Re: Why was Jesus killed (Ian)
- Ian wrote:
> Given the presumptuousness of the subject line I resisted as long as IAnd yet you couldn't resist diving in. Your behavior confirms a point I made
> could. It is a rather literary title such as one might find at the head of
> an essay on Billy Budd: Why was the lad killed? If it is in a literary
> context, well, I could understand, but I get the idea that everyone is
> dealing with it as though it were a fact. If this be so, it is hardly
> worthy scholarship.
to you weeks ago in a post titled 'reductio ad absurdum' -- To whit, those
who claim that all the evidence of an HJ has absolutely no validity will not
state so categorically. And in every case, you all keep talking about him!
> We should be at the point now of seeing that there is no serious way ofinformation
> dating the gospels. The early patristic works don't reflect the
> in the gospels.O come off it. I just spent a few minutes today and collected the following
sample. No doubt these could be multiplied with more effort and time:
(1) 1st Clement to Corinthians was written in Domitian's reign during the
The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ;
Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God,
and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an
orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their
orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy
Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And
thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits
[of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops
and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new
thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and
deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint
their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith." (Chapt 42)
(2) Clement mentions following gospel events: Jesus, Christ, preaching,
being sent forth, apostles, resurrection, Word of God, "Kingdom of God is at
Hand," preaching in countries and cities. Incidentally, he quotes but
alters Isa 40.17 in LXX.
(3) If then we entreat the Lord to forgive us, we ought also ourselves to
(Polycarp to Phil. ch 6, near-contemporary with Clement)
(4) beseeching in our supplications the all-seeing God "not to lead us into
as the Lord has said: "The spirit truly is willing, but the flesh is weak."
(5) Ignatius (30 CE-100):
Letter to Ephesians:
For even Jesus Christ does all things according to the will of the Father,
as He Himself declares in a certain place, "I do always those things that
please Him." ch 3
(6) For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power that Christ stands
in the midst of them, (ch 5)
(7) "the Church of the first-born whose names are written in heaven," is a
wolf in sheep's clothing, while he presents a mild outward appearance (ch 5)
Ignatius stuff is most impressive because of his as-expected use of John,
which jibes with their being in Antioch.
The events in the gospels get no support from the
> contemporary literature of the period they are supposed to refer to. Theof
> earliest Christian documents we have are the letters of Paul, which have
> been tampered with, and their first known maintainer was Marcion. These
> documents deal with a theology quite different from that found in the
> gospels, a theology that might be seen to have been emerging at the time
> Ignatius but more probably with Justin. It is in the early middle secondIan, is it really plausible that all these Christian zealouts would have
> century that knowledge of gospel materials is clearly manifested.
restrained themselves from writing about Jesus until *so late* -- and yet,
the early letter-writers Ignatius and Clement are already citing Jesus'
words and gospel events two generations earlier?
The explanation for why the Gospels didn't appear within weeks of the
Resurrection is also well-accounted for in Papias, as you know.
> How can people seriously waffle on on this subject?Well, well Ian. WHO is waffling on this subject???
> At 13.24 26/03/99 -0800, Jon Peter wrote:No, not silence. You really must dig into Hillel and Shamash. Turn-of-era
> >as I mentioned last month in "Rabbi Jesus et al. vs. Doherty"
> >thread, what cannot be dismissed as post-dated polemic is the focus in
> >early Rabbinical writings on hand washing, which is also a central issue,
> >in a sense, to the NT -- however, although crucial to the historical
> >Jesus and to the NT msg., it is quite understated. Hand-washing never
> >remotely became a theme in Christian polemic. (And still, today, is
> >universally undervalued and poorly understood for its momentous
> >significance.) This little fact is a "stealth" detail of authenticity.
> Because one doesn't know enough to explain the circumstances of a
> particular literary effort is not a valid grounds to claim historical
> authenticity. This is a sort of argument from silence: I don't know,
rabbis were completely absorbed with handwashing. The gospels record the
schism Jesus caused. Why would 2nd cent Christians invent the handwashing
detail? The rabbinical handwashing stuff wasn't even written yet!! Don't you
get it matey?
> >[..] (Replying to Lewis:)
> >such a likelihood -- that the recorded
> >Rabbinical tradition about Jesus also probably relied on Deut 13 --
> >in support of the tradition's authenticity, don't you think?Not kidding, Ian. I'm merely being logical. Lewis came up with the proposal
> Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, ya gotta be kidding!?
that Deut 13 maybe was the basis for later Rabbinical interpretation about
the Jesus tradition. I replied that, logically, IF what he said were so,
then such behavior, if anything, supports the tradition rather than arguing
against it. If the rabbis cited D 13, then this means they took the Jesus
tradition seriously enough to analyze it legally. And too, they realized the
applicability of D 13 to such a person. This behavior certainly doesn't
prove anything but it does support rather than undermine the Jesus
tradition. Actually, Lewis' suggestion never occurred to me, though I don't
To be continued .