Layman

LOL.

Actually, it shows quite clearly that he believed that Jesus was born a human being of the tribe of Judah, suffered while on earth praying to God for deliverance, was crucified in Jerusalem, and then was rose from the dead. He also quite clearly writes about early Christian expectations of Jesus' second coming.

And I did not just assume away Doherty's lower spheres argument, I proved it was not a part of the author's worldview that Jesus existed in the lower celestial realms.

Remember, the author placed Jesus within the same time period as himself ("in these last days"). The author and his church knew of those who had known Jesus and based their beliefs on what those witnesses had heard from Him. And yes, the fact that the author refers to crucifixion also places a time limit on it.

That he does not give a specific date for something his audience would have already heard and was not in dispute does not mean that he had no knowledge of a specific time. It just means that he did not say it as narrowly as you think he should have.

Layman

It seems you agree with me. I'm not saying there should have been holy sites and relicism. I'm saying that there is no reason to think there would have been. It is the JMers who insist there must have been these things. I simply pointed out that if that were true, then its as much a problem for the JM types as for the HJ types.

spin

Well done, Layman. Now show us texts that give clear gospel text knowledge before Justin Martyr. Thanks.


spin

Amaleq13

Again ignoring the notion of heavenly spheres (which you have not convincingly denied but clearly requires more support on the part of Doherty), none of this except the reference to a crucifixion in Jerusalem can be considered as establishing Jesus in any specific point in history. What passage are you talking about? When I searched Hebrews at the Bible Gateway for "Jerusalem" all that is found is:

"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels" (KJV, emphasis added)

The "first appearance" apparently only involved the crucifixion. He appeared in order to die but we don't know where or when or if it even happened on earth rather than the heavenly settings the author spends so much time describing.

No, the author places the reception of the God-given knowledge that the sacrifice/resurrection happened within his lifetime.

A "time limit" of several centuries given the mass crucifixions that took place under Janneus according to Josephus.

Layman

I'm really unimpressed with your opinion. The author of Hebrews is quite clear that Jesus was a human being who lived on earth for a while.

It's not explicit. But the reference to being cruified outside the gate matches the location mentioned in three of the gospels.

Again, your simple opinion is irrelevant. The first appearance included being descended from he tribe of Judah, suffering on earth and crying out to God, and being crucified. The author, of couse, nowhere limits Jesus' existence to such activities. Only you do.

Since I demonstrated that the author of Hebrews describes Jesus as having lived on earth at a specific time period, and the discusses how other Christians had actually heard him during that time, your opinion is--again--irrelevant.

Several? Didn't he reign in 80 BCE?

Please give references when you cite to stuff.

And like I said, "in these last days" places Jesus within the same time period of the author. And the refrence to those who heard the Lord further narrows the time frame.

Layman

My apologies. Only the first quote was from the Apology, not the Mary quotes. The numbering system I was using was confusing (to me too).

Here ya go:

Tertullian, Answer to the Jews, Chapter 9.

Available online at: http://earlychristianwritings.com/te...tullian08.html

You can recant at any time and admit that you were wrong. Tertullian, Iranaeus, Clement of Alexandira, and Origen all attest to a human, historical Jesus.

Of course, none of this actually answers my questions. We have plenty of evidence of the Marcionoite contoversy, with the HJ orthdox attacking him openy and dogmatically. Yet we do not seem to have any comparable evidne fo such a contrversy between the HJ orthodx and those who denied Jesus even existed on earth--which is a much more radical position than Marcion held.

So where is the evidence of such a controversy?

the_cave

Ok, let me try:

"Matthew"
"Luke"
"John"
The author of Q
The author of the passion narrative
The author of the signs gospel
The author of Thomas

Ignatius (who was living in the late first century)

Papias, too

and Clement.

Unless, of course, you're going to date these documents late. Which I suppose you might.

Or I suppose you might argue that they're all engaging in midrash. Which I suppose you might.

But presumably they got their ideas from somewhere...and that somewhere was probably the late 1st century, at the latest, since they were writing no later than the very early 2nd century.

Vinnie

Doherty and Tomb Veneration

First, I invite Mr. Doherty, if he has the time and desire, to come discuss this with us personally. I'm sure he will see or hear of this somehow

PF's comments were, as you noted, off the cuff. I for one, merely skimmed the article. If she offers a detailed treatment of your thesis and you respond I will read it in full.

I can only guestimate that they do.

If you want to argue the times are substantially different and there is a valid reason why there isn't veneration, or extremely little (same difference to me) from ca 70-300 (we can discuss the exact datings if you like). As it stands, I judge a simple statement like "Paul would have venerated Holy Places" as meaningless when they stand alone. Why? This same silence of veneration and relic-ing is present throughout the course of many later Christian generations and communities where belief in an historical Jesus was present. Now if you want to argue such a case I will discuss it with you.

Your disciples here are largely incapable or presenting such arguments.

Furthermore, Layman brought up a good point that I would like to see you address:

I do not dismiss any debating. I simply ask that you show 1) Why we should expect veneration in the Christian corpus of the first century and 2) the differences between this and other centuries. Otherwise the "objection" you raise may be seen as undercutting itself."

Has no "necessary significance" that is. There may be a difference. But what if these later Christians are shown to posess knowledge of, say the canonical Gospels and their traditions (Bethlehem, Nazareth, Gethsemane, Calvary, etc.)? They supply details about places and sites of Jesus. Would not a paucity of veneration of the Holy Sites in this context undermine your own argument? Does Justin Martyr ever mention visinting the Holy Sites?

Were this sites restricted in some form?

Raymond Brown (Death Messiah) relays that there actually was an increase in Jewish veneration of the tombs of martyrs and prophets during this time period. I've explicitly stated this already here which you are of course excused for not seeing it. I personally have not investigated this matter but Brown is a sober exegete and I am willing to let it stand for the time being.

I disagree with your argument that Galilee would have created interest. 1) We do not know that it did or did not in the first stratum. 2) One author (John) has someone ask, "Can anything good come from Nazareth"? and two others, dependent on Mark, struggle hard to get Jesus out of Nazareth and into Bethlehem (through contradictory means).

The christology that developed after Jesus' death at some point made his hometown slightly embarrassing for some exegetes. I just showed three indepdnent ones in the third stratum. Nazareth may have proved difficult for some exegetes in the second and even late first stratum as well. This is one of the primary reasons Nazareth is accepted as Jesus' hometown. It goes against the theological grain of some works.

First, I take it you meant Peter and John. James, whether or not he follwoed Jesus the whole time is debatable. Mark has Jesus' family portray him negatively and John has his brothers not believing in him. It has to be argued that James always followed Jesus the whole time. It may be correct (Mark's theology has everyone reject him, hometown, family, disciples and so on) but I am not willing to assume it.

Some facets of my reconstruction:

A good portion of earliest Christianity (maybe not all of it but that which we have sources for) was urgent in its eschatology. The return of Jesus was expected very early. Our earliest source (1 Thess 4) documents this. The end was very close or more accurately, it had already begun.

The Jerusalem group appears to have remained largely Jewish and adhered strictly to the Law.

There wasn't an empty tomb. Christians did not know what happened to the body.

The crucifixion of Jesus, far from starting off as some great event, inititally was a great shock and surprise to Jesus' followers who were not crucified along with him. This skandalon is documented by Paul.

Your argument that the early missionary movement should have incorporated this may be problematic in that early on, the cross was a scandal. It was a stumbling block. The significance of Jesus' death was given to it. The casting of Jesus' death is due simply to apologetical needs. Is it possible an etched memory of this shocking and brutal status degradation ritual would prevent his earliest followers-- who gave up everything to follow this man --from returning to such a place or pilgramaging to it?

Second, we have to understand that we have no texts from Peter or the early jerusalem group. We have no idea what the exact nuance of their beliefs were.

If such is the case, [b]if[b] we granted the expectation of veneration, we might not expect it until the second stratum. I want to know what details you have in mind. I would argue it was widely known Jesus was from Nazareth and that he was crucified. What Holy Sites are to be worshipped and why? And don't forget Layman's objection.

The fact that there is no veneration simply tells me that there was no veneration. Not that there was not an historical Jesus. I do realize that your argument is cumulative but so is mine and I think my reconstruction is much more plausible and accounts for all the relevant data better.

How do you prioritize the non-probative silence of one text over a bunch of positive texts? This does not look like good critical methodology.

At any rate.Jesus presumably had been to Jerusalem several times. What details is Q missing about Jesus' death? That Jesus was crucified? That the hypothetical Q text, in so far as you believe it to be reconstructed, does not mention that Jesus was crucified is probative of nothing. If anything, it can confirm what I already stated. Jesus death came initially as a shock to his followers who fled. His teachings were take in different trajectories. GThomas represents another.

Did such a death undermine all that Jesus tuaght? Could this event be explained in light of OT? Christians went a proof text hunting. Others may have simply stuck with sayings of Jesus.

This is not a red herring. If you or anyone wants to discuss the silence in the epistolary record all they have to do is bring it up. We have hashed this a ton of times here already,

What places are you talking about? The spot where Jesus was crucified? What other references to you haven in mind? What early Christian thinking? Do you mean Paul? What early texts are you referring to? Rest assured that Paul does mention that Jesus was crucified. Several times.

How do you know which potential details Paul had? One cannot assume Paul knew all the details in the Marcan passion narrative. And there you go with these red herrings about an empty tomb again...

Layman posted an answer to this. I will note that we were discussing one aspect. Now you have introduced another argument. I really don't get the force of your arguments. It is no more explanatory then "a lot of background knowledge was assumed." Take, for example, Paul's passing reference to the Twleve. He tells us very little about them. On the basis of Paul any knowledge of them has to be inferred contextually and this is difficult. Yet unless he was an idiotic author (not an impossibility) his readers must have known what he was talking about.
That Paul doesn't mention something like Jesus of Nazareth is irrelevent. He may have had the same thoughts as the person in the Gospel of John who asked "Can anything good come from Nazareth" or maybe those two independent synoptics authors who did their best to get Jesus out of Nazareth and into Bethlehem through contradictory means. Where is the force of the argument here?

The letters most are written pretty much written to Christians as well, an obvious fact you seem to have missed in the first chapter of your book (e.g. p. 17). They do not represent Christian apologetics to non-believers. Paul was not writing to Earl Doherty.

For instance, when complaining about Paul's creed in 1 Cor 15:3-4: p.17 "If Paul tramps into town and begins to preach in the marketplace or the local synagogue, would his listeners, from this, have known that the Christ he is speaking of was a man who had undergone this death and resurrection only a couple of decades ago, on a hill and from a tomb just outside Jerusalem?

What arguments can Doherty even supply that Paul would have went to the marketplace and used solely this creed as an argument for Jesus? This looks like pure nonsense. Its as absurd as a Christian apologist today just quoting the "Nicene Creed" and sying it proves their faith. There is no indication that this creed was used in such a way. Paul is "summarizing" what he preached to them in "creed form". This does not mean he used this creed solely as it is formulated without any historical details or arguments. If this is all Paul used one wonders how he managed to convert his audience to begin with!

We have different stratifications and source considerations:

Pilate in the First Century:

Mark, John, Josephus (partial Testimonium), 1 Tim 6:3 (not an interpolation, dates c. 100 C.E.). Plus the crucifixion of Jesus itself is attested to by a host of sources (Paul, Mark, John, Special L, Barnabas, possibly a Pre-Markan PN.

Two issues: 1) Can you name them. 2) Are there no major apologists who either know and/or mention a human Jesus with some canonical Gospel details that would lead to veneration?

Matthew and Luke are more commonly dated to this era while Mark is pushed back another 10 (ca 70 C.E.). We do not share opinions on the datings of the intracanonical Gospels. Does this have a great impact on our discussion?

This would be a part of my argument. At least four communities (Markan, Lucan, Matthean, and Johannine) are evident here. One may be inclined to throw in GHebrews (sparse but synoptic in flavor) and GEgyptians. Plus I believe some of the communities behind various epistles may have had some of these details.

Personally, I explain it all as visions. That Paul and a few others had some sort of "Jesus experiences" is deemed an historical fact by me. "Jesus is alive. He is now at God's side." "This had to happen but he is going to return very soon. The kingdom he spoke of is at hand." Christians who did not know of where the body of Jesus was may have thought he was bodily raised on account of these visions. Paul, vision in left hand, Pharisaic beliefs in the other, well hell, the general resurrection has begun. Christ is the first-fruits....Jesus' death is the all important event and on and on..... There is my very informal and fast rendering of the first stratum after Jesus' death....

What evidence doesn't it account for?

Actually, maybe you weren't following. I said "many Christians believed in an HJ". I never once said all or that they all shared the same exact belief(s). And Matthew and Luke were harmonized in the first half of the second century (a la Justin's citations of them). Mark also was popular enough to be used independently by two evangelists within a couple of decades of its composition (in the first century!). Luke knows of "many gospels" by 90 C.E. We must not forget to include all our positive references. Marcion used GLuke didn't he? Matthew's infancy narrative was parodied by ca. 150 C.E. wasn't it? Did Celsus not pick up on Mary magdalene deing a demoniac? GMark was known by Papias and presumably the source who told him the info (eldar John was it?). We can clock in Ignatius as well. matthews popularity increased since its creation i nthe late first century.

It is entirely incorrect to assume that everyone must believe in an HJ before veneration of those that do could begin. Yet I note you mentioned mitigating circumstances.

So your argument is that events around 130 C.E. would have restricted veneration of Holy Sites? Well, then, first you have to list what Holy sites you had in mind before this point? I already offered some details on the first stratum:

Please list exactly where veneration should have occured and what should have been venerated and why?

Since you cannot argue that Christians of later centuries and people of other sorts venerated stuff in similar situations, since as you put it, these do not necessarily apply, you have to actually explain, and possibly show parallels of other veneration of "clothes" , "personal items", the hometown and or spot of crucifixion of others in this same time priod and/or context by the same people you expect details from. Can you do this? Oor are you simply trying to have your cake and eat it to?

The end was nigh. Very urgent eschatology. What details were known aside from Jesus was killed, maybe the names of his followers, family memebers, some of his teachings, miracles and hometown? Jesus' death was an embarrassment and shock early on. The urgency of Christian eschatology did dwindle apologetically through each stratum.

Asking why Paul did not venerate Bethlehem would be just very stupid. I note you did not do this. As it is: Jesus of Nazareth. Not Jesus of Bethlehem. If Paul knew Jesus' hometown, which I tend to think he did, it was Nazareth, not Bethlehem from my perspective. At any rate, you still haver not listed us any sites or places or things for Paul or other Christians to visit? What are they so we can evaluate them?

I would also argue that the crucifixion of Jesus and its location was more widely known than the tradition of Bethlehem birth. Does this hinder or support your argument or neither?

So from second Jewish revolt to the time of Constantine (ca. 130 - ca. 315) you argue that veneration would have been diffucult? This explains the paucity of data here?

Why isn't there more evidence of veneration of Bethlehem? You cited one reference. Surely you will nto argue that Matthew's Gospel and infancy narrative was not widely known and considered authoritative by many from 150-300? Why only one reference to Bethlehem? matthew was harmnonized with Luke before this, his infancy narrative was pariodied ca 150 C.E. The Gospel was ever growing in popularty.

origine testifies that veneration here was possible. You will then have difficulty appealing to the "it is restricted" line.

So I take it we are asking solely, why no veneration occurs ca 30 - 130 c.e.? I asked you why it should have occured and also posed some mitigating circumstances for the first and possiblty second stratumand other situations where we might expect it as well when there was an HJ but don't. Layman also posted a few other points.

First off, what evidence is their that 1st century Jewish Christians would have kept such relics? What relics are we talking about of Jesus'? Does the urgent eschatology and initial embarrassment of the crucifixion play a factor here?

Second, why is the silence of the epsitles, many of which were written to address specific problems, a problem here? I do not see how its probative of anything. It looks like asking how come none of these 15 automobile manuals teaches me how to operate a helicoptor?

Vinnie

Vinnie

I have demonstrate several times (without serious challenge) on this very forum that JM knew of a harmony of Matthew and Luke.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...=Justin+martyr

Fifth post down.

And Papias attests to Mark

Vinnie

Toto

Unless of course those statements were added later.

This is not true. In previous threads I have pointed out many reasons to consider Acts to be fictional, backed up by some good expert opinion.

But if you are going to use Acts as history, you see evidence there of Paul and other Christian missionaries moving freely around the Roman empire, preaching in synagogues, etc. Paul travels to Jerusalem, with no indication that he had to travel undercover or avoid public places.

In short, no evidence that Christians would have been prevented from visiting any holy places.

Josephus does not give a reason for James' execution or link it to Christianity (a later tale by Hegesippus supplies those details.) In any case, it would appear that if James were in fact a Christian, that there was no obstacle to Christians finding significant holy places in Jerusalem in the first century.