Gordon wrote:

>In any event, contra my good sparring buddy Loren...
>all prophetic acts are not "apocalyptic"/ all
>eschatology not "apocalyptic."

Gordon,

I have actually never equated prophetic with
apocalyptic, nor eschatological with apocalyptic (the
latter being a subset of the former). Clerical
prophets like John Hyrcanus I and sappiential prophets
coming from the ranks of the Pharisees (like Samaias)
or Essenes (like Judas) do not seem to have been
eschatologically driven. But most of the oracular
prophets and popular prophets were, and some even
apocalyptically so. It just so happens that Jesus fits
the description (so I believe) of "apocalyptic
prophet".

>Regarding Loren's contention that Jesus' parabolic
>speech is prophetic and decidely apocalyptic...

I am saying that Jesus' parabolic speech is
fundamentally prophetic, with shades of the
apocalyptic creeping in here and there.

>...doesn't let the speech function in its own
integrity,
>tradition and modus operandi.
>Parables simply are not prophetic utterances. To go
to
>the old sources...Proverbs isn't an apocalyptic or
>prophetic work.  And Ecclesiastes has a
>different notion of God's rule, the present and the
>future from Daniel...fer instance.  Wisdom speech,
>communication has it's own integrity.

My friend, you are simply assuming that parables must
follow exclusively in the Wisdom tradition of the OT.
You are wrong. Consider:

1. OT prophets were certainly known for using
parables. II Sam 12:1-6 shows Nathan doing so with
David. Isa 5:1-6 presents a parable in the form of a
love-song, which provides a segue into the prophet's
diatribes against the aristocracy for alienating
peasants from the land (5:7-8). Ekez 17:1-10 is an
allegorical parable. So on.

2. Hosea 12:10 has God promising that "through the
prophets I will bring parables".

3. Moving into the NT, Mt 13:35 speaks of the
"fulfillment of what had been spoken through the
prophet", followed by a citation of Ps 78:2: "I will
open my mouth in a parable and proclaim what has been
hidden..." (In this case, the "prophet" is David.)

There is simply no justification for pigeon-holing the
parable genre into the wisdom tradition at the expense
of the prophetic.

>Brandon Scott, for one, is just great on this...
>as are Crossan and Borg, of course.

As you know too well, I believe they are among the
worst parable interpreters. Will we never agree on
anything? :(

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii@...

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Bob wrote:

> Those with long memories or good records may recall
> that David Kaylor was
> an early member of CrossTalk back in the old days
> when it was hosted by
> HarperCollins. He was one of the scholars on the
> list who gently coached me
> in matters of NT scholarship.

Bob,

I was unaware of this; thanks for mentioning. I'll
have to look into the archives.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii@...

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

I think that it was Eric who mentioned his interest in
and work on the issue of miracles and the problems
that are posed for historical methodology if the
possibility of miracles is granted.

I should add that I see some of the same problems that
other have mentioned.

At any rate, some people might be interested in
reading an online article by William Lane Craig, "The
Problem Of Miracles: A Historical And Philosophical
Perspective":

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/miracles.html

I have to confess that I haven't actually read it, but
Craig is a good philosopher, very knowledgeable, very
careful. So, he probably gives a respectable overview
of the problem.

There's also an Alvin Plantinga website with several
articles on naturalism as a philosophical assumption:

http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/Papersbyplantinga.html

Plantinga is a very important contemporary theistic
philosopher in the analytical tradition, so his
articles would be worth looking at. (I haven't yet,
though.)

I don't know if these two concern themselves with
developing a methodology for historical analysis of
documents that grants the possibility of miracles, but
even if not, they might provide a way in to those who
have.

Jeffery Hodges

=====
Horace Jeffery Hodges (Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley)
Assistant Professor
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
Yangsandong 411
South Korea

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

In a message dated 3/2/03 2:07:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, sdblack@...
writes:

> I guess I would simply want to ask if we have any reason to believe
> that the HJ would not have "mixed styles"?

Is it possible that Jesus, fully human, might have grown during His ministry,
in His theology, His understanding of God's purpose, and in His understanding
of His mission?

It seems to me that, especially in Mark, there is evidence of such personal
growth.

Perhaps rather than following a minimalist approach with the Jesus Seminar,
rejecting all sayings but whatever aphorisms do not seem to be
"christianized,"
and perhaps rather than thinking that His apocalyptic vision was
disappointed, there is the possibility that Jesus grew during the ministry in
the years from baptism to resurrection, and that this mixture of style and of
proclamation can be partially attributed to this personal growth.

Taking Mark 1:15 as a starting point, there are at least 2 questions that
come to me with regard to Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom - the
apocalyptic view of the kingdom of God and the call to repentance.

Perhaps Jesus began with a message that actually followed closely with the
teaching of the one who "among those born of women there is no one greater." 
And perhaps Jesus grew in understanding, and saw a greater proclamation and
mission than calling people to repentance, and an understanding of the
kingdom beyond the soon to come world apocalypse.

This growth perhaps changed His teaching so much from that which He received
from
John, that the mentor actually had to question whether there was to be
another.

Richard Smith
Chattanooga, TN



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Loren,
>I have actually never equated prophetic with
>apocalyptic, nor eschatological with apocalyptic (the
>latter being a subset of the former). Clerical
>prophets like John Hyrcanus I and sappiential prophets
>coming from the ranks of the Pharisees (like Samaias)
>or Essenes (like Judas) do not seem to have been
>eschatologically driven. But most of the oracular
>prophets and popular prophets were, and some even
>apocalyptically so. It just so happens that Jesus fits
>the description (so I believe) of "apocalyptic
>prophet".

Thanks for the clarification here and sorry for the mischaraterization.
(others, as you know, do tend to schmooze prophetic and apocalyptic
together).  The key here remains that we disagree about this last
sentence... and the reason as we've long ago discussed... has to do with
what we see as historical evidence versus storied imagination.  To be sure
Jesus is cast as a prophet in the stories and, of course, in the formal
theology comes to be later affirmed as "Prophet, Priest and King."  But as
my historical evidentiary base is not as large as yours, the question comes
up as to where Jesus' speech best fits in its modus operandi and
interpretive schema, and I will continue to maintain that that base fits not
only according to genre, but also in terms of content with voices from the
wisdom heritage in Israel (Jonah... who though cast as a prophet as a
character... is a wisdom work, Koheleth and such as the wisdom materials in
Torah (Deut. 4:5-8) and from the Psalms such as Psalm 90.  I've read and
heard such as Saunder's take, Allison's take, Wright's take on what to do
with Q/Th/Luke passage and about the "Our Father."  No doubt the "kingdom is
now" (to paraphrase) saying could be and was interpreted in apocalyptic
frames and in gnostic frames.  Nothing wrong with those later interpretative
moves.  Each has its own value.  In the developing lines of kerygma and in
later historical circumstances they are faithful reflections and extensions
by various voices in the communities who anchored themselves around Jesus
and friends.  The clearest takes of apocalyptacism as being central for
communities comes in the likes of the Thessalonian correspondence and
Revelation, of course (both, in my view, from the Domitian era).  But we'd
need to get into a theological discussion of the works to assess how the
reliance on apocalyptic resources from the past fit with other theological
voices to get at the aims and intentions of each work and that's beyond the
purpose of this group.  So this takes us back to HJ... and yes, we'll just
have to disagree because of how we assess what is historical... actually
from Jesus and friends in the late 20's and what is midrash, imagination,
creation, reflection in later times and in other places.

>
>>Regarding Loren's contention that Jesus' parabolic
>>speech is prophetic and decidely apocalyptic...
>
>I am saying that Jesus' parabolic speech is
>fundamentally prophetic, with shades of the
>apocalyptic creeping in here and there

My only comment here is that belief that God is going to do something
dramatic and soon which will alter the course of history and restore
Israel... is more than "a shade" apocalyptic.  If Jesus believed this, then
the historian can quite simply say he was wrong.  That doesn't end
discussion about what apocalyptic means, its value and what to do with being
wrong.  If HJ was this way and was wrong, I have no problem saying so.  Like
the host of folks before and after him... well, they just keep being
wrong;)!  I'm not going to lose any sleep over this, if I'm wrong.  But...
again... I don't see the historical evidentiary base regarding HJ that this
is the case at all.  More in a moment.
>
>>...doesn't let the speech function in its own
>integrity,
>>tradition and modus operandi.
>>Parables simply are not prophetic utterances. To go
>to
>>the old sources...Proverbs isn't an apocalyptic or
>>prophetic work.  And Ecclesiastes has a
>>different notion of God's rule, the present and the
>>future from Daniel...fer instance.  Wisdom speech,
>>communication has it's own integrity.
>
>My friend, you are simply assuming that parables must
>follow exclusively in the Wisdom tradition of the OT

No, this isn't my view.  Regarding the literature... from Torah onwards in
the many redactions we see the inclusion of the many voices in Israel's long
history.  For descriptive purposes (although there are combinations and
permutations in the writings) one can delineate 5 major theological voices
in TANAK... priestly, royal, prophetic, apocalyptic and wisdom.  If folks
want to get into TANAK in this regard we can go into that, but for brevity
sake here... there are **real** arguments in Israel's past and the editors
wisely let those voices be kept.  On some matters there were fundamental
disagreements... and about the future and God's work therein... there are
just some whopping disagreements and to pick this one... Daniel and
Ecclesiastes  **obviously** disagree about that future.  If one accepts such
as the "coming Son of Man" speech and such as Mark 13 is from Jesus... then,
yes... of course... Jesus was an apocalyptic thinker.  Correct... and
again... if that's the case... fine and he was wrong.  But I don't think
those sayings are from HJ.  And as regards their later inclusion they are
quite understandable as relates to dealing with the loss of the Temple and
the later traumas from dealing with those friendly Romans Nero... before the
War... all the way through those lovely figures of Vespasion, Titus and oh
so friendly Domitian... and the likes of voices that were aroused as such in
Josephus who came to the merry conclusion that God had passed his favor to
the Romans.  Great interpretative moves to face this and other issues as
well.  But back to this point... the wisdom voices in Israel's past have an
integrity all their own.  Regarding "God's presence/ rule/ action" there is
quite clear affirmation in this regard.  And yes... some kings, prophets and
mama's are shown to say one or more things that reflect God's wisdom.  But
***there are also, to use the outside terms... sages*** in this heritage who
majored in this theo-ethical voice, paradigm and genre.  I take it that that
core of sayings so important in Q, in the Didache, in the production of the
Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain... clearly behind Ep. James
little wisdom summary in James 3... clearly behind Paul's preferred
vocabulary about the ways of the Spirit in his little summaries... ***is
rooted*** in the integrity of wisdom sage speech from Jesus and friends.
This is not my attempt to box HJ at the outset and make him fit some
pre-existing pattern.  It comes from the assessment of what I believe is
from Jesus and friends... and from the reality of what we see across the
resources we have.  Thing is... when it comes to getting to the core... from
Mark to Paul to Thomas to James to the Didache all agree about this core.
And these sayings **are not** prophetic utterances and the speech is
**certainly not** apocalyptic.  And the thing is, of course, neither is the
action direction that Jesus asks of the two by twos.  Hence... until we find
some new resources... I think there's every reason to say that this is where
Jesus as an individual contributor fits and this is the intellectual/
theological heritage that he worked out of.



.
>You are wrong. Consider:
>
>1. OT prophets were certainly known for using
>parables. II Sam 12:1-6 shows Nathan doing so with
>David. Isa 5:1-6 presents a parable in the form of a
>love-song, which provides a segue into the prophet's
>diatribes against the aristocracy for alienating
>peasants from the land (5:7-8). Ekez 17:1-10 is an
>allegorical parable. So on.
>
>2. Hosea 12:10 has God promising that "through the
>prophets I will bring parables".
>
>3. Moving into the NT, Mt 13:35 speaks of the
>"fulfillment of what had been spoken through the
>prophet", followed by a citation of Ps 78:2: "I will
>open my mouth in a parable and proclaim what has been
>hidden..." (In this case, the "prophet" is David.)
>
>There is simply no justification for pigeon-holing the
>parable genre into the wisdom tradition at the expense
>of the prophetic.

See the above... but one more note here.  You and I tried to get a
conversation going... and I checked a note I made... in November of 2001...
about the base data that people start with to construct their ideas about
HJ.  Thanks for putting your short list back to Andrew.  So... let's give
this a whirl again, shall we.  To all... for beginning descriptive
purposes.... let folks put out there in simple straight forward terms the
"Top Ten" things Jesus said and the ten that Jesus did/ happened to him.  As
I happened to jot down my list... I'll put them down again:
Actions:
1. Baptism... Mark 1:9
2. Jesus to Galilee Mk. 1:14
3. Capernaum meal as paradigm for table fellowship Mk. 2:15-17c
4.Lake side Parabling Mk. 4:1-9, 21-32
5.Nazareth rejection Mark 6:1-4
6. Two by two Mission Q/Luke 10:3-9
7. Last days in Galilee Mark 9:33-37, 50
8. Parabling in Jerusalem Mark 12:1-9a, 12
9. Crucifixion Mark 15:25
10. Women witness death Mark 15:40-41

Voice:
1. Mark 4:9  Two Good Ears
2.Th. 47 Mount Two Horses
3. Q/Matthew 5:44 Sunrise/Rain Fall
4. Mark 4:30-32 Mustard
5. Q/Luke 12:6 Sparrows worth
6. Q/Luke 6:27 Love of enemies
7. Luke 11:5-7 Friend at MN
8. Q/Luke 17:33 Save/Lose
9. Q/Matthew 28-29 Consider the lilies
10. Mark 9:50  Salt/peace

(I did this from the notes... sorry if any verses are wrong).
At any rate... maybe folks will actually just lay out what they see as core
and key... and we might actually find in this group where there is any
beginning agreement.  We'll see.  But for now... unless Dale Allison or
anyone else has dug up something new... we're all working from the same
resources... and... again... as long as there are just base disagreements
about what is historically rooted and what comes from the wondrous
imaginations of these early folks... then we're mostly going to disagree.
I'd just like to see where  *** any *** agreements might be found.  So...
let's try this again.
>
>>Brandon Scott, for one, is just great on this...
>>as are Crossan and Borg, of course.
>
>As you know too well, I believe they are among the
>worst parable interpreters

I know... and no point in belaboring this... my suggestion nevertheless
remains for folks to consider the integrity of the wisdom heritage past, in
Jesus and earliest Christianity and afterwards.  Whatever else folks want to
add to that... and there's lots of valuable insights to be had... that
heritage deserves careful consideration in its own right and in its own
integrity.  These writers work at that and therefore deserve consideration
for that even if there are other disagreements.  I have my own with each of
them.... but this issue because it gets bowled over or so quickly ignored or
transmuted into something else deserves its own careful study and these are
guys who see that.




. Will we never agree on
>anything? :(

Well... the new Dune mini-series is coming out mid-month and we'll probably
agree on what we think of that;)!

take care,
Gordon

>
>Another serendipitous message -- like Gordon's earlier -- as it gives me
>a good reason to remind List members that Dick Horsley will be joining
>us in May to do a Seminar on this very book.

Jeffrey,

Any invitations out to such as Brandon Scott, Dom or Burton Mack so that
list members might have a new opportunity to engage folks who see things a
tad differently than such as Horsely and Allison?  How about an invitation
to such as Crossan, Mack, Saunders and Allison to have a methodological
debate?

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC

Gordon Raynal wrote:

>
> >
> >Another serendipitous message -- like Gordon's earlier -- as it gives
> me
> >a good reason to remind List members that Dick Horsley will be
> joining
> >us in May to do a Seminar on this very book.
>
> Jeffrey,
>
> Any invitations out to such as Brandon Scott, Dom or Burton Mack so
> that
> list members might have a new opportunity to engage folks who see
> things a
> tad differently than such as Horsely and Allison?  How about an
> invitation
> to such as Crossan, Mack, Saunders and Allison to have a
> methodological
> debate?

I have written to Mack previously about doing a seminar and/or
participating in one/joining XTalk. He has no interest in doing so.

I always let Dom know about the seminars. His participation is always
contingent on time available to him.

As to Saunders -- forgive me if I'm being more than usually obtuse, but
do you mean Ed Sanders? If so, there's not much hope. He has noted to me
privately that he is one of the worst e-mail corespondents on the
planet.

Look for the announcement on the Allison Seminar, as well as URLs to the
material Dale wishes to be the subject matter of the discussion, later
today.

Yours,

Jeffrey
--

Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626

jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 09:45 AM 3/3/2003 -0500, Gordon Raynal wrote:

> >
> >Another serendipitous message -- like Gordon's earlier -- as it gives me
> >a good reason to remind List members that Dick Horsley will be joining
> >us in May to do a Seminar on this very book.
>
>Jeffrey,
>
>Any invitations out to such as Brandon Scott, Dom or Burton Mack so that
>list members might have a new opportunity to engage folks who see things a
>tad differently than such as Horsely and Allison?  How about an invitation
>to such as Crossan, Mack, Saunders and Allison to have a methodological
>debate?
>
>Gordon Raynal

Gordon,
You seem to have forgotten that we've *already* had seminars with Crossan,
and I appreciate the invitations to Allison (and Horsley again) for
balance. I believe the archives of these seminars are still accessible.
Your dissing Allison (and Horsley) in advance (in previous posts, and by
implication in this one) seems unfair and unscholarly. I can understand why
you might want to line up scholars whose views you sympathize with, but
please don't diss the others in the meanwhile. Instead, I think we should
all be grateful to Jeffrey Gibson for the extra work he has done lining up
seminar leaders. Thanks, Jeffrey!

Bob

Mike,

A little while ago, I asked you some questions in response to some
criticisms you'd made about my not attending to sources in my work.

Any chance of a reply?


On a second issue,  I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to be a bit more
thoughtful about how you characterize Regent when speaking in a public forum
like this. Can I suggest that a quick perusal of a website is probably not
the best way to determine the academic standing of a school, and probably
far less so the company it uses as a server (I'm afraid I still can't see
the connection, pardon the pun)?

On the other hand, I do know, firsthand, that Regent has an excellent
reputation amongst such well-known hotbeds of sectarianism as Cambridge,
Oxford, Harvard, Princeton, Edinburgh,  etc. etc.  I am happy to say that to
the best of my knowledge every student we have recommended to those schools
has been accepted; it has certainly been the case in my experience. In fact,
so well pleased are a number of these schools that they have expressed their
interest in us sending more students their way.

Rikk

>Gordon,
>You seem to have forgotten that we've *already* had seminars with Crossan,
>and I appreciate the invitations to Allison (and Horsley again) for
>balance. I believe the archives of these seminars are still accessible.
>Your dissing Allison (and Horsley) in advance (in previous posts, and by
>implication in this one) seems unfair and unscholarly. I can understand why
>you might want to line up scholars whose views you sympathize with, but
>please don't diss the others in the meanwhile. Instead, I think we should
>all be grateful to Jeffrey Gibson for the extra work he has done lining up
>seminar leaders. Thanks, Jeffrey!

Bob,

I did not forget, but this was before my time on this list.  As for the
notion of "dissing," I am simply stating clear disagreement with their
assessments on this matter of Jesus and apocalyptacism.  If my clarity seems
abrupt to you then my only response is that I'm trying to be direct to get a
clear word in about this position on this list which tends to get
overwhelmed by other views.  As for the request to actually ask that these
folks engage in some actual debate on line... as for instance... I've had
both the pleasure to read (for instance Polebridge has a nice little book on
this issue with Allison and Crossan, among others, in debate) and see Dom
debate both Wright and Saunders in a W/E forum several years ago at Duke...
well, this is just in the interest of seeing if their actually can be some
scholarly consensus achieved on these matters after the very intense work
done over the last couple of decades.  I am thankful to Jeffrey for this
effort.  I am all for those who favor these scholars work on this matter to
become more fully founded in their convictions. I think to move towards
finding **some** actual working commonalities... perhaps an entire pipe
dream these days... then the sort of discussion that might include folks
from various perspectives would be a help.  I, for one, would like to see
where say... Crossan, Mack and Allison might find some common ground.
Perhaps there is none.  But after two decades of lots of publications... and
towards the end of these folks careers it would be mighty nice to see if
**any** might be reached.

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC

Thanks Jeffrey.  I know this would be a big deal and they have their
commitments.  Maybe the HJ Group at SBL might arrange a big methodology
forum day.  But maybe the "round and round" will just go on.  And yes, sorry
about misspelling Ed's name.  My typing skills aren't always the best!

Gordon

(with apologies for cross postings)

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
XTalk ONLINE SEMINAR WITH DALE ALLISON

The moderators of the XTalk Discussion List
(http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/) are pleased to announce that Dale Allison,

      Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at
      Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of _Jesus of
      Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet_ (Philadelphia: Fortress), _The
      Jesus Tradition in Q_ (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press
      International), "Matthew," in _The Oxford Bible Commentary_,
      edited by John Barton and John Mudimann (Oxford: Oxford
      University Press), _An Exegetical and Critical Commentary on
      the Gospel according to St. Matthew_ (with W. D. Davies). and
      numerous other works (click here for full list of
      publications)

has agreed to conduct a two week Online Seminar with XTalk members and
other interested parties on the ideas and arguments set out in the
drafts of three chapters of his forthcoming book _Secularizing Jesus_,
which are entitled respectively "Jesus and Hell", Ideology and
Apocalyptic", and "Jesus and His Audiences" and are available in PDF
format at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/HELL.PDF

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/IdeologyandApocalyptic.pdf

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/files/Jesus%20and%20His%20Audiences.pdf

The Seminar, to be carried out under the auspices of XTalk and its
moderators,  will begin on Monday, March 24th, and will run until
Saturday, April 5th, 2003.

So as to be managed effectively, the Seminar will be conducted on a
subscription only basis (for instructions on subscribing, see below),
and all posts submitted by Seminar members will be subject to selection
by the Seminar's moderators.  Posts selected as best suited to further
the discussion will be answered by Professor Allison on a daily basis.

The messages from Seminar List members and the replies of Professor
Allison will be posted regularly to the Seminar's Home page

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allison-Seminar/

and will be publicly accessible at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allison-Seminar/messages

However, only Seminar subscribers will have the privilege of posting
messages.

The focus of the Seminar are the thesis set out by Professor Allison in
the online articles listed above.
Accordingly,  a major prerequisite for anyone wishing to participate in
the Seminar **is one's familiarity with the content of, and ideas
discussed within, these articles**.

To apply for membership in the Seminar, send a blank e-mail message to:

Allison-Seminar-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

PLEASE NOTE that while applications for membership in the Seminar are
being accepted immediately, posts to Professor Allison ARE NOT.

Nothing should be sent in to the Seminar itself until the eve of its
opening day on Monday, March 24th.

Questions or comments about the Seminar may be sent to the following
e-mail address:

Allison-Seminar-owner@yahoogroups.com

Yours sincerely (and on behalf of the entire XTalk administrative
staff),

Jeffrey Gibson
Co-moderator and List Owner of XTalk and the Allison-Seminar
---

Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626

jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bob Schacht wrote:

> Instead, I think we should
> all be grateful to Jeffrey Gibson for the extra work he has done
> lining up
> seminar leaders. Thanks, Jeffrey!

You are more than welcome.

But the message from Gordon that you were replying to with the above
reminds me that there are probably non XTalk subscribed HJ scholars out
there, like Brandon Scott (or M.A. Powell)  who might like to be made
aware of the Seminar.

I have a few names in my personal address book, but I'd be grateful to
have suggestions from XTalk List members (OFF LIST!! please) of people
they think might be interested in listening to/participating in the
exchange.

So  send me OFF LIST the names (and even more helpful -- the e-mail
addresses as well) of anyone you think should know about it.

Alternatively, feel free to pass the announcement on to these people.

Yours,

Jeffrey


--

Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626

jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- Rikk E. Watts wrote:
> Mike,
> A little while ago, I asked you some questions in response to some
> criticisms you'd made about my not attending to sources in my work.
> Any chance of a reply?

Sure. I'd delayed it temporarily in order to compose an answer to
Bob, and by the time I got back to it, you'd said that you were
swamped and couldn't respond for awhile. At that point, it seemed
ill-form to address you, so I've been waiting for your return. Now
you're back, I'll respond separately under that thread. Here I'll
just address the misunderstanding below.

> On a second issue, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to be
> a bit more thoughtful about how you characterize Regent when
> speaking in a public forum like this.

But I didn't characterize Regent at all - except in its own words.
How could I, since I know nothing of its reputation other than what
you now relate? What you're probably referring to is the last
sentence of the first paragraph of the note in question, wherein
I wrote that "... I myself wouldn't go THERE to find academically-
respectable information" (emphasis now added). But the word 'there'
in that sentence refers to gospelcom.net (the last "location"
mentioned), not Regent - which I'd mentioned somewhat earlier.

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

At 10:26 AM 3/3/03 -0000, Eric Eve wrote:
>Bob Schacht wrote:
>> Eric Eve has intervened and contributed much to this debate. I have a few
>> points to pick with him, but generally consider his contributions
>> quite helpful.
>
>Hey, no need to go overboard <g>! (or is this a case where an American
>'quite' has a different nuance from a British 'quite'?).

I'm not sure what the nuance of "quite" is in the UK, but on this
side of the pond, it undoubtedly means "very" in this context.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

Good-oh (as the Brits would say)

Rikk
on 3/3/03 7:57 PM, mwgrondin <mwgrondin@...> at
mwgrondin@... wrote:

> --- Rikk E. Watts wrote:
>> Mike,
>> A little while ago, I asked you some questions in response to some
>> criticisms you'd made about my not attending to sources in my work.
>> Any chance of a reply?
>
> Sure. I'd delayed it temporarily in order to compose an answer to
> Bob, and by the time I got back to it, you'd said that you were
> swamped and couldn't respond for awhile. At that point, it seemed
> ill-form to address you, so I've been waiting for your return. Now
> you're back, I'll respond separately under that thread. Here I'll
> just address the misunderstanding below.
>
>> On a second issue, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to be
>> a bit more thoughtful about how you characterize Regent when
>> speaking in a public forum like this.
>
> But I didn't characterize Regent at all - except in its own words.
> How could I, since I know nothing of its reputation other than what
> you now relate? What you're probably referring to is the last
> sentence of the first paragraph of the note in question, wherein
> I wrote that "... I myself wouldn't go THERE to find academically-
> respectable information" (emphasis now added). But the word 'there'
> in that sentence refers to gospelcom.net (the last "location"
> mentioned), not Regent - which I'd mentioned somewhat earlier.
>
> Mike Grondin
> Mt. Clemens, MI
>
>
> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
>
> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Dr. Rikk E. Watts (Cantab)         Ph.     (604) 224 3245
Associate Professor of NT           Fax.    (604) 224 3097
Regent College
5800 University Boulevard, Vancouver, V6T 2E4

--- Jeffery Hodges wrote:
> ... some people might be interested in reading an online article
> by William Lane Craig, "The Problem Of Miracles: A Historical And
> Philosophical Perspective":
>
> http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/miracles.html
>
> I have to confess that I haven't actually read it, but Craig
> is a good philosopher, very knowledgeable, very careful. So,
> he probably gives a respectable overview of the problem.

Thanks for the URL, Jeffery. I admit that I was biased against
Craig before I began reading, but I thought he acquited himself
quite well in this article. (Personally, it's really a pleasure for
me to read some philosophy again after so long away from it. Where
else can one encounter such calm, clear, logical sequences of 90-
word sentences? :-)

> There's also an Alvin Plantinga website with several
> articles on naturalism as a philosophical assumption:
>
> http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/Papersbyplantinga.html
>
> Plantinga is a very important contemporary theistic philosopher
> in the analytical tradition, so his articles would be worth
> looking at. (I haven't yet, though.)

Again, my initial perusal agrees with your assessment, Jeffery.
I read some Plantinga in grad school, so this was in the nature of
reacquaintance for me, but his papers at this site are fruitful
reading, IMO (in spite of the fact that I don't share his stance
or his conclusions). I found his 1991 paper on evolution
particularly intriguing in its attempt to work out an "enlightened"
Christian attitude toward perceived conflicts between faith and
science.

> I don't know if these two concern themselves with developing
> a methodology for historical analysis of documents that grants
> the possibility of miracles, but even if not, they might provide
> a way in to those who have.

Toward the end of his paper, Craig opts for a methodology suggested
by Pannenberg, best captured perhaps by Craig's statements:

"When, for example, myths, legends, illusions, and the like are
dismissed as unhistorical, it is not because they are unusual, but
because they are analogous to present forms of consciousness having
no objective referent. ... Thus, he [Pannenberg] has elsewhere
affirmed that if the Easter traditions were shown to be essentially
secondary constructions analogous to common comparative religious
models, the Easter appearances were shown to correspond completely
to the model of hallucinations, and the empty tomb tradition were
evaluated as a late legend, then the resurrection would be subject
to evaluation as unhistorical."

At the risk of possibly contradicting my own earlier remarks to
Bob, I have to say that I don't sense anything wrong with this
methodology - at first glance, anyway. The apparent inconsistency
is due, I think, to assuming that "a priori" ruling-out of miracles
is a "pure" mental activity divorced from experience. But that
seems not to be the case. Such an decision seems actually to be
based on the sum total of one's existential experience up to that
point. (As Kant might say, it's "synthetic a priori" instead
of "analytic a priori".) So, insofar as the Craig-Pannenberg
methodology captures the existential considerations that leads one
person to rule out miracles "a priori" and another to accept them
"a priori", any apparent inconsistency may be just that.

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI

Stephen Carlson wrote:

> Eric Eve wrote:
>> Bob Schacht wrote:
>>> Eric Eve has intervened and contributed much to this debate. I have a
few
>>> points to pick with him, but generally consider his contributions
>>> quite helpful.
>
>> Hey, no need to go overboard <g>! (or is this a case where an American
>> 'quite' has a different nuance from a British 'quite'?).

> I'm not sure what the nuance of "quite" is in the UK, but on this
> side of the pond, it undoubtedly means "very" in this context.

Stephen,

Thanks for that clarification, which confirmed what I suspected (from
conversations with various people comparing British and American usage); in
British usage 'quite' would more naturally mean 'moderately' in such a
context so the whole sentence would read like damning with faint praise,
though from his first sentence I suspected that wasn't actually Bob's
intention: hence the <g> (my remarks were really intended as a bit of a
leg-pull).

Best wishes,

Eric

-------------------------------
Dr Eric Eve
Harris Manchester College
Mansfield Road, Oxford, OX1 3TD
Tel: 01865 281473

List members --

I have received a free trial issue of The Journal for
the Study of the Historical Jesus, and I must say the
artciles therein are impressive. If the editorial
board continues providing this level of quality, I may
have to subscribe. It just so happens that Dale
Allison kicks off with the first essay, which is
titled "The Continuity between John and Jesus". It
serves as a fine supplement to the required reading
material for the upcoming Allison seminar.

The ISSN for this publication is 1476-8690.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii@...


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Loren,

Thanks for your positive assessment of the Journal.

Can I state, however, that, while the editorial board members are starting
the journal by each contributing a substantive new essay, the journal will
only be sustained by its readers and other life-of-Jesus scholars submitting
high-quality, cutting-edge essays.

So, those of you out there who are contributing scholars, I'm waiting to
hear from you!

Bob.

Robert L. Webb
Webb.Bob@...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loren Rosson [mailto:rossoiii@...]
> Sent: March 4, 2003 10:22 AM
> To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [XTalk] Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
>
>
> List members --
>
> I have received a free trial issue of The Journal for
> the Study of the Historical Jesus, and I must say the
> artciles therein are impressive. If the editorial
> board continues providing this level of quality, I may
> have to subscribe. It just so happens that Dale
> Allison kicks off with the first essay, which is
> titled "The Continuity between John and Jesus". It
> serves as a fine supplement to the required reading
> material for the upcoming Allison seminar.
>
> The ISSN for this publication is 1476-8690.
>
> Loren Rosson III
> Nashua NH
> rossoiii@...
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
> The XTalk Home Page is
> http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
>
> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
> crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to:
> crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> List managers may be contacted directly at:
> crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Bob -- will electronic access be available soon for the journal?
JSNT and other Continuum journals are available electronically and
it's a shame to see that the Journal for the Study of the Historical
Jesus does not yet have this.

Thanks
Mark
-----------------------------
Dr Mark Goodacre                 mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
   Dept of Theology                  tel: +44 121 414 7512
   University of Birmingham      fax: +44 121 414 4381
   Birmingham    B15 2TT  UK

http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
http://NTGateway.com

Mark,

Let me find out for you; I'll be back.

Bob.

Robert L. Webb
Webb.Bob@...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Goodacre [mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...]
> Sent: March 4, 2003 1:07 PM
> To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [XTalk] Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
>
>
> Bob -- will electronic access be available soon for the journal?
> JSNT and other Continuum journals are available electronically and
> it's a shame to see that the Journal for the Study of the Historical
> Jesus does not yet have this.
>
> Thanks
> Mark
> -----------------------------
> Dr Mark Goodacre                 mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
>   Dept of Theology                  tel: +44 121 414 7512
>   University of Birmingham      fax: +44 121 414 4381
>   Birmingham    B15 2TT  UK
>
http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
http://NTGateway.com


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> New
Yahoo! Mail Plus. More flexibility. More control. More power. Get POP
access, more storage, more filters, and more.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Hcb0iA/P.iFAA/46VHAA/wpWolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

List managers may be contacted directly at:
crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Some of us are already subscribers Loren! I'd also like to take the
chance to recommend this journal. Every single article in the first
issue is valuable and a "cutting edge" (to use Bob's term) summary
of various matters of current interest in the historical Jesus
debate. Long may it continue at this high standard.

Andrew Lloyd (PhD Cand.)
Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, UK

Well, it looks like my first attempt did not go through, so my
apologies if this post appears on the list twice at some point.

I would like to start off by restating that while I agree with Craig
and Plantinga in that one cannot rule out the possibility of the
supernatural or miraculous on philosophical grounds, I did not see in
Craig's article any means by which we can test miraculous claims for
things like a physical resurrection of someone dead for days, nor of
a man walking on water or changing water into wine and the like.
Quite frankly, I remain convinced that such tests are simply beyond
the abilities of science, and are unprovable (this is not to say that
they cannot be debunked, since this is certainly possible, but at
most, we could only conclude that how a specific incident occurred,
and whether or not it is an actual miracle, is unknowable given our
current understanding of nature and its laws).

Now, the exception would appear to be healing or curing miracles (and
here I am unsure that a distinction between a healing and a curing of
an illness/infirmity is all that helpful).  Unlike one off events
like the nature miracles, healings continue to occur today, and the
veracity of some of these has been subjected to scientifically
controlled tests.

The International Medical Committee of Lourdes (CMIL is the French
acronym by which it is known) was established in 1954 with strict
guidelines for the examination of claims for miraculous cures in
Lourdes.  A broad outline of the standards it uses are found at
http://www.lourdes-france.org/gb/gbsb0027.htm and once a file has
passed through this committee, and deemed inexplicable on
naturalistic grounds, it is then passed on to a specially convened
Diocesan Canonical Commission that is then responsible for deciding
if the healing is a bone fide miracle.  Since 1954 approximately 1300
files have been examined, of which 29 have been passed on to the
Bishop, and the Diocesan Canonical Commission has declared 19 of them
to be genuine miracles.  The last of these was made in 1999.  The
rules employed by the Commission were laid out by the future Pope
Benedict XIV in his book De Servorum Beatificatione et Beatorum
Canonizatione 4.8.2:

1. Firstly, the disease should be serious, incurable or difficult to
treat.
2. Secondly, the eradicated disease should not be in its final stage
or at a stage whereby it may involve spontaneous recovery.
3. Thirdly, no drug should have been administered or, in the event
that it has been administered, the absence of any effects should have
been ascertained.
4. Fourthly, the recovery has to take place suddenly and instantly.
5. Fifthly, the recovery has to be perfect, and not defective or
partial.
6. Sixthly, it is necessary that any noteworthy excretion or crisis
has taken place at the proper time, as a reasonable result of an
ascertained cause, prior to the recovery; under these circumstances
the recovery cannot be deemed prodigious, but totally or partially
natural.
7. Lastly, it is necessary for the eradicated disease not to
reappear. First of all it is crucial that the disease in question is
a severe one, involving a serious prognosis, incurable or involving
an uncertain treatment; these were the author's words.

Both this set of criteria, as well as an expansion of the list of
standards employed by the CMIL can be found in an article by one of
the members of the Committe, Franco Balzaretti (who is also obviously
a believer in the miracles certified by the Church in Lourdes), at
http://www.leadershipmedica.com/scientifico/sciedic02/scientificaing/1
0balzae/10balzaing.htm

This strikes me as a perfectly reasonable means for examining and
testing the claims.  Of course we cannot employ such methods in
attempting to verify or rebut the claims for healing applied to Jesus
of Nazareth (or any other ancient healer for that matter), but the
establishment that miracles, per se, are possible and verifiable can
at least serve to cast some light on the question of whether or not
they could have happened at all.

Peace,

Brian Trafford
Calgary, AB, Canada

I will be away untill March 10. I will respond to your messages upon my
return. Thank you.
Henry Carrigan

Mike Grondin wrote:

<I admit that I was biased against Craig before I
began reading, but I thought he acquited himself quite
well in this article.... I read some Plantinga in grad
school, so this was in the nature of reacquaintance
for me, but his papers at this site are fruitful
reading.>

Glad that the links were helpful. Now, you've gotten
me interested in actually reading the papers that I
'recommended'!

Jeffery Hodges

=====
Horace Jeffery Hodges (Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley)
Assistant Professor
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
Yangsandong 411
South Korea

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Here is the link for the journal

http://www.continuumjournals.com/journals/index.asp?jref=31

Steve Dingeldein

----- Original Message -----
From: "Loren Rosson" <rossoiii@...>
To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 10:22 AM
Subject: [XTalk] Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus


> List members --
>
> I have received a free trial issue of The Journal for
> the Study of the Historical Jesus, and I must say the
> artciles therein are impressive. If the editorial
> board continues providing this level of quality, I may
> have to subscribe. It just so happens that Dale
> Allison kicks off with the first essay, which is
> titled "The Continuity between John and Jesus". It
> serves as a fine supplement to the required reading
> material for the upcoming Allison seminar.
>
> The ISSN for this publication is 1476-8690.
>
> Loren Rosson III
> Nashua NH
> rossoiii@...
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
>
> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> List managers may be contacted directly at:
crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Dear List members,

As I have busied myself in the last two months with the issue of methodology in
the reconstruction of the historical Jesus---having read Dale Allison, Marcus
Borg, Bruce Chilton, John Dominic Crossan, Craig Evans, Paula Fredriksen, Robert
Funk and the Jesus Seminar, John Meier, Stephen Patterson, E. P. Sanders,
Brandon Scott, and N. T. Wright, with the purpose of critiquing and presenting
my own critical methodology--- I came across something in Craig Evans’ _Jesus
and His Contemporaries_ that started my head spinning with a radical idea
(uncharacteristic of me) that I have developed into the essay below. The essay
is entitled, "Two Jesuses: the Provocative Parallels."  I must admit that what I
think I have discovered is *far out.*  Consequently, I would appreciate any
constructive feedback that would expose weaknesses in my proposed theory. The
essay is divided into the following sections: A. Introduction; B. The Parallels
Evans Identified; C. The Parallels Evans Missed; D. Parallels between Josephus’
Portrayal of Jesus, son of Ananias, and Mark’s Portrayal of Jesus; E. Possible
Explanations for the Parallels between the Two "Jesus" Stories.

Ted Weeden

Two Jesuses: The Provocative Parallels

A. Introduction

Craig Evans, in the course of exploring in his _Jesus and His Contemporaries_
(345-365) how Jesus’ action against the Temple may have contributed to his
crucifixion, draws attention to what he finds to be "the closest parallel" to
Jesus’ Temple activity, namely, the activity of one Jesus, son of Ananias, who
harangued against the Temple and Jerusalem some thirty years after Jesus (361).
Using an abridged translation of the text of Josephus’story of Jesus, son of
Ananias (_J.W._, VI. 300-309), Evans engages in pinpointing for his readers
specific parallels he finds between Jesus of Nazareth, as presented in the
canonical Gospels, and Jesus, the son of Ananias.

As I examined closely Evans’ list of parallels between the Gospel accounts of
Jesus and Josephus’ depiction of Jesus, son Ananias, I found the parallels
identified by Evans to be both convincing and very striking. In fact, when I
turned, subsequently, to read the Loeb Classical Library full text of Josephus’
story of Jesus, son of Ananias--- Evans provided only an abridged translation in
his _Jesus_ --- I discovered also additional parallels between the two Jesuses
which Evans’ apparently missed. Some of those additional parallels which I
discovered were not apparent to me in Evans’ abridged translation of the text of
Josephus’ story because they appear in textual material which Evans’ excised in
the translation he provided.

When the parallels which Evans identified are coupled with the additional
parallels which I spotted in close examination of the full Josephus text not
only is the thematic correspondence between certain aspects of the canonical
depiction of Jesus of Nazareth and Josephus’ Jesus, son of Ananias, quite
striking, it is even, in my opinion, provocative. By that I mean that the
character and extent of the parallels considered in toto have now raised in my
mind the provocative question as to whether there may be a direct relationship
between Josephus’ story of Jesus, son of Ananias, and certain canonical accounts
of Jesus of Nazareth, particularly the Markan portrayal of Jesus. In order for
it to be understood why such a question would be raised in my mind, let me
rehearse the analytical process that led me to such a provocative question. I
begin with Evans’ abridged translation of the Josephus text and follow that with
his presentation of the parallels he sees as inherent to the stories of the two
Jesuses.

B. The Parallels Evans Identified

Evans’ abridged translation of the Josephus text (_The Jewish Wars_, VI.
300-309) unfolds thus:

"Four years before the war. ..there came to the feast, at which is the custom of
all Jews to erect tabernacles to God, one Jesus son of Ananias, an untrained
peasant, who, standing in the Temple, suddenly began to cry out, "A voice from
the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against
Jerusalem and the sanctuary, a voice against the bridegroom and the bride, a
voice against all the people." . . . Some of the leading citizens, angered at
this evil speech, arrested the man and whipped him with many blows. But he, not
speaking anything in his own behalf or in private to those who struck him,
continued his cries as before. Thereupon, the rulers . . . brought him to the
Roman governor. There, though flayed to the bone with scourges, he neither
begged for mercy or wept . . . . When Albinus the governor asked him who and
whence he was and why he uttered these cries, he gave no answer to these things
. . . . Albinus pronounced him a maniac and released him. . . . .He cried out
especially at the feasts. . . . While shouting from the wall, ‘Woe once more to
the city and to the people and to the sanctuary . . .’ a stone . . . struck and
killed him."

And now for Evans observations, I quote him in full: "There are several
important parallels between the Temple-related experiences of Jesus of Nazareth
and Jesus son of Ananias. Both entered the precincts of the Temple (TO hIERON :
Mark 11:11, 15, 27: 12:35; 13:1; 14:49; _J.W. 6.5.3 §301) at the time of a
religious festival (hEORTH: Mark 14:2; 15:6; John 2:23; _J.W._ 6.5.3 §302). Both
spoke of the doom of Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44; 21:20-24; _J.W._ 6.5.3 §301), the
Sanctuary (NAOS: Mark 13:2; 14:58; _J.W. 6.5.3 §301), and the people (LAOS: Mark
13:17; Luke 19:44; 23:28-31; _J.W. 6.5.3 §301). Both apparently alluded to
Jeremiah 7, where the prophet condemned the Temple establishment of his day
(‘cave of robbers’ : Jer 7:11 in Mark 11:17: ‘the voice against the bridegroom
and the bride’ : Jer 7:34 in _J.W._ 6.5.3 §301). Both were "arrested" by the
authority of Jewish--not Roman--leaders (SULLAMBANEIN: Mark 14:48; John 18:12;
_J.W._ 6.5.3 §302). Both were beaten by the Jewish authorities (PAIEIN: Matt
26:68; Mark 14:65; J.W._ 6.5.3 §302). Both were handed over to the Roman
governor (HYAYON AUTON EPI TON PILATON: Luke 23: 1; ANAGOUSIN . . . EPI TON . .
. EPARCON: _J. W._ 6.5.3 §303). Both were interrogated by the Roman governor
(ERWTAN: Mark 15:4; _J.W._ 6.5.3 §305). Both refused to answer the governor
(OUDEN APOKRIVESQAI: Mark 15:5; _J.W._ 6.5.3 §305). Both were scourged by the
governor (MASTIGOUN/MASTIX: John 19:1; _J.W._ 6.5.3 §304). Governor Pilate may
have offered to release Jesus of Nazareth, but did not; Governor Albinus did
release Jesus son of Ananias (APOLUEIN: Mark 15:9; _J. W._ 6.5.3 §305)."

[Note: it should be pointed out that in a footnote (360, n. 46) Evans cites the
work of D. R. Claypole ("The Problem of the Historicity of the Sanhedrin Trial,"
in E. Bammel [ed.], _The Trial of Jesus: Cambridge Studies in Honour of C. F. D.
Moule_ [SBT 13: SCM, 1970] 47-65, 62 n. 96), in which Claypole also identifies,
as Evans puts it, "basic parallels with Jesus’ arrest and trial [and the
Josephus’ Jesus story]. He [Claypole]," Evans notes, "concludes that much
historical material can be gathered from Gospels’ accounts. The parallels that I
offer are more detailed," Evans states.]

Having presented his list of parallels, Evans reports (361, n. 48) that, when he
presented his findings in a paper delivered in 1992 to the IBR annual meeting in
San Francisco (see 345), "I. H. Marshall and other IBR Fellows raised the
possibility, given the numerous verbal parallels, of some sort of literary
relationship between _J.W._ 6.5.3 and the passion tradition." Evans goes on to
state that "[a]lthough this possibility was not vigorously pursued during our
time of discussion, perhaps a brief reply would be useful. First, the
‘parallels’ comprise no more than nouns of place and context and verbs that mark
the various steps in the judicial and penal process. In other words, the
parallels are precisely what one would expect in cases where routine actions are
being described. Second, aside from the single parallel cluster where we have a
common verbal root, preposition, and Roman governor as object, there are no
instances of parallel sentences or phrases. Literary relationships are suspected
when there is a high concentration of common vocabulary, especially phrases and
whole sentences. In short, I think that the common vocabulary adduced above
indicates common judicial and penal process, but not literary relationship.
There is no indication that the story of one Jesus influenced the telling of the
story of the other Jesus."

C. The Parallels Evans Missed

In my judgment, Evans’ contention that "[t]here is no indication that the story
of one Jesus influenced the telling of the story of the other Jesus," is brought
into question by the additional parallels I have found between the two "Jesus"
stories. In order to expose for the reader those additional parallels, I
reproduce below Josephus’ full text of his story of Jesus, son of Ananias.
Furthermore, while, as Evans himself has seen, there are parallels between the
Josephus story of Jesus, son of Ananias, and the story of Jesus told variously
by the four evangelists, the parallels I am most interested in at this point and
the parallels that I will focus upon are the parallels I detect between
Josephus’ story of Jesus, son of Ananias, and certain narrative elements in the
Markan portrayal of Jesus. Herewith the unabridged text of Josephus’ story (_The
Jewish War_, VI. 300-309) as translated by H. St. J. Thackeray (the Loeb
Classical Library):

§300 "Four years before the war, when the city was enjoying profound peace and
prosperity, there came to the feast §301 at which it is the custom of all Jews
to erect tabernacles to God, one Jesus, son of Ananias, a rude peasant who,
standing in the temple, suddenly began to cry out, ‘A voice from the east, a
voice from the west, a voice from the four winds; a voice against Jerusalem and
the sanctuary, a voice against the bridegroom and the bride, a voice against all
the people.’ Day and night he went about all the alleys with this cry on his
lips. §302 Some of the leading citizens, incensed at these ill-omened words,
arrested the fellow and severely chastised him. But he, without a word on his
own behalf or for the private ear of those who smote him, only continued his
cries as before."

§303 "Thereupon, the magistrates supposing, as was indeed the case, that the man
was under some supernatural impulse, brought him before the Roman governor; §304
there, although flayed to the bone with scourges, he neither sued for mercy nor
shed a tear, but, merely introducing the most mournful of variations into his
ejaculation, responded to each stroke with ‘Woe to Jerusalem!’ §305 When
Albinus, the governor, asked him who and whence he was and why he uttered these
cries, he answered him never a word, but unceasingly reiterated his dirge over
the city, until Albinus pronounced him *a maniac* and let him go."

§306 "During the whole period up to the outbreak of war he neither approached
nor was seen talking to any of the citizens, but daily, like a prayer that he
had conned, repeated his lament, ‘Woe to Jerusalem!’ §307 He neither cursed any
of those who beat him from day to day, nor blessed those who offered him food:
to all men that melancholy presage was his one reply. §308 His cries were
loudest at the festivals. So for seven years and five months he continued his
wail, his voice never flagging nor his strength exhausted, until in the siege,
having seen his presage verified, he found his rest. For, while going his round
and shouting in piercing tones from the wall, §309 ‘Woe once more to the city
and to .he people and to the temple,’ as he added a last word, ‘and woe to me
also,’ a stone hurled from the *ballista* [emphasis: the translator] struck and
killed him on the spot. So with those ominous words still upon his lips he
passed away."

D. Parallels between Josephus’ Portrayal of Jesus, son of Ananias, and Mark’s
Portrayal of Jesus

Here now is a complete list of the extensive parallels that I find between
Josephus’ portrayal of the Jesus, son of Ananias and the Markan Jesus, a list
which includes all the parallels which Evans identified as parallels inherent to
Mark’s Gospel...

(1) Both primary subjects of the two stories are named "Jesus" ( _J.W._, VI.
300; Mark, passim).

(2) Jesus, son of Ananias, is depicted by Josephus as TWN IDIWTWN AGROIKOS
(translated by Thackeray as "a rude peasant":_J.W._, VI, 301). That means, at
least in Josephus’ eyes, that Ananias’ son Jesus was an unskilled, boorish
person. [Note: H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, _Greek-English Lexicon_ (1996), 819,
define IDIWTNS , variously, as one who has "no professional knowledge,"
"unpracticed, unskilled," a "raw hand, ignoramus" and they suggest (15) that the
term AGROIKOS is used to depict someone who is "rustic," "boorish," "rude."]

The Markan Jesus is identified by Mark as a TEKNWN ("carpenter," 6:3). In other
words, Mark considered Jesus to be an artisan, which means that Mark placed
Jesus in a social class (constituting about 5% of the population) which ranked
below peasants and just above the Degraded and Expendable, the lowest classes in
the Mediterranean world of Jesus’ time (see John Dominic Crossan, _Jesus: A
Biography _, 23-25).

(3) Both Jesus, the son of Ananias, ( _J.W._, VI. 301) and the Markan Jesus (Mk.
3:22) are presumed by Jerusalemite leaders to be demon-possessed.

(4) Both Jesuses are thought to be deranged by certain people. Jesus, son of
Ananias, is dubbed MANIAN ("a maniac") by Albinus, the Roman procurator (_J.W._,
VI. 305), and the Markan Jesus is declared EXESTH ("out of his mind") by certain
people, a view apparently shared also by his family (Mk. 3:21f.).

(5) Both Jesuses are depicted at least for some period of time as being daily in
the Temple. Jesus, son of Ananias, is described by Josephus as KAQ’ hHMERAN
("daily") in the Temple repeating "his lament, "Woe to Jerusalem" ( _J.W._, VI.
306), and the Markan Jesus reminds the arresting party in Gethsemane that "KAQ’
hHMERAN ("daily") I was with you in the Temple teaching."

(6) Both Jesuses are staged as present in the Temple (TO hIERPON; see _J.W._,
VI.. 301 and Mk. 11:15-19) during the time of the holy festival(s) (EORTH; see
_J.W._, VI..300 and Mk 14:2).

(7) Both Jesuses draw upon sections of Jeremiah 7--- in which the prophet
condemns the Temple, the people of Judah and Jerusalem--- to frame their own
respective condemnation of the Temple and or Jerusalem itself. Jesus, son of
Ananias, makes Jer. 7:34 ("the voice of the bride and the bridegroom in the
cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem") part of his woe-filled
harangue against Jerusalem, the Temple and the people (_J.W._, VI. 301), and the
Markan Jesus uses LXX Jer. 7:11 (SPHLAION LHSTWN [hUMEIS DE PEPOIHKATE, per
Mark] hO OIKOS MOU: "a cave of robbers [or insurrectionists] you have made my
house"), conflated with Isa. 56:7, to denounce the Judean Temple cultic
practices (Mk. 11:17).

(8) Both Jesuses specifically pronounce woes (OUAI or AIAI) on the people (LAOS)
of Jerusalem and/or Judea (_J.W._, VI. 304, 306, 309 and Mk. 13:17)

(9) Both Jesuses pronounce doom upon the Temple (NAOS) itself ( _J.W._, VI. 300,
309 and Mk. 13:2).

(10) Both Jesuses are arrested by or at the instigation of Jerusalem leaders.
Jesus, son of Ananias, is arrested by some of Jerusalem’s leading or
distinguished citizens (TWN . . . EPISHMWN TINES DHMOTWN: _J.W._, VI.. 302), and
the Markan Jesus is arrested by an armed crowd sent by the chief priests,
scribes and elders (Mk. 14:43).

(11) In their respective hearings before Jerusalem leaders (i.e., the "Jewish
hearings"), each Jesus is either chastised for or accused of making an
inflammatory pronouncement against the Temple. Jesus, son of Ananias, is
chastised for "his ill-omened words" against the Temple, as well as the city and
its people (_J.W._, VI. 302 ). The Markan Jesus is accused (but falsely so,
according to Mark) of vowing that he would destroy the Temple and build another
in three days (Mk. 14:58).

(12) Both Jesuses in their Jewish hearings keep their respective silence in the
face of the charges made against them with regard to their respective
pronouncements against the Temple (_J.W._, VI. 302 and Mk. 14:60f.).

(13) Both Jesuses are physically abused at their Jewish hearings. Jesus, the son
of Ananias, is struck by certain ones (TOUS PAIONTAS) at his hearing (_J.W._,
VI. 302 ). The Markan Jesus at his hearing is spit upon, people begin "to strike
[KOLAFIZEIN] him" and "the guards [when it is all over] received him with blows"
(Mk. 14:65).

(14) Following their respective Jewish hearings, both Jesuses are delivered over
to the Roman procurator by Jerusalem authorities. In the case of Jesus, son of
Ananias (Josephus _J.W._, VI. 302f.), he was "brought before the Roman
governor," Albinus, by hOI ARCONTES ("the rulers" or "magistrates," as Thackeray
translates the Greek term). The Markan Jesus is "delivered" to Pilate by the
chief priests, the elders, scribes, and the whole counsel(?) (Mk. 15:1).

(15) In their respective hearings before the Roman governor (i.e., their "Roman
hearings"), both Jesuses are interrogated by their respective governor: Jesus,
son of Ananias, by Albinus (_J.W._, VI. 305) and the Markan Jesus by Pilate (Mk.
15:2-4).

(16) Both Jesuses are asked by the Roman governor in their Roman hearings to
disclose their respective identities. Jesus, the son of Ananias, was asked by
Albinus, TIS T’ EIH KAI POQEN ("who and whence he was:" _J.W._, VI. 305), and
the Markan Jesus is asked by Pilate, SU EI hO BASILEUS TWN IOUDAIWN ("Are you
the king of the Judeans?": Mk.15:2).

(17) Each procurator, once having interrogated the Jesus brought before him,
moves then to release "his Jesus." In the case of Albinus, having "pronounced
[Jesus, son of Ananias] a maniac," APELUSEN AUTON ("released him" or "let him
go," as Thackeray translates the Greek: _J.W._, VI. 305). In the case of Pilate,
he appears to move to release the Markan Jesus, but he leaves the decision to
the crowd as to whether Jesus should be released. The crowd, having been stirred
up by the chief priests to reject Pilate’s offer to release Jesus, demands that
Jesus be crucified instead. Pilate acquiesces to their demand (Mk. 15:6-15).

(18) Both Jesuses are scourged at the conclusion of their respective Roman
hearings. Jesus, son of Ananias, is scourged either by Albinus or by others in
his presence (_J.W._, VI. 304), and the Markan Jesus is scourged by Pilate
(15.15b).

(19) Both Jesuses are killed by the Roman soldiers. Jesus, son of Ananias, is,
as fate would have it (cf. _J.W._, VI. 308: "he [Jesus, son of Ananias] found
his rest"), killed by a stone "hurled from EK TOU PETROBOLOU ("the *ballista*,"
a Roman catapult, siege-weapon: see _J.W._, VI, 309). The Markan Jesus is
crucified by Roman soldiers (15:16, 20-24).

(20) Both Jesuses let out a woeful cry of personal woe just before dying. Jesus,
son of Ananias, "while going his round and shouting in piercing tones from the
wall, ‘Woe once more to the city and to the people and to the Temple,’" appends
to his familiar mantra a word of personal woe. Namely, he cries out as the stone
strikes him, "and woe to me also" (_J.W._, VI. 309). The Markan Jesus, at the
ninth hour and just before dying, cries out from the cross a plaintive personal
woe in a loud voice, namely: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mk.
15:34).

(21) Both Jesuses die with a loud cry. Jesus, son of Ananias, the piercing cry
just cited "still upon his lips, THN YUCHN AFHKE" ("died"or "passed away," as
Thackeray translates the Greek: Josephus _J.W._, VI. 309), and the Markan Jesus,
having "uttered a loud cry, EXEPNEUSEN" ("died" : Mk. 15:27).

(22) In both the "Jesus" stories, the term for Temple used in the syntax of
their reputed pronouncements against the Temple is NAOS (_J.W._, VI. 301, 309
and Mk.14:58). This is a particularly interesting linguistic features the texts
share in view of the fact that, except for this particular Markan linguistic
parallel with the Josephus story, with respect to the use of NAOS as a term for
Temple, Mark, otherwise routinely chooses to use the term hIEROS when he makes
reference to the Temple in his narrative (11:11, 15, 16, 27; 12:35; 13:1,3;
14:49). Only in 14:58 (when the charge is presented--- falsely so, according to
Mark--- that Jesus vowed that he would destroy the Temple), in 15:29, (where
Jesus is mocked with that charge in the taunt at the cross: 15:29), and in 15:38
(where Mark seeks to vindicate Jesus’ attack on the Temple cult through the
narration of the apparent divine rending of the Temple veil) does Mark choose to
use NAOS as a term for the Temple rather than hIEROS.

In my judgment this significant list of 22 parallels is not only striking but
stunning in its possible implications. Put quite simply: the parallelism
existing between the two stories is provocative and demands an answer to the
obvious question: How can one account for these 22 narrative points at which
there are such a close parallels between Josephus’ story of Jesus, son of
Ananias, and Mark’s story of Jesus?

E. Possible Explanations for the Parallels between the Two "Jesus" Stories

As I see it there are four possible explanations for the existence of such close
thematic and, in some instances, linguistic parallels between the Markan
portrayal of Jesus and Josephus’ portrayal of Jesus, son of Ananias. The four
possible explanations are the following:

(1) Pure coincidence. The apparent parallels between the two stories are but a
matter of just pure coincidence. That is certainly possible, but I think, given
the extensive number of close parallels between the two stories, it is highly
unlikely that all 22 instances of parallelism can be chalked up to coincidence.
.

(2) Normative character of conventional judicial and penal processes. As noted
earlier on, Evans chose to account for the parallels, particularly linguistic
parallels, which he detected between the two Jesus stories, as nothing more than
"what one would expect." To cite him again (361, n. 46): "[T]he ‘parallels’
comprise no more than nouns of place and context and verbs that mark the various
steps in the judicial and penal process. In other words, the parallels are
precisely what one would expect in cases where routine actions are being
described." In lieu of the additional parallels, beyond Evans’ "parallels,"
which I have listed above, I think the close narrative correspondences (thematic
and linguistic)--- the similar narrative settings (Temple, festivals, Jewish
hearing, Roman hearing) and similar narrative sequence of events (provocative
pronouncement/act by the Jesus-subject in Temple precincts, the subject’s arrest
by Jewish authorities, his Jewish hearing, deliverance to Roman governor, Roman
hearing, refusal to respond to charges at hearings, death at the hands of the
Romans, and finally the Jesus-subject’s evoking of a woeful loud cry at the
moment of death)--- which the two "Jesus" stories share in common obtains for
reasons other than "what nouns of place and context and verbs that mark the
various steps in the judicial and penal process . . . [and] what one would
expect in cases where routine actions are being described" can adequately
account for.

(3) Literary dependency. The unusual number of close parallels between the two
"Jesus" stories could be explained as due to the fact that either Josephus had
access to the Markan Gospel or Mark had access to Josephus’ _The Jewish Wars_,
at least Book VI. If there were such literary dependency, who is likely to have
been dependent upon whom? Since Josephus pays so little attention to Jesus of
Nazareth and the Christian movement (only mentioned twice briefly in _Ant._,
XVIII. 63-64 [with latter Christian emendations] and _Ant._, XX. 200), it is
very doubtful that Josephus is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark for the
inspiration to create his story of Jesus, son of Ananias. Besides, why would
Josephus have invented such a story? If, as Josephus indicates, Jesus, son of
Ananias, did harangue against Jerusalem, its people and the Temple for seven
years and five months, from the Feast of Tabernacles in autumn of 62 CE to late
winter of 70 CE (_J.W._, VI, 300), and particularly during the various festivals
(_J.W._, VI, 307f.), it is most likely that someone who survived the destruction
of Jerusalem and the Temple would have known whether or not such a person as
Jesus, son of Ananias, actually existed, and thus would have been able to
challenge Josephus’ veracity, if such a story were only Josephus’ invention.

If on the other hand, Mark is literarily dependent upon Josephus for the story,
that dependency is certainly not slavish with respect to vocabulary and syntax.
Moreover, Mark gives no hint of being otherwise familiar with Josephus’ works,
for example Josephus’ take on John the Baptist (_Ant._, XVIII. 116-119). If Mark
is dependent upon Josephus for thematic material from the story of Jesus, son of
Ananias, Mark could not have been written before 79 CE, the generally accepted
date of the composition of Josephus’ _Jewish Wars_ (see Louis Feldman,
"Josephus," in _ABD_, III, 983f.). I think it is very unlikely that there is
literary dependency of either author upon the other. Thus, I am not persuaded
that direct literary dependency is an explanation for the parallels between the
two stories.

(4) Oral dependency. It is possible that these striking, I would say, stunning
and provocative, parallels, could be due to the fact that both Mark and Josephus
are dependent upon the oral circulation of the story of Jesus, son of Ananias,
which became a part of the folklore of stories which were generated following
the Roman siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. If there was
such a person as Jesus, son of Ananias, and if he did harangue against the
Temple for almost seven and a half years, then such a story may well have become
well enough known and have developed into a sufficiently stable oral form such
that Josephus and Mark both had access to it. If that be the case, then it
appears that the story of Jesus, son of Ananias, may well have served as a model
for Mark to develop a good part of, or at least an outline for, significant
elements of his passion narrative, as well as providing other motifs which Mark
found helpful in fleshing out his story of Jesus of Nazareth. If Mark were
dependent upon such a story, his Gospel could not have been written before the
summer of 70 CE, when the final siege of Jerusalem and the Temple occurred under
Titus, the siege which led to the death of Ananias’ son, Jesus.

Theodore J. Weeden, Sr. 3/4/03






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 09:52 PM 3/4/2003 -0600, Ted Weeden wrote:
>Dear List members,
>
>... I came across something in Craig Evans' _Jesus and His Contemporaries_
>that started my head spinning with a radical idea (uncharacteristic of me)
>that I have developed into the essay below. The essay is entitled, "Two
>Jesuses: the Provocative Parallels."  I must admit that what I think I
>have discovered is *far out.*  Consequently, I would appreciate any
>constructive feedback that would expose weaknesses in my proposed theory.
>The essay is divided into the following sections: A. Introduction; B. The
>Parallels Evans Identified; C. The Parallels Evans Missed; D. Parallels
>between Josephus' Portrayal of Jesus, son of Ananias, and Mark's Portrayal
>of Jesus; E. Possible Explanations for the Parallels between the Two
>"Jesus" Stories.
>
>Ted Weeden

Golly, Ted, don't you ever have short, uncomplicated thoughts? <g>

Rather than attempt a detailed response, let me just make a few broad
observations.
1. Some of your parallels are a bit strained, and might better be called
vague similarities rather than parallels. For example, one of your
"parallels" is based on one Jesus as a rude peasant and the other as a
low-level artisan. This is a pretty weak parallel, IMHO.

2. The parallels and similarities are certainly interesting. Exhaustive as
your comparisons are, I think it may also be worthwhile to check for
parallels with the other Gospels. For example, are there any parallels
between Matthew or Luke and Josephus, regarding this story, that are
stronger than their parallels with Mark? If so, this would strengthen the
case for the existence of a non-Markan source of this story for Luke or
Matthew, especially perhaps oral tradition.

Thanks for an interesting notice.
Bob

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rikk-

A lot of water has crossed under the bridge since late last Tuesday
night when you wrote this note, but as promised, here's my response.

> ... I'll accept the faith/secular contrast as long as by that you
> mean someone who thinks that at bottom reality is personal versus
> one who thinks it isn't.

Sorry, doesn't sound anything like what I mean. Which is which, BTW?
And what does it mean that "at bottom reality is personal"?

> But I certainly don't accept the suggestion that secular somehow
> carries a greater weight of academic integrity or intellectual
> rigor. In my view people on both sides carry out their work with
> greater or lesser degrees of clarity regardless of their starting
> assumptions.

Agreed that scholarly tools can be used for good or ill.

> You might regard my "divine sanction" as superfluous but then I
> think your straight materialism is reductionist because it reduces
> what I regard as the most important aspects of being human to mere
> epiphenomena and doesn't explain enough of my experience of the
> world.

This response strikes me as kind of a canned argument probably oft-
used by yourself and others, and involving several special terms
presumably well-understood by those "in the know", but something of
a mystery to those outside (including myself). I'm not too keen on
canned arguments myself, but several points here:

1. You describe my views as "straight materialism". That's a special
term I had to look up in the dictionary:

"The philosophical opinion that physical matter in its movements
and modifications is the only reality, and that everything in the
universe, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be
explained in terms of physical laws" (AHD, 1971)

Is this what you mean? If so, I'm not sure that I agree with either
of its two conjuncts (because I'm not sure what they mean), so maybe
I'm not a "materialist" after all. On the other hand, I do believe
that "thought, feeling, mind, and will" are concepts employed in a
language unaware of "what's really going on" inside of us. I'm not
sure that the way to look at it is that these mental activities are
*reducible* to physical phenomena, so much as that it's a different
language (the language of the "experiencer", versus that of the
outside observer). It might be better to say that mentalistic
language can theoretically be "translated" into physical language.
Case in point: the doctor applies a probe to a section of the brain;
the patient says that he feels happy, or sees green.

I see that elsewhere in your note, you refer to "secular
materialism". How that differs from "straight materialism", I don't
have a clue, but from the way you use these terms, they look like
believer's boogey-man code-words to me. I think there's many complex
issues here not to be dismissed with a few words.

2. You seem to presuppose that "reductionism" is bad, and thus that
if you can establish that my view is "reductionistic", that counts
against my view ipso facto. Well, at the risk of being called
ignorant of what "everybody knows", is "reductionism" inherently
bad? I'm not at all sure that it is. Consider Ockham's Razor. ISTM
that if you can establish that the view you criticize (which may or
may not be mine) doesn't adequately explain certain phenomena, then
you can use the "beyond necessity" portion of Ockham's Razor, but
otherwise you have to yield to Ockham-type "reductionism". What
won't do, I think, is to say that view X is inadequate because it
doesn't have a rich enough ontology to suit you.

[Mike]:
> In your own work, one can see how this plays out. Whereas other
> scholars point to two distinct miracle-traditions (John and the
> Synoptics), you've tried to ball them into one and tie them
> directly and literally to the lifetime of Jesus. If you take any
> critical stance toward the gospels at all, it's not readily
> apparent.
[Rikk]:
> I hope I'm happy to accept criticism where due but if this is your
> warrant for the above claim then I'm perplexed. In exactly what
> way/s do you think that my not considering sources somehow
> demonstrates my lack of impartiality or compromises my work?

I'm myself perplexed why you bring up the lack of sources? What I
was trying to get at (fairly or unfairly) was that your claim that
there's a _significant_ core-set of "Yahweh's Mighty Deeds" common
to all the gospels strikes me as apologetic harmonizing. There may
be other scholars who've taken the same position - I'm not denying
that. My readings, however, (as well the responses of Mark Goodacre
and Brian Trafford) indicates that this is at least a minority
position which has the appearance of being an effort to harmonize.

[Mike]:
> (I did wonder, however, at your silence during the
> discussion of the coin-in-the-fish story. Would you count _that_
> as one of J's "mighty deeds" or would you perhaps in that one case
> admit that the author was being creative?)
[Rikk]:
> Mea culpa! I've not been following the discussion. Having read
> the rest of the [your?] email, somehow I get the feeling that
> this question is something of a slick maneuver, :). So I'll
> resist rising to the bait.

Just curious, that's all. I thought this might give you an
opportunity to demonstrate a critical stance toward the gospels,
but if you think it's just a trick, by all means ignore it.

[Mike]:
> As you may know, I myself tend to rate the gospels and Acts as
> relatively historically unreliable. And the basic reason for my
> doing so is the self-admitted rhetorical purpose (read 'bias')
> of their writings.
[Rikk]:
> IMHO this is a non sequitur. I've never quite been able to see
> how someone's championing a cause means that their accounts are
> necessarily unreliable (if that was so, why should I pay any
> attention to your emails?).

Because they're witty? But as to the supposed non sequitur: there's
a difference between taking a position and being an advocate for a
cause - the one is open to change, the other not. I'm sure we've all
encountered folks who "champion a cause" in the face of what seems
to be utterly-convincing evidence and/or reasoning to the contrary.
Some such folks have in fact been banned from this and other lists
for that very reason. I'm not sure that I can properly describe how
the behavior of a "true-believer" (not intended in the religious
sense) differs from that of the ordinary scholar, but I think most
of us can recall cases of irrationally-obstinate advocacy. Not to
say that we all don't have some very strongly-held views, but
hopefully the strength of our views is a function of the perceived
strength of the evidence and reasoning behind them, rather than some
unconscious pathological stake in always being right.

> Isn't it just as possible that such people might be even more
> careful with the data since they know that the credibility of
> their claims is at stake? How would you tell the difference?

Well, in the cultural environment in question, claims that seem to
us to be outrageous may have been just the ticket to convince the
reading public. In any case, the basic claim was that Jesus was
uniquely worthy of being idolized, and the writers had to adduce
evidence to that effect, believable or not.

[Mike]:
> ... I assume that you take the gospels and Acts to be basically
> historically-reliable.
[Rikk]:
> As long as you mean within the constraints of first century
> historiography and bioi, yep, I do take them as "basically
> reliable" (though I'm not sure what you mean by that term
> or as compared to what).

I think I've addressed this in later notes. I'm interested in
reliability relative to both their own place-time and ours -
considered as separate issues. Leaving aside for the moment the
question of reliability relative to _our own_ place-time, I'd like
to take advantage of your greater familiarity with 1st century
sources, if I may. What 1st century "historiograph[ies] and
bioi" do you have in mind in reaching your judgment that the
gospels (I've since eschewed Acts) are at least AS reliable as
similar works of their own place-time? (Unlike the "champion of a
cause", I'm willing to be convinced. :-)

> ... I think the picture [the gospels] present of Jesus is really
> the only credible explanation, taken within the context of the
> first century, for the rapid emergence of the early "church"
> wherein large of numbers of Gentiles in a Roman world worship a
> crucified Palestinian Jew as the son of Israel's God.

But all this shows (as others have observed) is that "the picture"
was a motivating force. It doesn't at all show that "the picture"
was accurate. People act on what they believe, not necessarily on
what they know.

[Mike]:
> I would say that ... authorial claims have to be taken with
> a grain of salt. Luke, for example, might have gone around
> collecting anecdotes for all I know, but I'm quite sure that he
> didn't subject them to any kind of rigorous scholarly scrutiny.
[Rikk]:
> I'm intrigued. Are you saying that the only people who can know
> things are those who subject claims to rigorous scholarly
> scrutiny?

Uh, no, but this question might merit further remark. It's a fairly
standard philosophical definition that knowledge involves two
components: (1) the thing "known" must be true, and (2) the knower
has to have good reason to believe that it's true (that is to say,
one can't "know" something if one simply happens to believe it,
even if it is true). Of course, what constitutes "good reason" is
open to further definition, but anecdotal evidence generally won't
do, because of its notorious unreliability.

> Are you suggesting that Luke was a fool who believed every story
> any old duffer told him?

No. I'm suggesting that he was a true-believer _before_ he began
his "investigations" (assuming there were any), and that true-
believers tend to accept without question any anecdotal "testimony"
whatsoever that confirms their views. One sees this dynamic at work
in all kinds of circles of believers. I don't think that ancient
Christians were much different in that respect.

Well, Rikk, this has been rather exhausting responding to you point-
by-point (and probably exhausting to the reader as well). Feel free
to concentrate on whatever points you wish and ignore the other
stuff.

Mike Grondin
Mt. Clemens, MI