davidsimons

Since reading JEC by Professor George a Wells, in the early 1980s, I have always been convinced by his argumentation about the historicity of Jesus.
I have bought and read all his books, published since that date and I have never failed to be impressed by his analysis and discussions.

I was then very taken aback by the change of ideas in 'The Jesus Myth', when he concedes the possible existence of 'an actual itinerant Galilean preacher of the 20s or 30...'(p.103).

It was not only this change, but the suddenness and unexpectedness of it. I certainly did not detect any 'warning signs' of this happening; nor can I find any discussion concerning the reason(s) for this major change of opinion.
Why has he shifted his view that Christian belief arose from the (alleged) revelations from a supernatural christ to include a possible physical one?
What prompted this change? Why specifically does he refer to the 20s-30s? (and not say, the first century BCE)?

Can anyone offer any information on this matter.
Thanks.
David

Steven Carr

It was the work on Q that led Wells to change his mind.

Malachi151

By the way, does anyone know how to contact him by e-mail or mail?

DCHindley

To his credit, in the introduction to The Jesus of the Early Christians (or via: amazon.co.uk) Wells says:

"In Part Two I show how Christianity could have originated without a historical Jesus. The theory I offer is consistent with the available evidence, but as this is regrettably scanty, I cannot claim to demonstrate what actually did happen, only what might well have happened. ... the paucity of evidence is such that no one theory can be established to the exclusion of all others, and if the hostile reader objects that my hypotheses are speculative I can reply that in this field nothing else if possible. Further evidence may well show my theory be wrong in important details, although it would astonish me if it transpired that Christianity originated in the way suggested by the gospels and Acts of the Apostles. At the moment, the only alternative theories to mine are that it originated (1) from a god-man, frankly supernatural or (2) from a human being who somehow came to be regarded as a god within a generation of his death. I do not find these hypotheses more intelligible, nor more in accordance with the evidence than my own." (italics and boldface type are added by me for emphasis)

I suppose he was keeping an open mind with regard to future evidence. Steven Carr states that it was work on Q that led Wells to change his mind. I wonder if Steven could elucidate on that a bit.

While I respect Q scholarship (especially that of Kloppenborg), I think it has been twisted a bit to make out Jesus to be a mere misunderstood wisdom teacher who was mistaken as a political revolutionary by poor choice of language. Q, in this variant of Well's alternative hypothesis #2, reflects the pithy core of Jesus' wisdom teaching, redacted a couple times in ways that left tell-tale clues to the development of the earliest Jesus followers into a Jewish messianic movement. Critics then further sanalyze the way this hypothetical document was used by the Gospel writers to redefine Jesus as - you got it - a misunderstood divine savior. Just a little too conveniently sews the matter up if one were to ask me.

DCH

Clivedurdle

Do not the DSS talk of a teacher of righteousness, so Ellegard comes into play?

Zeichman

I don't know of anyone who says that Q portrays Jesus as a political revolutionary, nor is there any basis for that off the top of my head. I'm pretty sure Wells does not ascribe to Kloppenborg's compositional history, either. I think he goes the route of a Cynic hypothesis in a Downing-esque way without saying much about the evolution of the document. Your comments about Q being a messianic movement are ambiguous, but there isn't any basis for that either. Only relatively conservative or maximalist scholars ascribe to that (Meadors' book that argues such indicates such a bias in its title: Jesus: The Messianic Herald of Salvation (or via: amazon.co.uk)).

DCHindley

As the last sentence indicates, it was not Q that does this, but the gospel authors who utilize it. Jesus was, they admit, executed by crucifixion as "king of the Jews" etc. However, they want it known that Jesus was killed out of "jealousy" of the Jewish aristocracy, because he has embarassed them through his folksy wit. Q supplied the folksy wit.

If I am not mistaken, though, Mack stratified Q into layers that start with Q1 ("primary instructions addressed to the community" = pithy wisdom sayings) and progress to Q2a ("judgemental sayings addressed to 'this generation'") to Q2b ("instructions to the community in the light of the judgemental sayings addressed to 'this generation'"), finally ending with Q3 ("provides a little window into the Q community after the war").

Q1 is involved with Jesus' teaching, instructions for movement, confidence in the Father's care, on anxiety and speaking out, on personal goods, parables of the kingdom, and the true followers of Jesus.

Q2a deals with John's preaching, what John & Jesus thought, pronouncements against towns, controversies with 'this generation', judgement on 'this generation', pronouncement against the Pharisees, the coming judgement, the two ways, and the final judgement.

Q2b is concerned with congratulations to persons, caution on taking sides, true enlightenment, on public confessions, and community rules.

Q3 for its part introduces "three new themes" (1) mythology of Jesus as the son of God (2) the relationship of Jesus as son of God to the (now destroyed) temple in Jerusalem and (3) the authority of scriptures.

In other words, a progression from simple wisdom teaching to conflict with Judean authority figures and regions and their judgement to rationalization as to what it all really meant in light of the war. Judaism has to be actually injected into Q teaching.

Q2 may well be actual Jesus sayings, all piss and vinegar. My suspicion is that Q1 was an example of generic wisdom lore (it may not have even been Jewish in origin) utilized by the Q redactor (Q3) to show that Jesus was something more than what the Jesus of Q2 was all about (kind of like Apollonius of Tyana, but not necessarily based on him).

Finally, the authors of gMatt & gLuke used the redacted Q to further show that Jesus was not the revolutionary that the mode of his death would suggest. Q3 suggests that the gospel authors were not the first to try to distance themselves from the revolutionary aspects of the Jesus movement's origins.

DCH

Malachi151

Q is way over rated. It seems to me to be an idea that has grown well outside of its own scope. There is no evidence that "Q" is even real. And as far as supposedly teasing out Q1, Q2, and Q3, that's just going over board.

aa5874

I agree with that. "Q" is just a highly speculative hypothesis.

DCHindley

I'm not ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater quite yet. I haven't had the time to really look closely at the Q issue since Kloppenborg published Excavating Q (or via: amazon.co.uk) and tipped his hand as to which way he was leaning on the significance of Q. He had attempted a start at stratifying Q in _Formation of Q_ but it wasn't systemetized or presented as a figure or illustration or table or anything.

Since 1999 I've had a comparative table of Mack's and Kloppenborg's redaction levels (I believe I got it from Rick Hubbard) that I *really* should start looking at closely.

Luke GoT Mack # & Strata Klop # & Strata

Lost.=n/a.=QS01.=?.=S01.=-.
Lost.=n/a.=QS02.=?.=-.=-.
3:01-06.=n/a.=QS03.=2a.=S02.=-.
3:07-09.=n/a.=QS04.=2a.=S03.=Q2a.
3:16-17.=n/a.=QS05.=2a.=S04.=Q2a.
3:22b.=n/a.=-.=-.=S05?.=-.
4:01-13.=n/a.=QS06.=3.=S06.=Q3.
6:20a.=n/a.=QS07.=?.=S07.=-.
6:20b-23.=54; 69b; 68.=QS08.=?.=S08.=Q1a.
6:23c.=n/a.=QS08.=?.=S08.=Q2+.
6:27-35.=6:2; 95.=QS09.=1.=S09.=Q1a.
6:36-38.=n/a.=QS10.=1.=S10.=Q1a.
6:39-40.=34.=QS11.=1.=S11.=Q1a.
6:41-42.=26.=QS12.=1.=S12.=Q1a.
6:43-45.=45.=QS13.=1.=S13.=Q1a.
6:46-49.=n/a.=QS14.=1.=S14.=Q1a.
7:01-10.=n/a.=QS15.=2a.=S15.=Q2b.
7:18-23.=n/a.=QS16.=2a.=S16.=Q2b.
7:24-25.=78.=QS17.=2a.=S17?.=Q2b.
7:26-27.=n/a.=QS17.=2a.=S18?.=Q2b.
7:28.=46.=QS17.=2a.=S19?.=Q2b.
7:31-35.=n/a.=QS18.=2a.=S20.=Q2b.
9:57-62.=86.=QS19.=1.=S21.=Q1b.
10:01-11.=73; 14:2.=QS20.=1.=S22.=Q1b.
10:12.=n/a.=QS21.=2a.=-.=Q2+.
10:13-15.=n/a.=QS22.=2a.=S23.=Q2+.
10:16.=n/a.=QS23.=2b.=S24.=Q1b.
10:21-22.=61?.=QS24.=3.=S25.=-.
10:23-24.=n/a.=QS25.=2b.=S26.=-.
11:01-04.=n/a.=QS26.=1.=S27.=Q1c.
11:09-13.=2; 92; 94.=QS27.=1.=S28.=Q1c.
11:14-23a.=35.=QS28.=2a.=S29.=Q2c.
11:23b.=n/a.=QS29.=2b.=N/A.=Q2c.
11:24-26.=n/a.=QS30.=2b.=S30.=Q2c.
11:27-28.=n/a.=QS31.=3.=S31.=Q2c(?).
11:16.=n/a.=QS32.=2a.=S32?.=-.
11:29-32.=n/a.=QS32.=2a.=S32.=Q2c.
11:33-35.=33:2.=QS33.=2b.=S33.=Q2c.
11:36.=n/a.=-.=-.=S33?.=Q2c.
11:39-52.=89; 102?; 39:1.=QS34.=2a.=S34.=Q2c.
11:42c.=n/a.=QS34.=2a.=S34.=Q3.
11:39b, 42a, 43a Pharisees.=n/a.=QS34.=3.=S34.=Q2c.
12:02-03.=5:2; 6:3; 33:1.=QS35.=1.=S35.=Q1d.
12:04-07.=n/a.=QS36.=1.=S36.=Q1d.
12:05 Hell Fire.=n/a.=QS36.=3.=S36.=Q1d.
12:08-09.=n/a.=QS37.=2b.=S37?.=Q2+.
12:10.=44.=QS37.=2b.=S38?.=Q2+.
12:11-12.=n/a.=QS37.=2b.=S39?.=Q1d.
12:13-21.=n/a.=QS38.=1.=S40.=-.
12:22-31.=36.=QS39.=1.=S41.=Q1e.
12:33-34.=76:2.=QS40.=1.=S42.=Q1e.
12:36-38?.=n/a.=-.=-.=S43.=-.
12:39-40.=21:3; 103.=QS41.=2a.=S44.=Q2d.
12:42-46.=n/a.=QS42.=2a.=S45.=Q2d.
12:49-53.=16.=QS43.=2a.=S46.=Q2d.
12:54-56.=91.=QS44.=2a.=S47.=Q2d.
12:57-59.=n/a.=QS45.=2a.=S48.=Q2d.
13:18-21.=20; 96.=QS46.=1.=S49.=-.
13:24-27.=n/a.=QS47.=2a.=S50.=-.
13:24.=n/a.=QS47.=2a.=S50.=Q1f.
13:25-27.=n/a.=-.=-.=-.=Q2+.
13:28-30.=n/a.=QS48.=2a.=S51.=Q2+.
13:34-35.=n/a.=QS49.=3.=S52.=Q2+.
14:11 = 18:14b.=n/a.=QS50=1.=S53.=-.
14:12-14?.=n/a.=-.=-.=S54.=-.
14:16-24.=64.=QS51.=1.=S55.=Q2+.
14:26-27 = 17:33.=55; 101.=QS52.=1.=S56.=Q1f.
14:34-35.=n/a.=QS53.=1.=S57.=Q1f.
15:04-07.=107.=QS54.=2b.=S58?.=Q1g.
15:08-10.=n/a.=QS54.=2b.=S59?.=Q1g(?).
16:13.=47:2.=QS55.=2b.=S60.=Q1g.
16:16.=n/a.=QS56.=3.=S61.=-.
16:17.=n/a.=QS56.=3.=S61.=Q3.
16:18.=n/a.=QS56.=3.=S61.=Q1g.
17:01-02.=n/a.=QS57.=2b.=S62.=Q1g.
17:03-04.=n/a.=QS58.=2b.=S63.=Q1g.
17:06.=n/a.=QS59.=2b.=S64.=Q1g.
17:20-21?.=3c; 51; 113a.=-.=-.=S65.=-.
17:23-37.=61; 113b.=QS60.=2a.=S66.=Q2e.
19:11-27.=41.=QS61.=2a.=S67.=Q2e.
22:28-30.=n/a.=QS62.=3.=S68.=Q2e.

The table's formatting is not fully preserved, so watch out. It does preserve the sequence. If you're sharp, you will be able to distinguish between verses in Luke and GoT logion#. I notice there is no Mark/Q overlap in this list, although some seem to thinik gMark preserves some of Q. Personally, I like to keep Q analysis within the "double tradition" (Matt & Luke where they have parallels that are not in Mark).

DCH