GakuseiDon

Which is why I highlighted the words "all the people were astonished" and not "they feared him".

In the link you provide, they say "envy () = distress at another's success". Jesus astonished the people, and rode into Jerusalem in triumph, with people shouting "Hosanna!". Surely a reasonable cause for envy?

"Judas is obviously a made up character"? "Doesn't make sense if it were real history"??? Well, I'm convinced!

C'mon, you'll need to do better than that. All the characters in the Gospels are fairly sketchy. On that basis, you may as well say *all* of them are made up. John actually mentions Judas's father - let me guess, he either got it as a parallel from another source, or he was winging it.

One of the parallels are that Judas (like Flaccus) was the treasurer. So why don't any of the Synoptics say that Judas was the treasurer?

OK. The two criteria in contention are: Density and Interpretability.

"Interpretability" refers to points in the source document that can be used to explain problems in the other document. You've mentioned the "envy" scenario and the "strange Judas" scenario. Are there any others in this category?

For Density:
(1) some refer to historical parallels that would, in fact, be expected to exist! ("Crucifixion on a holiday")
(2) some are weak ("An unfair trial with false testimony", "the Garden Scene")
(3) some are *very* weak ("The Salvation", "Parallels between Judas and Flaccus")

The only one I really find interesting is the Mockery. But, Jesus's story occurred before Flaccus's, so it could be put down to:
(1) the people of Alexandria did it because they had heard about it,
(2) the parallel is a not unexpected result of a similar mindset.

(Ed) This is what Leidner's list reminds me of: Archaya's list of "Jesus vs the sun" similarities:
I think you'll agree, these are pretty contrived. But most of Leidner's aren't much better, IMHO. Flaccus is a treasurer, Judas carried the purse - therefore the Gospels writers used Flaccus as Judas for that part! Flaccus worries about death, Jesus worries about death - therefore the Gospel writers must have used Flaccus as Jesus for that part! Flaccus crucified the Jews, the Romans/Jews crucified Jesus - therefore the Gospel writers must have used the Jews as Jesus, and Flaccus as Pilate for that part!

If there were any *significant* parallel, that would be a different story. Otherwise, it's just a word game. Toto, do you believe that *all* the parallels must indicate borrowing on each of the points? How would you tell the difference?

I don't think there's much point continuing in this debate any further, unless some real evidence can be shown, and not just comparison between bulletin points.

Toto

GDon: giving up so soon? You're no fun. You could at least try to argue that the basic story was decked out with a few details from Philo.

I have not read Acharya S, but surely you can see the difference. Acharya S is trying to explain the entire phenomenon of Christianity based on earlier religious parallels, something that glosses over a lot of details. Leidner has spent a lifetime reading religious texts, and is merely trying to explain part of the written texts of Christianity, based on other available texts that the unknown authors could have read and probably did read.

Let me ask you this: Do you accept that West Side Story is based on Romeo and Juliet? That the movie O Brother Where Art Thou was based on the Odyssey? The Life of Brian based on the gospels?

Why is Leidner's theory so upsetting to you that you can only mock it with faux comparisons to people you consider nutcases?

You : I do assume that, unless there is other evidence of their existence.

There is absolutely no way to know who Simon of Iscariot (or Karioth, a city in Judah) could have been.

From here

Other commentators assume that Iscariot is a garbled version of Sicarii, the thuggish assassins who were part of the landscape at the time.

Meier seems to find Judas so much an anomaly that he has to reach for the "criterion of embarrassment" to say anything about him.

I would regard the mockery scene as particularly difficult to explain without the Philo reference (see below), also the "crucifixion at the third hour" in Mark, which is so improbable the other gospels feel the need to rewrite it. I think most of the other elements make more sense when viewed as a rewrite of Philo than as legends remembered.

For instance, a delegation of armed men is sent to arrest Jesus at night, and requires a guide, Judas, to point out this well known person. Some commentators try to explain this by saying that Jesus was so popular that this was the only way to avoid a riot, implying that Jesus had a mass following in Jerusalem, but then the next day the "mob" is howling for Jesus' death, much as the mob in Philo's account demanded the death of the Jews in Alexandria. There is no explanation for this sudden shift in public opinion, unless you realize that bits and pieces of this story have been lifted out of context from Philo.

On the contrary, crucifixion on a holiday was an anomaly, as Philo notes. Perhaps many trials were alleged to be unfair and involved false testimony, but the details of the garden scene soliloquy (which seems made for a stage in both Philo and the gospels) look like a fit.

I don't know that the gospel writers borrowed the Salvation from Philo. It may just be that they recognized a similar theme, which gave them a motive to reshape the other details of Philo's narrative.

I think that the density of parallels between Judas and Flaccus are too close for your comfort: handling funds, coming from another place, betraying Jesus/the Alexandrian Jews, repenting on stage, buying a small plot of land, dying with a lot of blood.

Not quite. The role of the Mockery in Alexandria was completely different. The mob there picked a lunatic and dressed him up as the King, to mock the visiting Jewish King - they were not staging a mockery of the lunatic himself. If the Alexandrians had tried to replicate Jesus' mockery scene, they would have mocked the Jewish leaders being crucified - but given everything else that happened, they didn't bother.

Evangelion

Why?

So what?

You can't just claim that they're unreliable because interpolation could have taken place. The burden of evidence is upon you to prove that it has.



__________________
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard

GakuseiDon

Actually, it's more that I realise I should leave the arguments to more knowledgeable people. I'm really just a layman. While I'm more than happy to point out any flaws in Leidner's idea, I'm not really experienced enough to say that it can be ruled out.
Sure, but we can see that their general themes and characters are similar. Neither of which exists, even superficially, between Philo and the Gospel. For example, Flaccus is Jesus, Judas and Pilate in Philo, depending on whatever parallel Leidner wants to push. Their roles are very different. Possible? Yes. Convincing? No.

Because Leidner seems to be using the same methodology as the nutcases.

Unless they got the idea from hearing about a historical incident.

Except that Philo doesn't talk about crucifixion at the third hour...

Do you mean they should have recognised Jesus from his photo, or from the TV? Or from a description? "Man, with beard, in sandals and white robe."

Just "bulletin point" similarities, and mostly contrived, IMHO. But I admit I can't rule out that someone more knowledgeable than myself may recognise that Leidner has a legitimate case.

That's quite ironic, Toto. So there couldn't have been copying because "the role was completely different"? Hmmm...

Still, all in all, an interesting thread, Toto. Thank you! I'll look forward to other's comments.

Evangelion

Exactly. This is demonstrable proof of an purely subjective argument. Leidner's methodology is arbitrary, his exegesis inconsistent, his goalposts constantly on the move.

He's simply making it up as he goes along.



__________________
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard

Toto

Since we have no copies of Paul's letters or even any mention of them before the mid-2nd century, there is no way anything can be proven. But given that forgery of Christian documents in general and Paul's letters in particular was rampant, given that most scholars find some interpolation in other letters, the burden of proof should be on the one claiming Paul's letters are authentic and can be dated to the mid 1st c.

Consider one of Leidner's reasons for dating Paul's letters (and Paul) to past 70 CE: in Gal 4:25-26, Paul says:

Does this sound like the Jerusalem of 50 CE or the Jerusalem of post 70 CE? The description tracks the apocryphal 4 Ezra, (2 Esdras) which speaks of "Zion, the mother of us all," which is currently in slavery, but shines as a heavenly city. (see 9:43 - 10:49)

Toto

I find most Biblical exegesis to be arbitrary, motivated only by trying to prove the particular theological point of view of the exegete, or to make some kind of sense out of the wild inconsistancies and improbabilities in Holy Scripture.

Leidner is using only the normal methods of literary analysis, of trying to provide a coherent explanation of the text in front of him.

It's up to you to decide what makes the most sense. I have never seen a Biblical exegete make better sense of the Passion Narrative than Leidner, with fewer ad hoc assumptions.

Toto

Sure

You don't see the similarity between an unfair attack on a Jewish community by a traitor, followed by divine justice?

We've already dealt with this. Besides, all nutcases claim to be using scientific methodology.

I've already answered this.

But he does mention the third hour. And Mark mentions the third hour in a context where it makes no sense. Where did Mark get this improbable time. that Matthew and Luke and John felt so free to revise to something more credible?

Jesus had entered Jerusalem in a triumphal procession and cleared the Temple, according to the Bible stories. Multitudes must have seen him.

I put them into bullet points to try to get you to follow them. If you want to read Leidner's book, there is a fuller explanation.

John Dominick Crossan, who is more knowledgable than you, agrees with three of these points and has not addressed the rest.

No - because the copying would have taken a different form.

joedad

Here's an interesting piece of info.More than likely everyone but me already knew about these earliest, Roman, Greek-speaking Christians.

Evangelion

...for which I refer you to Mr Kirby's work. The work which you have consistently refused to address.

You also need to understand that claims of interpolation cannot be thrown out willy nilly, whenever it suits your purpose to do so. Interpolation can be proved by presenting different mss from different textual streams. (John 1:18, Acts 2:28 & I John 5:7 are classic examples.) The existence of interpolation is verified by the presence of a demonstrable inconsistency in the textual evidence.

That is the very least you need to do before you can present a plausible claim for textual interpolation. Don't you understand that? Don't you understand the importance of objective evidence in the context of an argument?

I would have thought that this was something an atheist would be good at, but my experience has IIDB has pretty much shattered that assumption.

Well in actual fact, it does indeed sound like the Jerusalem of 50 CE, yes. The Jerusalem of 50 CE was certainly "in slavery", since the Romans had occupied it for years. If he was talking about the Jerusalem of post-70 CE, he would make reference to the fact that (a) it was destroyed, (b) its inhabitants had been scattered, and (c) its temple had been reduced to rubble.

Such glaring omissions militate strongly against any suggestion that a post-70CE Jerusalem is here referred to. It just doesn't fit the text.

No it doesn't. Paul doesn't even mention Zion. He's talking about Jerusalem.

It astonishes me that you can't tell the difference between the words "Zion" and "Jerusalem."