Jesus is not the Son of Man

[neilgodfrey]

they do indeed help to explain manifestations such as multiple traditions in text that hold similarities the text does not provide a literary trajectory for.

Oral traditions are not the only explanation for such data. Some works like those of Henaut's Oral tradition and the gospels: the problem of Mark 4 and Brodie's The birthing of the New Testament contain sections that deserve more attention in the discussion.

The oral tradition model should be scrutinized because it does indeed derive from theologically grounded models of gospel origins and related research into orality has often suffered from confirmation bias.

[Michael BG]

Marcion's a fad

Q is a fad. Marcion has flesh, Q is a phantom body. If scholarship does jump off of Marcion back to Q it just shows them to be dishonest weasels. "Let's deal with a document we invented yesterday rather than one the church fathers all complained about. That will make the fundies happy and us rich and famous." So yeah, Marcion may be a fad because truth is a fad since it doesn't make one rich and famous.

We can compare Matthew and Luke and make a case for what we think was in Q. We have greater difficulty in determining what was in the gospel of Marcion, because those who attack it don’t quote it clearly.

Lets put it this way. Tertullian (AM4.10) makes a big deal about Jesus being called "the son of man" in Luke because it proves (according to Tertullian) two things: (1) a positive link to the OT since supposedly the title comes from Daniel, and (2) that Jesus was born of at least one human parent (i.e. the virgin) or he'd be lying to call himself "the son of man. ...

Tertullian writes “On what principle you, Marcion, can admit Him Son of man, I cannot possibly see" (AM 4.10.8). This must mean that in the Marcion gospel text Jesus is still called Son of Man because the title is not used in the letters of Paul. This is the problem with trying to work out what was in the gospel of Marcion.

[Michael BG]

Another perspective is to read references of Jesus to the Son of Man through the lens of their author's christology. If Luke's gospel makes a special theme of the distinctiveness between the lowly Jesus who comes to suffer and die as a human martyr and the exalted Jesus who is rewarded for his suffering witness with glory and exaltation, do we not have a ready explanation for the question raised and one that does not need to construct pre-gospel events, sources and scenarios?

It is possible to think that Luke created everything in his gospel from scratch. But I think it is very, very, very unlikely.

Most certainly Luke did not "create everything in his gospel from scratch". But the christological or theological perspectives of the final redactor of the Gospel of Luke steered the direction in which he retold old tales.

If we look at how Luke used Mark (assuming Marcan priority) then we can see that Luke sometimes just uses Mark with little redaction and sometimes does colour the original in his own theological ideas. As we don’t have the sources used by Luke in Acts it makes it more difficult to get behind Acts than the gospel of Luke.

I am not sure that “Luke's gospel makes a special theme of the distinctiveness between the lowly Jesus who comes to suffer and die as a human martyr and the exalted Jesus who is rewarded for his suffering witness with glory and exaltation”.

I think we can see a refrain of high versus low, of bringing down the exalted and exalting the down-and outs, of the humble against the proud, etc established from the earliest chapters in the gospel.

Your later wording I agree with more than your original. I particularly didn’t accept “special theme” as Mark already has the suffering Jesus and his glory.

fwiw, pyr, jsyk, ymmv, fyr, imo, .02, afaiui, aisi,

• I accept Markan priority, …
• prefer the no-Q hypothesis, i.e. our canonical Luke knew and adapted Matthew …
• suspect canonical Luke is a product of the age of anti-Marcionism, ca mid second century; am 50-50 on it being the last gospel, posterior to John;
• don't know what to make of pre-canonical / Ur-Luke.

hth, nrr, b4n

Thank you for making your position clear.

oh, and one more thing ....

• I see no reason to accept oral traditions as the source material for the canonical gospel sayings and narratives, rather see more direct evidence for literary sources (and conversely evidence against oral sources)

(I have submitted oaomt to be added by the web acronym standards board)

I can understand better why some people think you are a mythicist as your position can appear to be one in which there is no historical Jesus, as you would argue very little goes back to a historical Jesus.

The notion of there were no oral traditions implies that early christians didn't talk about their religion and that a predominantly illiterate population communicated only through texts.

It has never crossed my mind that "there were no oral traditions". That's not the point I made. Are you just looking for ways to twist my words to play another round of your little ego game?

Therefore it follows that you do accept that it is possible that something could be historical. I think what you consider as likely to be historical because of your methodology will always be less than what I consider likely as historical.

Returning to Lk 12:8-9. For you the Matthean version is the older and it has Jesus in heaven and thus is a post-Easter saying. For me the Q version is older and it does not have Jesus in heaven and so is not a post-Easter saying and I conclude with Catchpole that it is likely to be historical. There is nothing I can say to convince you of my position on this verse, because to do so I need to change your mind regarding there being a Q.

[MrMacSon]

Q is a fad. Marcion has flesh, Q is a phantom body. If scholarship does jump off of Marcion back to Q it just shows them to be dishonest weasels. "Let's deal with a document we invented yesterday rather than one the church fathers all complained about. That will make the fundies happy and us rich and famous." So yeah, Marcion may be a fad because truth is a fad since it doesn't make one rich and famous.

Dennis MacDonald thinks Q is tied to Papias - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q%2B/Papias_Hypothesis

Allan Garrow thinks Q is tied to the Didache -

• http://www.alangarrow.com/extantq.html
  
  http://www.alangarrow.com/didache.html
  
  Garrow wrote in a comment on someone else's blog a couple of years ago -
  
  • "the Didache contains some Jesus sayings that were used by Luke - and that Matthew then conflated Luke's version with the Didache's original. These Didache sayings qualify as an 'extant instance of 'Q' ' in the sense that they were used by both Luke and Matthew." http://disq.us/p/ykc6bq
  Garrow uses 'Q' (in quotation marks) to denote sayings of Jesus used by Luke and Matthew - but which don't appear in Mark.

[davidbrainerd]

Marcion's a fad

Q is a fad. Marcion has flesh, Q is a phantom body. If scholarship does jump off of Marcion back to Q it just shows them to be dishonest weasels. "Let's deal with a document we invented yesterday rather than one the church fathers all complained about. That will make the fundies happy and us rich and famous." So yeah, Marcion may be a fad because truth is a fad since it doesn't make one rich and famous.

We can compare Matthew and Luke and make a case for what we think was in Q. We have greater difficulty in determining what was in the gospel of Marcion, because those who attack it don’t quote it clearly.

Lets put it this way. Tertullian (AM4.10) makes a big deal about Jesus being called "the son of man" in Luke because it proves (according to Tertullian) two things: (1) a positive link to the OT since supposedly the title comes from Daniel, and (2) that Jesus was born of at least one human parent (i.e. the virgin) or he'd be lying to call himself "the son of man. ...

Tertullian writes “On what principle you, Marcion, can admit Him Son of man, I cannot possibly see" (AM 4.10.8). This must mean that in the Marcion gospel text Jesus is still called Son of Man because the title is not used in the letters of Paul. This is the problem with trying to work out what was in the gospel of Marcion.

We need Marcion not a writtrn gospel of Marcion. Tertullian is of course not really telling us what was in a written gospel of Marcion. Tertullian is actually telling us what the Catholic church added to its own written gospels to combat Marcion's theology, but he pretends this stuff is also in a written gospel of Marcion. Yet just as it makes no sense for Marcion to have written a gospel calling Jesus "the son of man" (as Tertullian points out) it makes just as little sense for Jews to turn "one LIKE A son of man" (not just like and not just a but both like and a) into "THE son of man," so it obvious that "THE son of man" is a creation of anti-marcionite polemic.

Now I will grant that Jesus might have said in an early gospel, even Marcion's if he indeed had a written gospel, "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, therefore the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath" where "the son of man" = "any human being" ... because "the son of man" is a natural Hebrew idiom for "any human being." But the mystical misuse of "the son of man" as a reference to Daniel's "one like a son of man" which gets proliferated to other passages is obviously post-Marcion, for even if the church did use "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, therefore the son of man is Lord of the Sabbath" as a starting point to proliferate this as a title to other passages, they did so to counter Marcion by implying a link to Daniel and that the phrase implies Jesus was born, and they limited what was a universal phrase meaning "any human" to Jesus in an absurd way to do this.

[neilgodfrey]

I can understand better why some people think you are a mythicist as your position can appear to be one in which there is no historical Jesus, as you would argue very little goes back to a historical Jesus.

I don't think my position is very different from many critical scholars who view the gospels as largely ahistorical. I do not believe we have any unambiguous evidence for Christianity having begun with a historical Jesus. It does not logically follow that there was no historical Jesus, however.

My methods and assumptions in approaching the gospels are certainly very different from those of most biblical scholars (but not all) I am aware of. I believe the methods of those labelled "minimalists" are in sync with normative historical methods in fields outside biblical studies and they are the ones I think are justifiable (non-circular).

[neilgodfrey]

Therefore it follows that you do accept that it is possible that something could be historical. I think what you consider as likely to be historical because of your methodology will always be less than what I consider likely as historical.

Not impossible. But what are the simplest explanations for the composition of the saying and the narrative it is wrapped in?

To answer that I think we need to start with the best evidence for the nature and function of the gospels.

Returning to Lk 12:8-9. For you the Matthean version is the older and it has Jesus in heaven and thus is a post-Easter saying. For me the Q version is older and it does not have Jesus in heaven and so is not a post-Easter saying and I conclude with Catchpole that it is likely to be historical. There is nothing I can say to convince you of my position on this verse, because to do so I need to change your mind regarding there being a Q.

I am not sure how much of our canonical Luke should be attributed to a post-Matthean redaction. I am guilty of being influenced by Joseph Tyson who reopened the argument for an "ur-Luke" in his Marcion and Luke-Acts.

In one of my points I said I keep the back door of Q open. I am quite prepared to entertain arguments that rely upon Q. But I think some arguments are based more upon assumptions surrounding Q than Q itself. Even if a saying were attributed to Jesus in a Q saying I don't see why it would follow that it is therefore likely historical.

What I am wary about is beginning with an assumption that the gospel narrative is either minimally or maximally historical. We have justifications for attributing various degrees of historicity to the writings of other ancient events and persons that are lacking in the case of the gospels.

[spin]

I'm "looking for ways" to mute the negation of the notion of oral tradition from the discourse on the forum. There seems to be some a priori rejection of oral tradition among non-confessional posters given the misuse of the notion of oral tradition many christians are guilty of—the ahh oral tradition, so it goes back to reliable apostolic sources nonsense. While one cannot make any claims of veracity regarding oral traditions (given the impossibility of testing said veracity), they do indeed help to explain manifestations such as multiple traditions in text that hold similarities the text does not provide a literary trajectory for.

I suggest you start your own thread then and stop assuming that I am assuming or arguing things I am not.

Ironically, you are doing what you claim I was.

You may not be aware of your habit of setting up and attacking straw men when you address my posts.

I'm sorry you feel victimized. Again it was not my intention. I was dealing with an issue, one which you may not have had a position on, but one which your comment had bearing on.

You are certainly aware of your propensity for sarcasm and insults.

I'm certainly aware of such a propensity, but it certainly was not being manifested here.

they do indeed help to explain manifestations such as multiple traditions in text that hold similarities the text does not provide a literary trajectory for.

Oral traditions are not the only explanation for such data. Some works like those of Henaut's Oral tradition and the gospels: the problem of Mark 4 and Brodie's The birthing of the New Testament contain sections that deserve more attention in the discussion.

The oral tradition model should be scrutinized because it does indeed derive from theologically grounded models of gospel origins and related research into orality has often suffered from confirmation bias.

Yes, that is why I referred to "the misuse of the notion of oral tradition many christians are guilty of—the ahh oral tradition, so it goes back to reliable apostolic sources nonsense" in the post you are responding to.

As you have views on the issue of oral tradition—a significant issue, which needs to be uncovered—, it would be interesting for you to expand on them here or in a new thread (rather than pointing elsewhere).

Important topics include what can be said through the use of oral tradition, the difficulties involved in extracting the tradition, and the abuse of such tradition.

[neilgodfrey]

As you have views on the issue of oral tradition—a significant issue, which needs to be uncovered—, it would be interesting for you to expand on them here or in a new thread (rather than pointing elsewhere).

Important topics include what can be said through the use of oral tradition, the difficulties involved in extracting the tradition, and the abuse of such tradition.

Nah, I only enjoy having the odd shot at you when I see you acting like an intellectual snob or bully, not in jumping to your agenda. I don't see you as a serious interlocutor. Too manifestly ego driven. Pity. You have written and argued some good stuff in the past.

[neilgodfrey]

For general information, my previous discussions on oral tradition are at http://vridar.org/tag/oral-tradition/ -- they are far from complete. More to come.