Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

to Ben,
But you still have those "false Christs and false prophets" in the category of:

Anecdotes or experiences from Jewish history/historians

I do not see any relationship here. It is simply wrong.
Are you avoiding to integrate the category I proposed:

Events affecting the Christian community where the gospel was written. (fall of Jerusalem, false Christs and prophets threatening the very existence of Mark's community, people embracing Christian teaching then rejecting it (Mk 4:5-7), etc.

Cordially, Bernard

to Ben,

my initial list is going to include a couple of possibilities I consider to be marginal candidates.

What are these possibilities you consider to be marginal candidates?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:

Do you care to elaborate? Do you think there is a true Christ?

I think there is no true Christ anywhere, past, present and future ..

Cordially, Bernard

Cheers. I was wondering if you saw another Christ or hints of another Christ somewhere in the early Christian or in the para-christian (gnostic)literature

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,
But you still have those "false Christs and false prophets" in the category of:

Anecdotes or experiences from Jewish history/historians

Ah, I see. Good point. I have fixed it.

I do not see any relationship here. It is simply wrong.
Are you avoiding to integrate the category I proposed:

Events affecting the Christian community where the gospel was written. (fall of Jerusalem, false Christs and prophets threatening the very existence of Mark's community, people embracing Christian teaching then rejecting it (Mk 4:5-7), etc.

No, not intentionally. I thought you were objecting to the idea overall for some reason, and I did not look carefully at how I had combined two categories illegitimately. Thanks.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

outhouse wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:Can you give an example from the gospels of a pericope or verse or theme that may fall into this category?

Almost any parable dealing with the poor or many others attributed to the Jesus character.

Would that differ from "inventions for the sake of theology" in some way? Maybe I could expand "theology" into "theology and praxis" or some such.

If Jesus existed he was certainly a student or disciple of Johns and took over after his murder, these teachings did not originate in a vacuum and would have been Johns teachings as well as typical Galilean teachings John learned.

That would be a Jewish version of Jewish teaching and/or prophecy. I may have to expand the category somewhat.

I would guess the teaching of Aramaic Galilean theology would be night and day different from Hellenistic Diaspora Proselyte "jewish" theology.

Granted. But it is still the same kind of source.

Then I would just add

John the Baptist.


Above all, without him we have no Jesus character which would mean no martyrdom based on crucifixion of a Galilean trouble maker at Passover.

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

Christian gospel writings (Q, Signs Source, Passion Narrative).

Signs Source, Passion Narrative: hypothetical documents unproven to have existed, but loved by some Christian apologists. There are a lot more evidence for the existence of Q: http://historical-jesus.info/q.html & http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-exist.html. And of course, "Luke" & "Matthew" drawing on Q does not mean the whole of Q was invented.

You seem to favor, Bernard, Q above the Passion Narrative. An underlying more-or-less complete Passion Narrative is largely accepted by the critics. In contrast, Q comes from a least two parts (Aramaic and Greek) and Casey calls it "Chaotic Q". Ever-so-many scholars insist on extant documents only and find Synoptic Problem theories whereby so-called Q is Matthew copying Luke or vice versa (the various Griesbach, Farrer, Augustinian, and Jerusalem School hypotheses). Arguing for a one Q document is rare, it's more "achieved" by definition (B. H. Streeter in 1924).
[

outhouse

If you are going to add John the Baptist as a source you'd have to add all the other fictional characters in the gospel - 'the centurion,' 'bar Timaeus' and the like. This exercise is breaking down rapidly.

outhouse wrote:Then I would just add

John the Baptist.

John the Baptist does not fit as a completely separate item on the list, but I have added him as a possible example for the new category "Jewish traditions emanating from contemporary or near contemporary religious figures".

Ben-

I've stayed out of this one for awhile but now offer a suggestion - Linguistic Analysis.
We have Cross-Language puns, references and Jokes aplenty to look at.

"Fourth Watch": This is a Roman term. The Jewish Fighters had three Watches. Why include a Roman (also Greek?) term in a document about a Jewish Tableau?
"...Which, translated, means...": Someone feels obligated to point out that, for the Narration, a word given in one language means something to the Target Audience that needs to be explained.
"Gabbatha", f'rinstance. Does this tranliteration go in both directions or is it only from a Hebrew => Greek idea?
Various Latinisms.
Word Plays in one language that are lost when translated into Greek: Hebrew "Lamb" => "Arnion" loses a Word Play on "Immar-Immer"
Idioms: "You must be born again". It is plain that Nicodemus does not understand the idiom and he is a "Ruler of the Jews". Who then, could Nicodemus be?

These ideas lead to the idea that the "Originals" were used as Sources for another intention and that "From the fact that the Jesus stories were written from another source, it does not follow that the Source was about a "Jesus".

Thank you,

CW

Secret Alias wrote:outhouse

If you are going to add John the Baptist as a source you'd have to add all the other fictional characters in the gospel - 'the centurion,' 'bar Timaeus' and the like. This exercise is breaking down rapidly.

Sorry he has historicity, that you cannot accept.

Throwing his historicity out the window, would only be done so that your imagination can take over. I will take weak evidence over imagination.


Not only that your other characters did not shape the apocalyptic theology, Johns teachings actually did. Not even disputed by credibility.