Bede

Fenton:

1) Copyright;
2) Dunno.

Vinnie

Uncritically dismiss the highly regarded work of a renowned Biblical scholar like Raymond Brown as "Catholic material" but rely on the views of an amatuer like Leidner? There is a sound strategy

I can play the same game. Why is Leidner interesting? He apparently follows the Church of Mythicism party line.

Most of Brown's work is commentary on the PN's of the canonical Gospels but he devotes a section of each to historicity. He did the same for his work "The Birth of the Messiah". But this one doesn't have the appendixes on historicity.

Does Leidner attempt any sort of stratification or inventory or crucifixion or passion related materials? How early does he date the Passion narrative? Does he see 1 Cor 15 as an interpolation? When does he date the Gospels?

Is GJohn's PN dependent upon Mark's PN in Leidner's view? If so I would like to see him discuss the "Catholic dogma" posed by Raymond Brown on pp 125-126, 143, 154, 177, 554 of Volume one of The Death of the Messiah.

Q does not say Jesus was not crucified. He (presumably) died somehow. The Q Gospel may not have centered around Cross and resurrection like the pauline kerygma. This does not mean crucifixion did not happen. How anyone could use this as an argument to suggest that is beyond my level of comprehension

Documentation? When does it date to? Is it multiply attested? is the source reliable?

Why would that dismiss rather than enforce the embarrassment of the event? If Christians were left with the bare, embarrassing fact of crucifixion, is it implausible that they would pepper it up? See Goodcare's article which you linked (esp. the end and note 45). Chicken or the egg? I would need to see more from Leidner to discuss his views but the sophistry articulated thus far will not do it.

Vinnie

Toto

Vinnie: I did not uncritically dismiss Brown - I just asked why he is interesting, hoping you would provide more information.

Leidner is interesting because he does not follow the Mythicist line. He is writing a legal brief to prove that the Jews are not guilty of murdering Jesus. He does this by showing that Christianity did not exist before 70 CE, that it was most likely a reaction to the disaster of the Roman destruction of the temple, that there are literary precedents for the Passion Narrative that explain that Narrative better than the assumption that there is actual history behind it.

I think that some of his arguments could be challenged. He interprets Josephus' Against Apion to show that there was no Christian narrative at the end of the first century claiming that the Jews killed Jesus, because otherwise Josephus would have attempted to rebut that narrative. But of course, we only have the writings of Josephus because the Christians preserved them, and we don't know what they didn't save or edited out.

He also shows that one of the earliest "strata" of Christianity, which he identifies with Justin Martyr, claims that the Jews crucified Jesus. He hypothesizes that the gospels wrote a passion narrative later and made it more historically accurate by having the Romans do the actual crucifixion, while still blaming the Jews.

You say:

This methodology will allow you to show anything. Do you think that the crucifixion was such a minor detail it could have been ignored? Can you prove that Jesus was married this way?

The sources that say Jesus was killed and hung in a tree are about as reliable as the sources that say he was crucified - that is, not very. There is a reference in Acts and later Jewish material. See Peter's long post in Jesus Variants.

Once you have a highly legendary account, it is pure speculation to see any history behind it.

Vinnie

The Gospels after Justin? Justin the earliest strata?

No this methodology will not allow me to do anything. I challenge you to demonstrate your assertion. Q folk seemingly concentrated on the words of Jesus rather than his death. And no you can't prove Jesus was married. It "could" be a historical assumption but broad historical claims are difficult to apply to individual people.

Reference in Acts? Luke makes it pretty clear that Jesus was crucified if my memory is serving me well but I'd be interested in seeing the verse or verses.

And later Jewish material? The yeshua was hanged and had 5 disciples one?

You appear to be changing the discussion slightly but at any rate, fortunately, the Synoptic Gospels aren't as legendary as your argument needs them to be. E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies work Studying The Synoptic Gospels does a good job of demonstrating this.

Vinnie

Toto

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead--whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. (NIV)

Can you show that the Gospels were available to Justin?

I have one of Saunders' books. His arguments about the gospels being more than mere fiction are not very convincing. It's the same old embarrassment.

Evangelion

• Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 66.3:
  
  For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, 'This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;' and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, 'This is My blood;' and gave it to them alone.
  
• Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 10.2:
  
  "This is what we are amazed at,' said Trypho, "but those things about which the multitude speak are not worthy of belief; for they are most repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them."
  
• Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 100.1:
  
  "In the Gospel it is written that He said: 'All things are delivered unto me by My Father;' and, 'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'"

Toto

There are references to unnamed "Gospels", but no particular reason to connect them to the canonical gospels that we know. The reference to the Eucharist could have come from Paul's letter (1 Cor) or another source. The other references could have come from collections of sayings which were later incorporated into the canonical gospels.

Against the idea that Justin knew the gospels, he appears to know little of the life of the earthly Jesus. He thinks that the Jews killed Jesus, and seems to not know about Pilate or the Romans.

This is worth more of a response, but I will have to get back to it later.

Evangelion

Toto -

Calling all passengers for the good ship "Deliberately Obtuse"...

Very well then. I shall hold you to your statement that there is "no particular reason to connect them to the canonical gospels that we know."

Let's see if that's a reasonable objection.

• Justin:
  All things are delivered unto me by My Father
  
  Matthew 11:27.
  All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
  
  Luke 10:22.
  All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
  
• Justin:
  'No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'
  
  Matthew 11:27.
  All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
  
  Luke 10:22.
  All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

I can't wait to see what you're going to do with these.

I agree that it comes from I Corinthians 11. It is, in fact, a near-perfect quote from that chapter. But Paul's own source is the Gospel record itself, as demonstrated by the fact that his account is consistent with that which we find in the Synoptics.

What is this? A mere suggestion? And on the basis of what evidence, dare I ask?

If this is your argument, I must insist that you validate it. I cannot be swayed by mere "what if..." statements, and I'm not interested in speculation. You must disprove the connexion by reference to objective facts.

You might also want to address the fact that Trypho (Justin's Jewish opponent) has claimed that he is perfectly familiar with the Gospels, having read them all.

Non sequiter. He simply doesn't talk about it - and if you stop to read the context of his work, you'll realise why: it's because he's discussing his theology, not providing a biography of the Messiah.

I never cease to be amazed by the number of times this peculiar objection is raised. Why the hell does he have to supply an account of Jesus' life and times in the first place? He's not even talking to someone who doubts that Jesus existed.

To be more specific: he believes that the Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, yes. (Which they were, since they insisted upon it against Pilate's protestations.)

Balderdash.

• Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove.

That's from the 13th chapter of Justin's Apology, for which see here.

Have you actually read Justin's work? You can't possibly have done. If you had, you wouldn't be presenting claims which are so easily disproved. I'm sorry to say this, but I think you're just repeating the atheist party line. I don't think you've really studied this subject in any detail at all.

Let me give you some friendly advice: while you're away, make sure you take a little time to familiarise yourself with the source material. To date, I see you faithfully repeating standard atheist responses in a disappointingly predictable fashion.

Current evidence suggests that you have a great deal of faith in the power of these objections, but have not actually bothered to question their validity. That is called "blind faith", and it is a bad thing - yes, even in Christianity.

Toto

Evangelion - I do not have my sources where I am now, and I probably have not remembered Leidner's argument correctly. But there is no atheist line on this, so you should not attribute my mistakes to all atheists (I don't know that Leidner is an atheist). I am quite willing to change my mind on this and other things, and it will not turn me into a Christian.

Why do you assume that Paul got his version of the Eucharist from the Gospels? Doesn't it make more sense to assume that aLuke got the language from Paul, or that both were working from an earlier tradition? If Paul read the Gospels, and the earliest Gospel was written about 70 CE, which is the consensus, you would have Paul surviving the Jewish War and writing in the late first century. That's an interesting speculation (in fact it is what Leidner thinks), but it would upset a lot of the current scholarship.

There are sayings in common between Justin and Matthew in particular. But most scholars seem to assume that the gospels as we know them were continually edited and updated.

Vinnie

I thought it was very common knowledge that Justin was dependent on at lease some of the canonical Gospels

Vinnie