mike_decock

[ModHat]
Could we please refrain from using combative statements like this? It tends to derail threads into ad hominim bickering.
[/ModHat]

Thanks,

-Mike....

Vinnie

Your three points as I perceive them:

1) Rather than being worthless, stratification is necessary for historical studie here. If I believed, as layman, does, that a tradition ahs eyewitness ties, it would not need be stratified at all. I'd start with a second stratum eyewitness source before I did a first stratum second hand source!

2) I realize many here are uncertain about some of the dates. More important to me is that scholars, as opposed to amatuers who commit fallacy after fallacy after fallacy on IIDB, agree with me. Even more important than that is that the facts support my datings and that of scholars. I have, in the past, attempted to date the Gospels and so forth here. I have also presented arguments for the dating of texts like the Gospel of Thomas on my webpages as well.

Let us be clear on one point. VERY CLEAR. If I argue that something meets three sperarate criteria I do so within my stratification. If you disagree with me you must make it clear that you are either disagreeing with my straticification or my method or both or that I messed up somewhere in applying the method.

For instance, Jesus' crucifixion meets three of my criteria --> Its early, widespread and embarrassing.

What is the issue Vork? That Jesus' crucifixion is not early, it is not attested widely, and it is not embarrassing or that these triply intersecting criteria do not establish historicity here?

Which one and why or why not?

3) You appear to have caricatured my position by saying "you have the earliest sources. In no way are you any closer to determining historicity."

As I stated, just having a first stratum source does not argue a datum is historical. That is one criteria. My method entails using negative criteria (which can inauthenticate traditions) and looking for independent confirmation from multiple historical criteria. You have introduced a red herring here.

For example, I would argue that the crucifixion of Jesus is early and embarrassing early. It is also widespread (multiply attested). Three seperate criteria. I do nto say "it is early so its true".

Vinnie

Vinnie

[quote]In fact, you can't date any of them accurately.{/quote]

And so you assert.

If you can't? Who said I can't? Do you not understand simpel concepts such as "it is not my goal to appease your hyper skepticism?" That is different from I can't propose agrugments for authorship and dating of these works.

Stratification of traditions is irrelevant to questions of historicity? And so you assert.

Your entire response is worthless. You have bickered and posted nothign of substance. In the fiture, if this is all you have to offer, feel free to not respnd to my posts.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Yet, the majority of scholars accept the independence of the synoptics and the Pauline corpuse. Your assertion here that Mark knew this tradition from Paul must be defeneded. What evidence is there that Mark knew 1 Corinthians?

Are you aware of the general rules used when arguing dependence? I will be happy to share my perspective.

Vinnie

mike_decock

[ModHat]
Replying in kind just contributes to the derailment of an otherwise interesting thread. Can we keep it civil please?
[/ModHat]

Thanks,

-Mike...

Vinnie

Its difficult not to. My apologies:

Amazing. If you had actually bothered to read a few more verses of my post you might have actually learned something. Unless I see evidence in future discourses that you read my comments in full before deciding to rip something out of context and critique or respond to them with questions, I will refrain from responding to your posts.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I think some material in John goes back to the historical Jesus as well but I am not sure what you mean by eyewitness material. Potentially, any source that has material which goes back to an HJ has eyewitness material (even if indriectly). Do you mean that John founded the Johannine community and his eyewitness preaching underwent years of theological development and reflection and is now found in the form found in GJohn?

There are some elemtns in GJohn which many would accept over the synoptics. Jesus went to Jerusalem repeatedly. Longer minsitry (which is hinted at in places in Mark) and so on. ccoutn of Jewish trial of Jesus is deemed more realistic by many as well.

At any rate, I agree that if eyewitness sources wrote a text then the stratification is useless n a sense. Since I disagree on the nature of the sources with you I deem it historically prudent to start with the first stratum and work up in such a manner.

[quote]But again I think it's just as important to determine possible sources as possible dates. [/uote]

I agree with this. It should be investigated to see whether the parameters of L can be defined. I only caution that L is hypothetical like Q. Its reconstruction may be met with a great deal of skepticism as is reconstructing the extent, strata, community and so on of Q.

This does not mean it can't or shouldn't be done, just that we must of course, procede with caution.

Thansk for clarifying with this distinction. My dating is rather simplistic: Matthew and Luke are dated third stratum Luke used two other second stratum sources and the material (inherited traditions) should be placed back here as well. The "inherited tradition" goes back a level. As stated. it may go back further but I just an not certain how much more.


Of course to be convinced I would need to see detailed argumentation. At any rate, what do you mean by literary phenomenon? Do some scholars thing Q fits such a bill?

At any rate, I read that verse in Luke. How does this demonstrate the L source exists pre-Temple solely on this basis anymore than it deonstrates Luke is pre-Temple?

Further, does the usage of Pharisee presuppose later Christian polemic against Pharisees? Brown argued against an early (1st stratum) dating of Q on this basis Intro Nt, p. 122). Hostilitiy towards Pharisees probably developed later in Christian tradition rather than early. This would seemingly be confirmation of my second stratum dating.

I can agree with that and still not agree that this places us 40-60 C.E. for L.

[quote]Because he had access to sources that the other surviving gospels did not, such as Palestinian Christians. I accept very seriously the idea that Luke traveled with Paul, and that he spent time in Jerusalem with Paul. Since he obviously had an eye for collecting sources about Jesus, there is nothing extraordinary in the proposition that he learned all he could from members of the Jerusalem Church. Of course, even if he was not traveling with Paul but had exposure to different sources to Matthew or different communities that had their own focus or bent. I doubt that every Christian apostle memorized everything Jesus did or said. Or if they did, that they used all the stuff all the time during their travels and evangelism. [/wuote]

My only problem is how one determines these go back to Jesus (which they could). Given the L details are second stratum (my stratification) and many are not attested in any other other sources, it is very difficult to affirm the historicity of them. Lucan special material does support things like the crucifixion of Jesus. I think speciual M material does ths as well.

This is how I use L and M material. For attestation of datums attested elsewhere. They attest to crucifixion, that Jesus worked miracles, spoke in parables, etc. Another source or sources to add to the MA for these details about the HJ.

[quote]Thanks for a real topic Vinnie. It's nice to discuss these issues without the bloodletting or the Jesus Myth dominating the conversation.[/qupte]

Thanks to you as well. I am getting off he Jesus myth thing and proceding to my methodology and so on around here. I consider JM to be a "fluff" subject and I am simply not learning anything by it.

Vinnie

rlogan

Vinnie - I have thought over this idea that the crucifixion was "embarassing" and therefore points to an HJ.

First of all, the gospels treat it as a mandatory event foretold by Jesus rather than a completely unexpected calamity:

Matthew 16:13-20. Mark 8:38-9:1. Luke
9:22-27

In fact, the crucifixion is yet another example of "validation" of Jesus as the Messaiah by virtue of fulfilling OT prophesy:

We have the Septuagint in Psalm 22:16 reading "pierced" instead of "Lion", possibly another hapless mis-translation like the "virgin" translation. But it is buttressed by Isaiah 53: 1-5; Zechariah 12:10. The savior will be rejected. He will suffer and be pierced for our sins.

So I'm not buying the embarrassment proposition here. Not to say it wouldn't be embarassing to have your hero hoisted up. Rather, that this crucifixion fits the myth nicely and offers no superiority for the HJ position on this score.

What would be embarassing, though, it to keep preaching that some of you will not taste death before the third coming. Still mulling that one over.

Vinnie

Hi rlogan. First let me state that you raise a valid objection in theory.

Second let me state that we would still have two criteria here --> its early and VERY widely attested (see sources listed above and add in L and M if I did not iunclude them). This would certainly drop it down from virtually certain (100%) to (Highly Probable (80%)

Yet I will say that you also appear to be arguing that there may be plausible reasons for Christian creativity of thistradition? Correct?

You argue the Gospels treat it as a mandatory event . But I would contend that this is all very explaianble. The crucifixion was so embarrassing that it was cast in light of sacred scripture. The most embarrassing aspect of the Jesus movement became [edit = not "because" ] its most important tradition!

Furter, it was my argument that the crucifixion would have been embarrassing to early Christians, not necessarily to the author of the Gospel of Mark.

As I noted on this in my historical Jesus skepticism FaQ:

[quote][7] Argument: The Crucifixion might not have been embarrassing to Christians. "For all you know, Mark was proud and happy that Jesus was killed and found nothing embarrassing in the Crucifixion."

Rebuttal: By the time of Mark any embarrassment regarding the crucifixion of Jesus may very well have been alleviated by how his death was spun and viewed in light of the Old Testament by Christians. Its the earlier Christians who would have found this concept difficult to cope with. Mark did not invent the idea of Jesus' crucifixion and this objection only has force if he/she did do so. This skandalon goes back much earlier than ca. 70 C.E.

The crucifixion of Jesus must have been embarrassing to early Christians. This is attested in the first stratum and failure to accept this is simply failing to appreciate the social context at the time. Scholars recognize the brutality of crucifixion in the first century world. It is argued that the term "crucifixion" was rarely used in polite Roman society at the time (e.g. Tom Wright) It was an utterly offensive affair, a status degradation ritual used for deterrence. The Jewish historian Josephus described crucifixion as "the most wretched of deaths" or "a most miserable death" (Jewish War 7.203) In Seneca's (died ca. 65 C.E.) Epistle 101 to Lucilius suicide is preferable to the cruel fate of being put on the cross.

I shall cite Paul's references (1st stratum) since readers don't always know/look them up:

Gal 5:11: "In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished."

1 Cor 1:18 "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Cor 1:23 :but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

Possibly Romans 9:32-33 32Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." 33As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

I could go on but there is no need. A crucified Jesus is history remembered.
['/quote]

Notice Paul's quotes and the outside ones (Jopsesphus and Seneca. So there were actually two reasons why the embarrassment criterion applies: 1) The nature of crucifixion in that historical context (See outside sources) and 2) the positive attestation that it was a skandalon from Paul.

I beleive the embarrassment criterion here is very secure.

On the basis of the three separate, overlapping criteria (embarrassment, antiquity of the tradition, and its very wide spread multiple attestion), I deem that Jesus was crucified as being historically certain.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I was not guing against the mythicist tradition nor supporting the HJ postions. I was reconstructing the historical Jesus fro mwithin the HJ position.

If you feel you can raise competing traditions however, I will listen to them.

Vinnie