Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan writes: Mmmmmm...I'm claiming, until we can demonstrate history in the gospels, we cannot claim they are historical.

Haven't you also claimed several times that it is impossible to demonstrate (without external corroboration) that an item is history in a document that contains mixed fact and non-fact? Or have I misunderstood this point?

Vorkosigan writes: Otherwise we treat them like an other set of legends that re-arranges historical figures and events for their own purposes, like the medieval germanic legends about the late Roman emperors, or the Prose Eddas, or the Arthurian cycle, or Robin Hood, or the cargo cults, or .....

In your opinion, what are the similarities between Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Thomas and the medieval germanic legends about the late Roman emperors etc.?

Vorkosigan writes: There is no reason that late Judiasm could not have taken up the idea of the soul being trapped in the prison of the body from Hellenism, so that Josephus could treat it as a Jewish belief.

Theoretically, perhaps there is no a priori reason. Practically, though, I cannot find a Second Temple Jewish author apart from Josephus who says that any Jew believes that the soul is trapped inside the physical body.

Vorkosigan writes: We know that the gospelers felt free to re-arrange events, people, and ideas as they felt necessary. We also know that Josephus got his chronologies and people confused, and also seems to slant his story to please his audience.

Maybe some examples would be in order?

Vorkosigan writes: BTW, is the JtB story told differently in the other versions of Josephus?

What, like in the Slavonic Josephus?

Vorkosigan writes: Because (1) it creates a link between Jesus and JtB using the activity for which JtB is most celebrated while (2) allowing JtB to fulfill the role in the messianic literature of being the one who announces the messiah by "annointing" through baptism.

Does Mark portray the baptism of Jesus by John as an anointing?

Vorkosigan writes: If it is 36, the last year Pilate was in Jerusalem, then Jesus could not possibly have been executed under Pilate, at least as the gospels tell the story; alternatively, he could have been executed under Herod, as GosPeter tells, and Luke appears to know. That would make more sense, Herod elminating a couple of bad boys in one fell swoop with Pilate's approval. But that would make the gospel stories almost entirely fiction.

You can't argue both in this way and for the idea that Jesus and John never met.

Anyway, I think that Josephus narrates the death of John the Baptist as a flashback, so that we don't know when exactly Josephus imagined this happening.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Haven't you also claimed several times that it is impossible to demonstrate (without external corroboration) that an item is history in a document that contains mixed fact and non-fact? Or have I misunderstood this point?

Not quite, I have claimed that it is impossible to pull history out legend with only the legend to go by. There is no contradiction between my statements. In order to be taken as history, the gospels would have to be demonstrated to be history by some external source. No current method can pull history out of legend.

In your opinion, what are the similarities between Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Thomas and the medieval germanic legends about the late Roman emperors etc.?

They are all stories that use stock/historical characters and situations to create legends around their central figures.


Theoretically, perhaps there is no a priori reason. Practically, though, I cannot find a Second Temple Jewish author apart from Josephus who says that any Jew believes that the soul is trapped inside the physical body.

So you would not count the gnostics, then, who converted to Christianity from Judiasm? Moreover, would take Jos comments to indicate that he was a closet Christian, essene, or similar?

I have to agree with you. I can't find anything like that either. DO you think Jos made it up, or didn't understand what the Essenes thought?

Maybe some examples would be in order?

Some examples of gospels re-arranging "history?" We just talked about the differences between Mark and John in the JtB story...and you have already stated that you consider Jos to be a jewish apologist (as far as Josephus being slanted)

Vorkosigan writes: BTW, is the JtB story told differently in the other versions of Josephus?

What, like in the Slavonic Josephus?

Yes, or the arabic recension.

Does Mark portray the baptism of Jesus by John as an anointing?

Depends how you interpret verses 10 and 11:

• 9At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

Do you think Mark intends it to be a coicidence that the dove appears then? It certainly seems that in some sense JtB has annointed or identified Jesus as the Messiah.

know. That would make more sense, Herod elminating a couple of bad boys in one fell swoop with Pilate's approval. But that would make the gospel stories almost entirely fiction.

You can't argue both in this way and for the idea that Jesus and John never met.

Yes, I can. Just because Herod eliminated them both with Pilate's approval doesn't mean that they actually ever met, even in prison. For one thing, Jesus is still free when John is in prison, at least according to the information we have from both the gospels and Q. They might have been killed a few months apart.

Peter K., how do you see the claim that Cephas and Peter are the same in John 1? Does it appear that the writer/redactor is directly addressing a controversy here by emphasis?

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan writes: Not quite, I have claimed that it is impossible to pull history out legend with only the legend to go by. There is no contradiction between my statements. In order to be taken as history, the gospels would have to be demonstrated to be history by some external source. No current method can pull history out of legend.

So, do you think that it is possible to demonstrate (without external corroboration) that an item is history in a document that contains mixed fact and non-fact?

I am not saying that there is a contradiction between your statements. Your statement was: "I'm claiming, until we can demonstrate history in the gospels, we cannot claim they are historical." I was just pointing out that the only way to do this by your standards is to produce external corroboration for the gospels.

Question: how would we know that this external corroboration was history?

Vorkosigan writes: They are all stories that use stock/historical characters and situations to create legends around their central figures.

What's the definition of a legend? Is it just any story that is not true?

Vorkosigan writes: So you would not count the gnostics, then, who converted to Christianity from Judiasm?

While I don't rule out the idea of pre-Christian Gnostics, I think that they may have been pagans who appropriated part of Genesis without actually having any commitment to Judaism, the Torah, or the Temple.

Vorkosigan writes: I have to agree with you. I can't find anything like that either. DO you think Jos made it up, or didn't understand what the Essenes thought?

I am not sure. Josephus may have made it up. Josephus seems to portray the Jewish sects on the model of Hellenistic schools. So perhaps Josephus attributed some Hellenistic ideas to these schools.

Vorkosigan writes: Yes, or the arabic recension.

Is there an extant arabic recension? All I know about is a quote from Agapius.

Vorkosigan writes: Do you think Mark intends it to be a coicidence that the dove appears then?

The way Mark tells it, this could have been experienced by Jesus alone. I don't recall Mark indicating that John the Immerser identified Jesus as the Messiah.

Vorkosigan writes: Yes, I can. Just because Herod eliminated them both with Pilate's approval doesn't mean that they actually ever met, even in prison. For one thing, Jesus is still free when John is in prison, at least according to the information we have from both the gospels and Q. They might have been killed a few months apart.

What I mean is, you are taking information from the gospels about the temporal relationship of the life of Jesus to the life of John the B., and then information supposedly from Josephus about the time of the death of John the B., and using that information to argue that Jesus was not executed under Pilate as stated in the gospels.

Vorkosigan writes: Peter K., how do you see the claim that Cephas and Peter are the same in John 1? Does it appear that the writer/redactor is directly addressing a controversy here by emphasis?

I do not see evidence for a controversy. I see a translation from a Semitic language to Greek. John had already translated Rabbi and Messiah, so I don't even see much emphasis.

Kephas and Peter have the same meaning in different languages. Also, there is no evidence for any person before Christian times being named Peter. This suggests that there was only one original Kephas/Peter and that this was just a nickname (or new name given by Jesus), as the Gospel of John relates.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

I just checked my Penguin, and according to the appendix on pg 470-1, the Jewish War in the Slavonic Version indeed contains a reference to JtB not in the Greek version.

Here is one excerpt:
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/3678/JOEGOS2.htm" target="_blank"> Scroll down to find it</a>. This page also argues that the JtB reference in Antiquities is an interpolation. The current version, as this page makes clear, does give JtB's execution a date of 37, much too late for Jesus to have been associated with him. ((aside: the whole site explores the Josephus-Gospels connection -- page 2 of this site connects Josephus with the demons-into-swine miracle!! I'm sure you've seen it before.)))

The Slavonic Josephus has a completely different chronology. JtB is brought before Archelaus (ruled 4 BCE-6 CE), who was king a few decades before the Herod who supposedly executed him. That's much too early....

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

So, do you think that it is possible to demonstrate (without external corroboration) that an item is history in a document that contains mixed fact and non-fact?

It might be. That would depend on context and on the type of document and story it contained.

Further, your definition is too narrow to include the Gospels. They do not have "mixed fact and non-fact." The facts have been creatively transformed into legend. There's no place, as perhaps in histories like those of Tacitus, where you can strike the facts from the non-facts.

...only way to do this by your standards is to produce external corroboration for the gospels.

Yes, that's right. That's true of any set of legends.

Question: how would we know that this external corroboration was history?

Same way we know anything is history -- by the totality of support for it, and the quality of that support.

What's the definition of a legend? Is it just any story that is not true?

Narrowly, yes. But in this sense, more of a story that organizes a community's view of itself, giving it a history, and a moral meaning to that history. Legend is history created and creatively transformed.

I am not sure. Josephus may have made it up. Josephus seems to portray the Jewish sects on the model of Hellenistic schools. So perhaps Josephus attributed some Hellenistic ideas to these schools.

That sounds good.

The way Mark tells it, this could have been experienced by Jesus alone. I don't recall Mark indicating that John the Immerser identified Jesus as the Messiah.

Well, he all-but-does:

• And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8I baptize you with[4] water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

What I mean is, you are taking information from the gospels about the temporal relationship of the life of Jesus to the life of John the B., and then information supposedly from Josephus about the time of the death of John the B., and using that information to argue that Jesus was not executed under Pilate as stated in the gospels.

What's wrong with that? Josephus dates JtB's execution to the period when Vitellius was active in Judea just before Tiberius died. This was after Jesus was alleged to have died in the gospels.

The gospels state that Jesus was executed AFTER JtB.

Seems like we have to choose one or the other as the more reliable of the two stories. The gospels could well be the more reliable, Josephus is haziest on events prior to his birth, after all.

But we actually have a couple stories about the relationship of Jesus/John in the NT, one that says JtB was executed some time into Jesus ministry (in John 4 they have concurrent, even competing ministries for a time, but Jesus again Jesus outperforms John, in John 5 JtB seems to be still around, but in John 10 JtB is spoken of as history), the other in Mark, which says JtB's death signals the beginning of Jesus' ministry.

Vorkosigan

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Vorkosigan

As far as John 1 is concerned, what do the major redactions/layers look like to you? Is all this material early? Late? What political/theological/communal tensions/controversies do you think it might address?

Vorkosigan

Toto

Originally posted by peterkirby:
<strong>
1. I quoted two different second century commentaries on the prologue of John, one by Ptolemy and one by Heracleon. Do you think that these two commentators make sound and permissible interpretations? Why or why not?
</strong>

The first verses of John are succinct and poetic, while the commentators tend to be wordy and obscure, and appear to be trying to read more into the verses than is there.

In particular, "The Aeon (i.e. the Fullness), and the things in it, were not made by the Word; they came into existence before the Word" says that Jesus/Logos was not present at the creation because something existed before him.

These commentaries do not reflect current Christian thinking and look like a detour in the intellectual history of the west - did you have some motive for bringing them up?

2. What do you think serves as the background for the thought and style found in the prologue of John? Is it the OT picture of personified wisdom? Is it the Qumranic dualism of light and darkness? Is it Gnosticism? Is it Hellenistic speculation on the Logos? Something else or a combination?

I'll pick personified wisdom/Hellenistic Logos. There is a reference to light and darkness, but that theme is not developed. When John says "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" it is hard to see any dualism. If God made the entire world, it must all be good, or at least redeemable.

3. Unlike Matthew and Luke, there is no infancy narrative in the Gospel of John. Why? Does this tell us anything about John?

I am struck by the parallel structure of Mark and John. I know that the question of whether John relied on Mark is a point of some contention.

So far John does not portray Jesus as a human figure. He might as well be a super hero born fully formed from the forehead of a god.

4. John 1:18 says, "No one has ever seen God." Does this contradict the Hebrew Sciptures?

Why yes, it does. Your point?

5. Unlike the Gospel of Mark, there is no mention of the baptism of Jesus by John, but there is a mention of a dove from the sky in John 1:32. Why do you think this is so?

Maybe John just forgot to mention it. He is writing poetry and does not give many details. He has Jesus approaching John while John is baptizing - why else would Jesus approach John? The reader could fill in the blanks, especially if he already knows the story from another Gospel. There is no other reason for Jesus to go to John except for baptism. The dove, of course, it the holy spirit.

6. In John 1:20, it is said that, "he admitted and did not deny it, but admitted, 'I am not the Messiah.'" Do you think that this is credible, or do you think that the author doth protest too much?

The whole scene is not credible. It reminds me of Jesus in the Qu'ran saying "I am not God."

7. Matthew 11:14 says, "And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, the one who is to come." In John 1:21, John the Baptist answers the question of whether he is Elijah by saying that he is not. Do you think that this is an example of varying traditions behind John and the synoptics, or do you think that each author had the same understanding of the person of John the Baptist?

John denies that he is the Elijah, while Matthew has Jesus saying that John is the Elijah if you accept it - but he also says that the least in the Kingdom is greater than JtB. The common theme seems to be that JtB is great, but we are greater!

8. John 1:31 has the Baptist say, "I did not know him." Can this be squared with the tradition about the kinship of Jesus and John found in the infancy narrative of Luke?

I though an apologist could harmonize anything. What do they do with this? Did JtB forget his upbringing?

9. John 1:29 and 1:36 have the Baptist say, "Behold, the Lamb of God." What do you think that the imagery of the Lamb of God means?

It's either the sacrificial lamb or an astrological reference, or both. It is <a href="http://www.crosscircle.com/CH_2k.htm" target="_blank">claimed that</a> "The killing of the lamb of God, the Logos under the sign of Aries, was a repetition of Mithras slaying the Bull of God in Taurus."

10. In Mark 1:16-20, Jesus calls Simon and Andrew to be disciples at the same time. In John 1:40-42, Andrew had been called first and told his brother Simon about Jesus. How do you account for these two different ideas?

Poetic license? or is Mark trying to elevate Simon/Peter because the church will trace its authority to him?

11. In John 1:46, it is put on Nathanael's lips that, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" Where do you think this statement against Nazareth came from?

This is intriguing. Frank Zindler has argued that Nazareth did not exist as an inhabited village at the time of Jesus, and Jesus of Nazareth was really Jesus the Nazorite. But this seems to indicate that there was a Nazareth that had low status and produced disreputable people, perhaps bandits and rebels.

12. In John 1:51, Jesus says, "Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the sky opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." What does this mean? Was it fulfilled?

It sounds apocalyptic to me - Jesus was predicting that the end of the world was close, and the heavens would open. It hasn't been fulfilled in 2000 years.


BTW - Peter - there is a surplus of computer programmers in Southern California, but very few who have your knowledge and dedication to the history of this period. Are you concerned that a non-believer could not get a job in the field?

Peter Kirby

Francis J. Moloney says: "From this general statement the author moves to a more specific identification of the place and people who would not receieve him: he came to his own place (eis ta idia) and his own people (hoi idioi). Gnostic documents speak of the place for which the soul longs, its true home, as ta idia (cf. Odes Sol. 7:12; 26:1; MAndean Liturgy 114:4-5). This language may have been familiar to many of the first readers of the Fourth Gospel, but its meaning has been radically transformed. For the Fourth Gospel ta idia is not some hevaenly place of ideal existence as among the Gnostics. The Word came into the human story only to be rejected by his own people." (The Gospel of John, p. 37)

Moloney writes: "Again using language that may have rung a bell for many of the Gospel's original readers and listeners, the author explains that from his fullness (ek tou pleromatos autou) we have all received (v. 16). Again, however, this well-known language is being usd in a startlingly new way. For the Gnostics the pleroma existed in the heavenly spheres; for the Fourth Gospel the believers receive from this fullness within their human existence." (p. 40)

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan writes: There's no place, as perhaps in histories like those of Tacitus, where you can strike the facts from the non-facts.

How do you tell fact from non-fact in Tacitus?

Vorkosigan writes: Same way we know anything is history -- by the totality of support for it, and the quality of that support.

Is this "totality of support" dependent on external corroboration, or are there internal indicators which determine whether a document is history?

Vorkosigan writes: Josephus dates JtB's execution to the period when Vitellius was active in Judea just before Tiberius died.

Is this explicit? Or is it just based on the "now about this time" cliche.

Vorkosigan writes: The gospels state that Jesus was executed AFTER JtB.

Assuming that John was executed after 36 CE, we can choose not to believe the gospel statement that Jesus was executed after John, we can chose not to believe the gospel statement that John was executed under Pilate, or we can choose not to believe both. But I don't make the initial assumption that is required.

Vorkosigan writes: As far as John 1 is concerned, what do the major redactions/layers look like to you? Is all this material early? Late? What political/theological/communal tensions/controversies do you think it might address?

I encourage anyone to talk about these questions.

I do not believe the hypothesis that states that the author of John appropriated the prologue from an earlier hymn. It just seems to set up the whole gospel so well and reflect the themes of the rest of the gospel so closely that it would have to be the invention of the main redactor of John.

The recurring point of the first chapter of John is the diminution of John the Immerser. This receives the strongest emphasis in John among all the gospels. I would suggest as the background of this some kind of rivalry between a community of John's followers and a community of Christians in the first century. This could have been in Ephesus of Asia Minor or in Alexandria of Egypt, both of which was home to followers of John according to the Acts. Or it could have been where the Gospel of John is most often placed by critical scholars, in Syria.

I would suggest that the only written Christian source which the main redactor of John had before him was the so-called signs gospel as reconstructed by the likes of R. T. Fortna. So, I do not see any layers to the first chapter of John. It would all seem to be the work of the main redactor of John, who of course may have incorporated some earlier legends.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Toto writes: The first verses of John are succinct and poetic, while the commentators tend to be wordy and obscure, and appear to be trying to read more into the verses than is there.

At first I thought that you were talking about modern commentators. I guess you mean Heracleon and Ptolemy. I think that Heracleon and Ptolemy are doing what every college freshman is encouraged to do with poetry: making a strong reading.

In particular, "The Aeon (i.e. the Fullness), and the things in it, were not made by the Word; they came into existence before the Word" says that Jesus/Logos was not present at the creation because something existed before him.

I am not sure that this contradicts the John and Genesis myths. It appears that in Genesis that pre-existing materials, though without form, came before the speaking of the word by God that brought form to the chaos. This may be saying that the pre-existing materials were not made by the Word but still that the Word was present at the creation.

These commentaries do not reflect current Christian thinking and look like a detour in the intellectual history of the west - did you have some motive for bringing them up?

They are the earliest commentaries on the Gospel of John that are available to us. That has got to count for something.

Toto writes: So far John does not portray Jesus as a human figure. He might as well be a super hero born fully formed from the forehead of a god.

What about the references to a mother of Jesus?

Toto writes: Why yes, it does. Your point?

I want to know what Gringo thinks about this. It was his suggestion that we discuss (alleged) contradictions.

Toto writes: He is writing poetry and does not give many details.

Somehow he remembers to say that something happened at four in the afternoon (John 1:39).

Toto writes: There is no other reason for Jesus to go to John except for baptism.

There is a reason for the author of the fourth gospel to have Jesus go to John. The narrative reason is that John might witness to Jesus as the Lamb of God.

Toto writes: The common theme seems to be that JtB is great, but we are greater!

Does the fourth gospel really say that we are greater than John the Baptist? After all, apart from Jesus, John is the only one in the fourth gospel who is explicitly "sent from God" (Jn 1:6).

Toto writes: I though an apologist could harmonize anything. What do they do with this? Did JtB forget his upbringing?

Is there an apologist in the house?

Toto writes: It's either the sacrificial lamb or an astrological reference, or both.

But why a lamb? Is it a paschal lamb? If it were based on Mithras, wouldn't it be the Bull of God?

Toto writes: Poetic license? or is Mark trying to elevate Simon/Peter because the church will trace its authority to him?

I don't think that Mark is trying to elevate Simon Peter. Simon is Satan in Mark (8:33).

Toto writes: This is intriguing. Frank Zindler has argued that Nazareth did not exist as an inhabited village at the time of Jesus, and Jesus of Nazareth was really Jesus the Nazorite. But this seems to indicate that there was a Nazareth that had low status and produced disreputable people, perhaps bandits and rebels.

It is possible that Jesus became associated with Nazareth because Jesus was known as a Nazarene or Nazorite and that there was an inhabited villaged named Nazareth. It would seem not only possible but quite probable, for why else would Nazorite be transformed into 'one from Nazareth' unless that was the name of a real town?

Toto writes: It sounds apocalyptic to me - Jesus was predicting that the end of the world was close, and the heavens would open. It hasn't been fulfilled in 2000 years.

Hmmm. That goes against the trend to say that the Gospel of John does not have apocalyptic but rather 'realized eschatology'.

It is commonly noted that the verse refers to the story of Jacob's dream.

And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, the top of it reaching to heaven; and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. . . . Then Jacob woke from his sleep and said, "Surely the Lord is in this place - and I did not know it!" And he was afraid, and said, "How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven" (Gen 28:12, 16-17).

It appears that, in 1:51, the Son of Man becomes "this place" or "the gate of heaven" where it is that God is revealed. The verse would point to Jesus who is the revealer of God in his sojourn on earth.

Toto writes: BTW - Peter - there is a surplus of computer programmers in Southern California, but very few who have your knowledge and dedication to the history of this period. Are you concerned that a non-believer could not get a job in the field?

I really like computer programming.

best,
Peter Kirby