted X. I think that if Didache was pre-Gospel then it undermined historicity, and I think that its likely that Didache was pre-Gospel. On the other hand I think that if Thomas was pre-Gospel then it would be a piece of evidence in favor of a historical Jesus, though it wouldn't prove it. I also think that Thomas was written after the other Gospels though.

04-16-2008, 02:02 PM	#10
robto Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Maryland Posts: 701	I think this makes a strong argument for historicity. Mark, Thomas, Q: all first-century, all agree that Jesus was an important person, agree to some extent on what he said, but disagree totally on the mythical aspects. Thomas is also an independent witness to some of the characters from the gospels: James, Mary, John the Baptist, and of course Thomas himself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.