Tercel

Consider a passage where a writer of a NT epistles mentions a teaching which corresponds reasonably well to one of the supposed teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels but they do not specifically attribute these teachings to Jesus.

Does such a passage count as positive evidence of the Historical Jesus theory or as positive evidence of the Jesus Myth theory, or as neither?


I ask this question because I am studying the JM theory, and am not sure of the answer. I note Doherty claims them as evidence for his theory, but then he also claims numerous things as evidence for it which I consider strong evidence against it, so I am not inclined to trust his judgement on such matters.
Personally, I am not sure - such passages seem to me to be consistent with either theory:
*On the one hand Christians might have known well Jesus' basic teachings and repeated them regularly to one another so that there was no need for "Jesus said..." since any teaching would be instantly recogniseable. In such a situation these parallels with the Gospels would seem to be independent evidence that Jesus really did teach those things.
*On the other hand, it could conceivably support the Jesus myth, in the scenario that the apostles made up these teachings and they were later put in to the mouth of Jesus by the Gospel writers. (Although that could and probably did occur even given a historical Jesus)

I am inclined to the position that these passages equally fit both theories and are therefore positive evidence for neither. (Though I believe they go some way towards negating Doherty's claims about the epistle writers being ignorant of Jesus as a teacher)

Thoughts?

Peter Kirby

Obviously a decision will have to be reached after an examination of the particular content and context of each case. However, since you have asked in the abstract, here is my answer: It will never be evidence for a historical Jesus, but it might be evidence for a Jesus Myth hypothesis under certain conditions.

Why wouldn't it be evidence for a historical Jesus? The only way to get from an unattributed saying to the life of Jesus is by a circular route--to turn to the gospels and assume that they accurately report what Jesus say. The gospels may in fact provide evidence for a historical Jesus, but the unattributed teachings do not corroborate the gospels--the gospels would have to stand on their own as evidence. This is because it is impossible to know the direction of dependence, i.e., whether the gospel writer knew of the epistle, or whether they are both drawing on a common fund of wisdom, whether Jewish or Christian. An example of a Jewish source of wisdom would be the Two Ways document, which is found in the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas as well as in a parallel Qumran document.

When would it be evidence for a Jesus Myth hypothesis? Well, I will describe a more ideal case. Doherty and Price have hypothesized that the Q document and Thomas gospel derive from a Cynic-like source, which has most of the core sayings but without any ascription to Jesus or anyone else. I would point out that this theory is most developed in Doherty's book and that you are well-advised to get a copy. If we were to find a manuscript that had more or less what is found in Q//Thomas but without any hint of a Jesus behind them, I think it would only be fair to count that as a strong confirmation of Doherty's theory.

There may be less spectacular confirmations for Jesus Myth hypotheses in the unattributed teachings found in the documentary record as we have it--I have not really made my mind up about that.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Its not just about "Unattributed sayings"
Its about lack of mention of historical information even in dire straits.
But as Kirby has pointed out, Q etc - sayings that have disembodied sources.