"I dunno" - was Re: Quotation from the JS

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> Ed

> 

> I have made it clear that I concede the hypothetical nature of Jesus (for

> the sake of argumentation).  Therefore, when I say "such an expression

> would have been offensive to Jesus' followers" I'm assuming that you

> realize I'm talking about whatever followers he'd have had, had he

> existed.

Achilles
So when you said "such an expression would have been offensive to Jesus' 
followers" you meant "such an expression would have been offensive to whatever 
followers he'd have had, had he existed?" Well, the statement as amended is 
true, but I have to say it now seems completely irrelevant to the original 
purpose. If he didn't exist there were no followers and you are talking about 
something offending people that only exist hypothetically, and seek to use 
their hypothetical reaction to the recorded words to prove your hypothesis?

Maybe I am missing something here, but I feel like your argument is diving 
straight for the twilight zone. 


> So, had he existed, Jesus wouldn't have used the phrase "Son of God" as

> you suggest.  It would have been offensive, or at least nonsensical,

> because it would have been tantamount to saying "I'm an angel."


I have no idea why I suggested Son of God, but the phrase we were discussing 
was just "the son" and regardless of what it was short for I still see no 
reason why self-referential use of "the son" proves a passage "authentic" or 
not. 


> >Achilles

> >Ok, it's getting snipped so I will paste the statement under discussion

> >in

> here 

> >- "the earliest identifiable stratas of text don't reveal Jesus making

> >such claims" - this was your statement C.  

> >

> >The "strata" you are referring to is Q1, correct? 

> 

> Ed

> 

> And GoT.

Achilles
But relevance of that collection is dependant on a very early dating of it, 
which many/most scholars disagree with. Even Meier (in "A Marginal Jew) says:

 "Since I think that the Synoptic-like sayings of the Gospel of Thomas are in 
fact dependent on the Synoptic Gospels and that the other sayings stem from 2nd-
  century Christian gnosticism, the Gospel of Thomas will not be used in our 
          quest as an independent source for the historical Jesus." 


> >Achilles

> >I agree, within either theory it sticks out. Which shows only that it is

> >not going to prove either of them over the other. Both of us can easily

> >dream up possible scenarios for how that passage came to be there till

> >time ends, and neither of us would ever prove anything of relevance. 

> 

> Ed

> 

> The HJ explanation, however, is quite plausible.  Not proven, of course,

> but plausible.  

> 

> If I were to see a mythicist explanation, I might consider it plausible

> too; but one isn't forthcoming from you, Earl Doherty, or Bishop Sprong.

> 

> If the mythicist position is to gain acceptance, not only from me but from

> scholarship at large, it's going to have to account for the decidedly

> non-mythic elements of the gospels.

Achilles
We can account for them in the same manner you do, by postulating a non-mythic 
source for the saying. The only difference is that you claim to know all about 
that source (it must have been the historical J.'s followers, right?) whereas I 
am more cautious and simply ascribe it to an unknown source. 

This is why our disagreement in this particular area is IMOP more semantic than 
real - for the most part we agree on the broad outlines. It just seems to be 
uncalled for to identify a source of non-mythic tradition so positively, with 
so little actual evidence. It is... hubris I suppose is the word. 

It seems far more likely to me that not one, but several basically non-mythical 
sources influenced the evangelists either directly or indirectly, and that 
sorting them all out and determining the character and history of each, on the 
basis of the sort of data available, is simply impossible. 

So the most honest appraisal would simply be that Jesus is a myth which was 
cobbled together from various sources - NOT that Jesus was a man whose life was 
mythologized later on. The two statements are not totally contradictory, but 
the first one seems to be to fit the facts well, and the second one to be a 
plausible, but not provable or necessary, elaboration. 

I must repeat something I said when this discussion was still new - that I 
don't doubt that there were some real people whose lives are partially 
reflected in the NT. But for a real "historical jesus" you need all those 
people to be one person, that one person must have been named Yeshu ben Yusef, 
he must have been born at the beginning of the millennium, he must have been 
crucified on order of Pontius Pilate about 30 years later. 

This is the part that I find doubtful. I don't think any of the people who lay 
behind the sayings sources fit all those characteristics. Jesus ben Pandeira 
(sp?) for instance might fit some of this, and it seems highly likely that he 
was a source for *some* of the later jesus myth, but he lived way too early to 
be the "historical jesus." So it would be incorrect to term him "the historical 
jesus" would it not? 

Likewise if the sayings of John the Baptist found their way, directly or 
indirectly, into the gospels, this would not justify saying that John the 
Baptist was "the Historical Jesus" now would it? 


/Achilles     achillesz@usa.net

Random thought for the moment:

    It was especially upsetting that Satan chose at this
    moment to have the shape and the voice of my only
    friend. Debating with the devil is a mug's game at best.
           -- Alec in Job: A Comedy of Justice

• Previous message: "I dunno" - was Re: Quotation from the JS
• Next message: "I dunno" - was Re: Quotation from the JS
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]