Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 2:40 am I think it is reasonable on ordinary prioristic grounds to withhold confidence from an organized oral transmission channel with formal quality-control features.

On the other hand, see Chapter 3 of Michael Bird's The Gospel of the Lord for the idea of the exact transmission of teaching in the rabbinic milieu of which Jesus was a part. A priori we can assume "teaching" included accuracy. The deeds and the words as recorded in Mark could both be understood as "teaching." Jesus was assimilated to "the Word."

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:12 am But if you think that the death and resurrection of Jesus is the core of the gospel narrative then we have to explain why the evangelists bothered with all the other chapters before their concluding two or three; and you have to ask why the tradition was so varied if it was, as Paul seems to imply, very stable by his time.

Short answer to why they bothered with all the other chapters: confirmation of Messiahship. The identity of Jesus as Messiah is confirmed most strikingly by the resurrection. But there was more, and that was indicated in other ways.

Luke 7:22: And he answered them, “Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers[a] are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news brought to them.

Jesus is essentially saying that what became a significant part of the earlier (pre-passion) chapters of the gospel point to his identity (and therefore the special meaningfulness of his passion, death, and resurrection).

What was stable was: Jesus lives. Jesus is Lord. The details have greater or less harmony. That is not so important as the basic message.

pavurcn

A priori we can assume "teaching" included accuracy.

You could. I don't know anybody who disputes that an adequate technology was available, which was practiced for some things. The question is whether or not the technology was applied in Jesus' case.

I don't think we can come to a strong confidence from first principles that it was applied, only an acknowledgment that it might have been. What little evidence there is doesn't seem to support that with much strength.

The proverb that a chain is as strong as it weakest link has some force here. Bridging the gap from Jesus to a sophisticated Greek text decades later depends crucially on this link, and it is not obvious that it will bear the weight placed upon it.

Your mileage may differ, of course.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:05 am I don't know anybody who disputes that an adequate technology was available, which was practiced for some things. The question is whether or not the technology was applied in Jesus' case.

Most would agree that some kind of apostolic college was established. Mark 3:13-15:

He went up the mountain and called to him those whom he wanted, and they came to him. 14 And he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles,[a] to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, 15 and to have authority to cast out demons.

I wonder what the members of this school would have been "learning" if the contents of their lessons were variable, inexact, not repeated in a basically coherent way, with some concern for authenticity. The a priori weighting goes to support fidelity rather than random individual creativity and speculation and fantasy. A person speaks with particular authority...and what is said has an impact. The distinctiveness is not easily lost.

Neil sees any work about the beginning of Christianity as the task of "office" historians, which would have the benefit to look at load of fairly trustworthy evidence, either narratives or other. Their goal would be to format all of that in a condensed and reader friendly form for a targeted audience.
Unfortunately, that will not work because in this case the data is very limited & patchy, and also, for most of it, heavily polluted by religious bias.
I do not deny that historians and scholars have a role into that quest, but I think the main thrust, or the leading role, should come from investigators, used to work with scanty evidence, hostile or biased witnesses, conflicting testimonies, small clues and if need be, (literally) sifting through the garbage.
And, if after testing many theories, they reach a point where they can make a reconstruction on how the crime occurred, and what are the suspects, and better the criminals, fitting all that scanty evidence, explaining the testimonies, the clues, etc. well they did their job.
Of course, they are not always right: that's the price to pay with that kind of investigation.

Cordially, Bernard

pavurcn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:22 am

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 8:05 am I don't know anybody who disputes that an adequate technology was available, which was practiced for some things. The question is whether or not the technology was applied in Jesus' case.

Most would agree that some kind of apostolic college was established. Mark 3:13-15:

He went up the mountain and called to him those whom he wanted, and they came to him. 14 And he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles,[a] to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, 15 and to have authority to cast out demons.

I wonder what the members of this school would have been "learning" if the contents of their lessons were variable, inexact, not repeated in a basically coherent way, with some concern for authenticity. The a priori weighting goes to support fidelity rather than random individual creativity and speculation and fantasy. A person speaks with particular authority...and what is said has an impact. The distinctiveness is not easily lost.

Was the apostolic college established more or less in-line with the gospel account, or as a fabricated history to support the apostolic succession of later church hierarchs?

Do you think you're going to get a reasonable answer from a guy who think the shroud of Turin is 'evidence' for Jesus or that Jesus had 'spiritual chromosomes' from the Holy Spirit?

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:43 am Do you think you're going to get a reasonable answer from a guy who think the shroud of Turin is 'evidence' for Jesus or that Jesus had 'spiritual chromosomes' from the Holy Spirit?

Argument by misrepresentation and insult is pretty poor argumentation. In trying to disqualify my contributions you have devalued your own.

For the record: I believe the Shroud has not been adequately debunked despite all the C14 zealots who disregard counter-testing and counter-arguments.

I said nothing about spiritual chromosomes.

I'm not interested in trading insults.

perseusomega9 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:40 am Was the apostolic college established more or less in-line with the gospel account, or as a fabricated history to support the apostolic succession of later church hierarchs?

A fair question, probably well treated by many scholars. Testimony to the apostles as is found in Paul and Ignatius of Antioch would seem to favor the idea that there were such people....but I have not tried to find the most reliable scholarly source on the question. I do wonder where and when and by whom a fabrication would have been made, and what evidence would be brought up to support the alternative view. To simply say, "It is just so convenient" is not enough.

pavurcn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:29 am
What was stable was: Jesus lives. Jesus is Lord.

Yes. You have expressed the key point. And there is not the slightest indication that Paul knew anything else (apart from that he also remains crucified in his apostle). He even condemns miracle workers as false apostles at one point.