Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Re: Judas and his betrayal, a Markan creation

Expand Messages
  • Rikk Watts
    Welcome back Ted. Hope things are going better for you these days. Others might have mentioned this, but my fundamental concern here is that appealing to
    Message 1 of 24 , May 9, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Welcome back Ted. Hope things are going better for you these days.

      Others might have mentioned this, but my fundamental concern here is that
      appealing to Paul's silence on Judas as evidence that he didn't know about
      him or his betrayal of Jesus is fallacious. The underlying assumption
      appears to be that when anyone talks about a topic they must say everything
      they know about it. But that's hardly the case is it? In this respect the
      old adage is worth repeating: absence of evidence is not evidence of
      absence. 1 Cor 11 might not be evidence that Paul knew of Judas but it is
      surely not evidence that he didn't.

      Re paradidomai: the only thing your examples show is that Paul is au fait
      with the wide range of possible meanings of the word. Since none of these
      other contexts clearly describes a situation where someone betrays another,
      it is simply stating the obvious to note that paradidomai doesn't have that
      meaning in those instances. We wouldn't expect it to. The question is
      whether it means betrayal here and that can only be assessed on genuinely
      analogous contexts.

      The repeated assertion that God is alone the implied subject of the
      non-specific passive is problematic. First, of the examples cited, in Rom
      8:32 God is explicitly the subject as you note and as is confirmed by the
      "for all of us." Rom 4:25 likewise requires God as the implied agent (note
      too the "because of us"). I.e. neither of these texts are as indeterminate
      as 1 Cor 11. Second, their interests are different. The two Romans texts
      deal with the theological implications of Jesus' death‹so of course we would
      expect to see God in there somewhere‹and do not purport to describe the
      events leading up to Jesus' death. 1 Cor 11 on the other hand does so
      purport, even if ever so briefly, and does not unpack the theological
      implications (interestingly, the subsequent warning about eating and
      drinking judgment to oneself would certainly cohere with Judas' behavior as
      reported in Mark, cf. John 13.8). Finally, these two texts are Pauline
      formulations, whereas 1 Cor 11 is traditional (as Barrett I think notes).
      I.e. neither of these theological cases constitutes an appropriate parallel
      to the indeterminacy of the event-oriented 1 Cor 11.

      Moreover, it is a false dichotomy to argue that since God is ultimately
      behind what happened to Jesus, or that Jesus allowed himself to be handed
      over, that this "handing over" could not involve an agent who betrayed him.
      This is again to confuse a theological perspective with events. Mark who on
      your lights invented this story can have Jesus speak of his death being
      "necessary" (8:31) and "written" (9:12) which surely implies at least divine
      necessity, and yet use the same verb (9:31; 10:33), and speak of Judas'
      betraying Jesus. Since 2 Cor 11 is the one instance that I can recall
      offhand where Paul is dealing directly with historical events, his
      paradidomai absent any guide to the agent could just as well mean, and
      perhaps probably does, the whole process: God's divine intention, Jesus'
      willingness, and Judas' betrayal.

      But frankly the context simply does not provide enough information and since
      Paul nowhere else talks about the events qua events surrounding Jesus' death
      I cannot see how one can be sure either way. In my view it's probably better
      to leave Paul out of it.

      Regards
      Rikk


      On 9/5/06 12:07 PM, "Theodore Weeden" <Tweeden@...> wrote:

      > To Tony Buglass, John McBryde, Jeff Peterson and others:
      >
      >
      >
      > On April 12 I initiated the thread," Judas and Judas' Betrayal: Markan
      > Creations," (Crosstalk2 Archives # 21056) in which, in the course of arguing
      > that Judas and his betrayal are Markan creations, I offered as support of
      > that thesis the lack of any reference to Judas and the betrayal of Jesus in
      > Paul. In a sequence of XTalk postings on this thread, April 13 and 14,
      > Tony Buglass (Archives # 21064), John McBryde (Archives # 21065) and Jeff
      > Peterson (Archives # 21066) took exception to my contention that Paul fails
      > to indicate any knowledge of the betrayal and cited the pre-Pauline
      > tradition of 1 Cor 11:23 as a formidable challenge to my claim. Each has
      > argued that in the clause hO KURPIOS IHSOUS EN TH VUKTI hH PAREDIDETO,
      > PAREDIDETO is properly translated as *betrayed*," (thus: "in the night the
      > Lord Jesus was *betrayed*") rather than "*delivered up/handed over*" (thus:
      > "in the night the Lord Jesus was was *delivered up* or *handed over*").
      >
      >
      >
      > I apologize for my belated reply to these respective responses to one
      > crucial aspect of the subject of my original post. The sudden, unexpected
      > death of my father (thank you to many listers for you off-list condolences),
      > family matters which by necessity followed, as well as time to do some
      > extensive reading to gather evidentiary support for my translation and
      > interpretation of PAREDIDETO in 1 Cor 11:23, along with other pressing
      > commitments, have all made it impossible, until now, to offer a response to
      > Tony, John and Jeff. I do so by presenting the following.
      >
      >
      >
      > Tony, in his post wanted "to know why that ["handed over"] must be the
      > correct translation, and why it could not be a reference to betrayal. . . .
      > Dare I suggest that Ted has spent so long arguing the fictive creativity of
      > Mark that he is now in danger of seeing all evidence in conformity with that
      > theory, rather than actually recognising contrary evidence for what it is?
      > Given 1 Cor.11:23, how do you know that Paul did *not* mean it as betrayal?"
      > John proffers in his post, alternatively, with respect to my translation:
      > "Isn't it also possible that the act of Judas was widely known among the
      > early Christians and that the term "handed over" was sufficient as a
      > reference?" And Jeff followed up, stating: "John has quite a good point
      > here. The basis for the consensus is the fact that Paul elsewhere uses
      > PARADIDWMI in reference to Christ with QEOS as subject (explicit in Rom
      > 8:32, implicit in 4:25). In 1 Cor 11:23, Paul is appealing to tradition he
      > had received which had a clear relationship with the Synoptic passion
      > narrative and itself evidently involved narrative elements (otherwise
      > reference to "the night in which the Lord Jesus was handed over" makes no
      > sense). I see nothing to count against the possibility that the tradition
      > from which Paul selects the institution narrative made reference to Judas'
      > having "given Jesus up," employing PARADIDWMI as the Synoptics do repeatedly
      > (cf. Mark 14:10, 11, 18, 21, 41, 42, 44)."
      >
      >
      >
      > Tony, John, and Jeff's points have forcefulness. The cumulative logic of
      > their points would suggest that "the night" referred to in the pre-Pauline
      > eucharistic tradition was understood by that tradition as the night of Judas'
      > betrayal of Jesus, an understanding which is congruent with the Synoptic
      > eucharistic tradition and the canonical passion narratives. However, in
      > defense of my translational and interpretative position with respect to
      > PAREDIDETO in 1 Cor 11:23, I would respond by directing attention to: I.
      > Paul's customary use of PARADIDONAI (infinitive of PARADIDWMI) in his
      > letters and nuances he applied to it; II. Interpretive use of PAREDIDETO by
      > the Framers of the Pre-Pauline Eucharistic Tradition Thus:
      >
      >
      >
      > I. Paul's Use of PARADIDONAI
      >
      >
      >
      > Paul uses the verb PARADIDONAI (possible translations: "to deliver," or "to
      > hand over"; "to betray") fifteen times in letters now generally considered
      > authentic Pauline letters (Rom. 1:24, 26, 28; 4:24; 6:17; 8:32; 1 Cor. 5:5;
      > 11:2, 23 [twice]; 13:3; 15:3, 24; 2 Cor. 4:11; Gal. 2:20). Aside from the
      > occurrence of PARADIDONAI in 1 Cor. 11:23 and its disputed meaning in the
      > phrase "in the night he [Jesus] was 'betrayed' (?) or 'delivered up'(?),"
      > the meaning imparted by Paul in his use of PARADIDONAI is clearly "to
      > deliver/be delivered up/over" or "hand/be handed over." In eight cases of
      > the Pauline occurrence of PARADIDONAI in which the act of delivering or
      > handing over is executed by human agency, Paul speaks of (1) the Romans
      > being obedient to the "teaching to which you were entrusted" (or "handed
      > over," Rom. 6:17), (2) the Corinthians "handing over" a reprobate member to
      > Satan (1 Cor. 5:5), (3) the traditions Paul "handed over" to the Corinthians
      > (1 Cor 11:2, 23; 15:3), (4) Paul and Christians delivering up or being
      > delivered up for faith or Jesus' sake (1 Cor. 13:3; 2 Cor. 4:11), and (5)
      > Jesus giving up/delivering up himself (Gal 2:20). In six cases of the
      > Pauline occurrence of PARADIDONAI in which the act of delivering or handing
      > over is executed by divine agency, Paul speaks of (1) God delivering up or
      > giving up sinners to their sins (Rom 1:24, 26, 28), (2) God implicitly or
      > explicitly delivering up or handing over Jesus to death (Rom. 4:24; 8:32),
      > and (3) the exalted, risen Christ delivering over or handing over the
      > kingdom to God as an act in the end time (1 Cor. 15:24). In none of these
      > fourteen cases is their any intimation that Paul gives to the meaning of
      > PARADIDONAI the connotation of "betrayal." Moreover, with respect
      > specifically of Jesus as the one who PAREDIDETO, aside from the pre-Pauline
      > tradition, Paul either explicitly or implicitly depicts God as the one who
      > delivers Jesus up (Rom. 4:25,; 8:32) or Jesus delivering himself up (Gal.
      > 2:20). Based upon this evidence, there is precedence, since Paul has not
      > indicated otherwise, for concluding that he understood the use of
      > PARADIDONAI in the Last Supper tradition which he received and handed on
      > (PAREDWKA) to the Corinthians to mean that it was God who delivered Jesus up
      > (not betrayed) on that fateful night (EN NUKTI TH PAREDIDETO).
      >
      >
      >
      > Furthermore, after Paul, as far as I am aware, aside from the canonical
      > Gospel writers and Papias (_Fragments of Papias_; see John Dominic Crossan,
      > _Who Killed Jesus?_, 74f.), the tradition in the early church to the
      > middle of the second century CE uniformly depicts, not God nor Judas, but
      > Jesus as the one who gives himself up (see e.g., with respect to canonical
      > literature, Eph. 5:2, 25; 1 Tim. 2:6; Tit. 2:14; and cf. Norman Perrin, "The
      > Use of (PARA)DIDONAI in Connection with the Passion of Jesus in the New
      > Testament," in _Der Ruf Jesu und die Antwort der Gemeinde: Festschift fuer
      > Joachim Jeremias, ed. Eduard Lohse_, 204-12). At no point does this early
      > Christian literature, again, apart from the canonical Gospel writers and
      > Papias, depict Jesus as being betrayed by Judas or anyone else. It is only
      > with the Gospel of Judas (perhaps around 170 CE) that Judas re-enters
      > Christian literature as the betrayer of Jesus.
      >
      >
      >
      > II. Interpretive use of PAREDIDETO by the Framers of the Pre-Pauline
      > Eucharistic Tradition
      >
      >
      >
      > But could it be that the creators of the pre-Pauline tradition itself
      > intended their use of PAREDIDETO in the phrase EN NUKTI TH PAREDIDETO was to
      > convey the meaning of betrayal (i.e., Judas' betrayal), thus "in the night
      > when he [Jesus] was betrayed [by Judas]. While a whole history of
      > scholarship has interpreted that meaning to be the intent of the creators of
      > the tradition, a minority of, but, nevertheless, significant, scholars have
      > either questioned or argued against such an interpretation of PAREDIDETO 1
      > Cor. 11:23. C.K. Barrett (_The First Epistle to the Corinthians_, 266)
      > states that it is "better perhaps" to translate PAREDIDETO in as "was handed
      > over [emphasis: Barrett] --- that is, by God, to death; cf. Rom. Iv.25;
      > viii.32." However, then Barrett allows: "but the word may have been used
      > differently in the tradition, for whose wording Paul was not responsible."
      > Dennis Smith (_From Symposium to Eucharist_, 189), proffers with respect to
      > PARADIDONAI in the pre-Pauline tradition: "The term used here,
      > *paradidonai*, simply means 'handed over.' Its use with the meaning of
      > 'betray' is found in the Gospels, but that is a meaning that does not inhere
      > in the term but in the context in which it is used. In Rom 8:32, Paul
      > presents his view that it is God who 'handed over' (*paradidonai*) Jesus to
      > be killed. It is therefore unlikely that the term *handed over* in I
      > Corinthians is meant to refer to Judas' betrayal; rather, it refers to the
      > theological concept of Jesus being handed over by God" (all emphases:
      > Smith).
      >
      >
      >
      > Similarly, Burton Mack (_A Myth of Innocence_, 299) states: "Paul's use of
      > PARADIDONAI [as found in the Last Supper tradition he received: 1 Cor.
      > 11:231 does not refer to betrayal . . . . Nowhere in Paul is a third
      > party involved in the 'handing over,' the subjects being either Jesus
      > himself (cf. Gal 1:4; 2:20),or God (explicitly in Rom 8:32; understood as
      > the subject of the passive in Rom 4:25)." Joachim Jeremias declares
      > (_Eucharistic Words of Jesus_, 112f.), with respect to PAREDIDETO in 1 Cor
      > 11:23: "The verb 'delivered up,' used absolutely, refers to an action of
      > God; the passive is thus a circumlocution for the divine name, as in Rom
      > 4:25. We are to understand it as 'on the night when God delivered him up',
      > and we cannot fail to hear an echo of Isaiah 53."
      >
      >
      >
      > And finally, Crossan declares with respect to the meaning of PARADIDONIA in
      > the clause in question (_The Historical Jesus_, 441): "That Greek verb,
      > PAREDIDETO, should not --- emphatically *not* [emphasis; Crossan]--- be
      > translated as 'betrayed.' It means literally, 'handed over,' and since it
      > is in the passive voice with no agent mentioned, it means 'handed over by
      > God.'" Crossan states this emphatically, with regard to the translation of
      > PAREDIDETO, even as he maintains the historicity of Judas' betrayal of
      > Jesus, i.e., by turning him over to the authorities "to arrest Jesus quietly
      > at night" (_Who Killed Jesus?_, 81; and see, 69-75). Others scholars who
      > translate PAREDIDETO in the pre-Pauline supper tradition as "handed over"
      > and not "betrayed" are Gerd Luedemann (_Paul: the Founder of Christianity_,
      > 148f.) and the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar (_Acts of Jesus_, 137, 139).
      > [Note: with respect to Crossan's argument for the historicity of Judas and
      > his betrayal, I find his evidence to be very weak (two attestations: the
      > canonical Gospels and Papias). I think that Mack (304f.) makes a better
      > case for the betrayal being a Markan fiction, which is my own position, and
      > which I would be happy to address, contra Crossan, more comprehensively in a
      > later post].
      >
      >
      >
      > But still, it may be pressed, even if Paul might have understood PAREDIDETO
      > in the tradition he received as "handed over," upon what basis can one argue
      > that the framers of the pre-Pauline did not intend the connotation of
      > PAREDIDETO to be "betrayed," with the historicity of Judas' betrayal in mind
      > (Barrett's caveat), much as the Synoptic eucharistic tradition articulates
      > and the canonical passion narratives dramatically describe? The case
      > against such an interpretive use of PAREDIDETO upon the part of the framers
      > of the pre-Pauline eucharistic tradition can be effectively built, in my
      > judgment, via a recognition of the evolution of the eucharistic traditions
      > of the earliest Christians, among which the pre-Pauline tradition was not
      > the original. The earliest eucharistic traditions are to be found in
      > Didache 9 and 10 (see Aaron Milavec, _The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of
      > the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C. E._, 354-421, and Crossan,
      > _Historical Jesus_, 361-364; and _The Birth of Christianity_, 433-438).
      > The eucharistic tradition in Did. 10:1-6, which, with Crossan (_Birth,
      > 436-438), I consider the earliest of all eucharistic traditions, is rendered
      > as follows (translation: Milavec, _The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis,
      > and Commentary, 24).
      >
      >
      >
      > 1 After being filled, eucharistize thus:
      >
      > 2 We give you thanks, holy Father, for your holy name,
      >
      > which you tabernacle in our hearts,
      >
      > and for the knowledge and faith and immortality
      >
      > which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus.
      >
      >
      >
      > 3 You, almighty Master, created all things
      >
      > for the sake of your name, both food and drink
      >
      > you have given to people for enjoyment
      >
      > in order that they might give thanks; to us,
      >
      > on the other hand, you have graciously bestowed
      >
      > Spirit-sent food and drink for life forever
      >
      > through your servant.
      >
      >
      >
      > 4 Before all things, we give you thanks
      >
      > because you are powerful.
      >
      > To you the glory forever.
      >
      >
      >
      > 5 Remember, Lord, your church, to save from evil
      >
      > and to perfect in your love and to gather together
      >
      > from the four winds the sanctified into your kingdom
      >
      > which you have prepared for her
      >
      > because yours is the power and the glory forever
      >
      >
      >
      > 6 Come, grace and pass away this world!
      >
      > Hosanna to the God of David!
      >
      > If anyone is holy, come!
      >
      > If anyone is not, convert!
      >
      > Marana tha! Amen!
      >
      >
      >
      > The eucharistic tradition presented in Did. 9:1-5, and a later development
      > of the tradition in Did. 10, as Crossan, in my view, has successfully
      > demonstrated, reads as follows (translation: Milavec, _Didache: Text,
      > Translation _, 23):
      >
      >
      >
      > 1 Concerning the eucharist, eucharistize thus:
      >
      > 2 First concerning the cup:
      >
      > We give thanks, our Father,
      >
      > for the holy vine of your servant David
      >
      > which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus.
      >
      > To you the glory forever.
      >
      >
      >
      > 3 And concerning the broken:
      >
      >
      >
      > We give thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge
      >
      > which you revealed to us through your servant Jesus.
      >
      > To you the glory forever.
      >
      >
      >
      > 4 Just as this broken was scattered over the hills,
      >
      > and, having been gathered together, became one;
      >
      > in like fashion, may you church be gathered together
      >
      > from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.
      >
      > Because yours is the glory and the power
      >
      > through Jesus Christ forever.
      >
      >
      >
      > 5 Let no one eat or drink from your eucharist
      >
      > except those baptized in the name of Lord,
      >
      > for the Lord has likewise said concerning this:
      >
      > "Do not give what is holy to the dogs."
      >
      >
      >
      > Note that in neither of these traditions is there any suggestion of the
      > celebration of Jesus' death, let alone his being *betrayed* or even
      > delivered up by God; nor is there any connection between the eucharistic
      > meal celebrated and the Passover, nor any suggestion of an
      > institutionalization of the meal as a remembrance of Jesus' death. In fact,
      > in the eucharistic tradition of Did. 10 there is no hint of the
      > symbolization of the food elements with Jesus' own body, and virtually no
      > hint of any christology in Did. 10, though that does emerge to some degree
      > with reference the reference to "Jesus Christ" in Did. 9:4 (see Milavec,
      > _Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life_, 367-370; and Crossan, _Historical Jesus_,
      > 361-363). Moreover, not only is there no reference to a betrayal of Jesus
      > by Judas or anyone else, in these eucharistic traditions, but also there is
      > no reference or allusion in the entire Didache to Judas or a betrayal.
      >
      >
      >
      > The pre-Pauline eucharistic tradition represents a later significant, even
      > radically, new development, in which a Hellenistic Jewish community, I would
      > posit Antioch (cf. Christiian Beker, ) has transformed the early
      > eucharistic meals into an institutionalized, etiological ritualization of a
      > martyrological meal, characteristic of Graeco-Roman martyrological texts
      > (see Mack, 118f.; cf. Crossan, _Historical Jesus_, 365). In formulation of
      > that tradition, Isaiah 53:2 particularly, is the hypotext (see Jeremias,
      > 112f.; Crossan, _Historical Jesus_, 364) upon which, along with the
      > influence of martyological texts, the eucharistic hypertext is built. In
      > that tradition the servant [PAIS] Jesus of the Didache traditions becomes
      > understood as the suffering servant [PAIS] of Isa 52:13 whose PAREDIQH EIS
      > QANATON hH ("life was delivered up to death [by God]) . . . . KAI AUTOS
      > AMARTIAS POLLWN ANHNEGEN KAI DIA TAS AMARTIAS AUTWN PAREDIQH ("and he
      > bore the sins of many and was delivered up [by God] for their sins": Isa
      > 53:12).
      >
      >
      >
      > And finally, the Markan eucharistic tradition is yet a later version still
      > than Paul's version (Mack, 299-304; Crossan, _Historical Jesus_, 365f.; cf.
      > Milavec, _The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life_, 402; and Smith, 226f.), a
      > version in which Judas, by fictive creation of Mark, plays as significant
      > role as Jesus' betrayal. Before Mark, then, there was no motif of Jesus
      > being *betrayed* in the eucharistic traditions, to say nothing of a betrayal
      > by Judas. The use of PARADIDONAI in the pre-Pauline eucharistic tradition
      > was an allusion to Jesus as the personification of the suffering servant of
      > Isaiah 53, who is delivered up by God for others. Already this post is very
      > lengthy; so I will not be able to flesh out further what I have only been
      > able to suggest with respect to the development of the formulation of the
      > pre-Pauline eucharistic tradition and the later Markan eucharistic
      > tradition. I would be happy to do so in a future post if requested.
      >
      >
      >
      > Ted Weeden
      >
      > Theodore J. Weeden, Sr.
      >
      > Ph.D., Claremont Graduate University
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > 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
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Jim West
      ... Just as a quick aside- the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is particularly hazardous. The New Testament, after all, never says Jesus
      Message 2 of 24 , May 9, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Rikk Watts wrote:
        > Welcome back Ted. Hope things are going better for you these days.
        >
        > Others might have mentioned this, but my fundamental concern here is that
        > appealing to Paul's silence on Judas as evidence that he didn't know about
        > him or his betrayal of Jesus is fallacious. The underlying assumption
        > appears to be that when anyone talks about a topic they must say everything
        > they know about it. But that's hardly the case is it? In this respect the
        > old adage is worth repeating: absence of evidence is not evidence of
        > absence. 1 Cor 11 might not be evidence that Paul knew of Judas but it is
        > surely not evidence that he didn't.

        Just as a quick aside- the "absence of evidence is not evidence of
        absence" is particularly hazardous. The New Testament, after all, never
        says Jesus didn't have sex. Operating on the "absence of evidence is
        not evidence of absence" logic, we would have to assert that he did.


        --
        Jim West, ThD

        "Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat."

        http://web.infoave.net/~jwest -- Biblical Studies Resources
        http://petrosbaptistchurch.blogspot.com -- Weblog
      • Rikk Watts
        Hi Jim No it s not hazardous at all. Just good sense. Nor does it lead to your conclusion since it only denies the negative. It does not affirm the positive.
        Message 3 of 24 , May 9, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Jim

          No it's not hazardous at all. Just good sense. Nor does it lead to your
          conclusion since it only denies the negative. It does not affirm the
          positive. Read my last line again.

          Regards
          Rikk

          PS The problem with your example is that it is not really based on absence
          of evidence. Jesus was unmarried and as a good, Law-abiding Jew we have no
          reason to suppose that he engaged in illicit sexual expression.

          On 9/5/06 2:43 PM, "Jim West" <jwest@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > Rikk Watts wrote:
          >> Welcome back Ted. Hope things are going better for you these days.
          >>
          >> Others might have mentioned this, but my fundamental concern here is that
          >> appealing to Paul's silence on Judas as evidence that he didn't know about
          >> him or his betrayal of Jesus is fallacious. The underlying assumption
          >> appears to be that when anyone talks about a topic they must say everything
          >> they know about it. But that's hardly the case is it? In this respect the
          >> old adage is worth repeating: absence of evidence is not evidence of
          >> absence. 1 Cor 11 might not be evidence that Paul knew of Judas but it is
          >> surely not evidence that he didn't.
          >
          > Just as a quick aside- the "absence of evidence is not evidence of
          > absence" is particularly hazardous. The New Testament, after all, never
          > says Jesus didn't have sex. Operating on the "absence of evidence is
          > not evidence of absence" logic, we would have to assert that he did.
          >
        • Jim West
          Hi Rikk, I agree that we cannot dogmatically say things didn t happen just because no one tells us they didn t. At the same time, it seems equally hazardous,
          Message 4 of 24 , May 9, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Rikk,

            I agree that we cannot dogmatically say things didn't happen just
            because no one tells us they didn't. At the same time, it seems equally
            hazardous, doesn't it, to say that something might have happened even
            when we have no evidence for it. It's two sides of the same hazardous
            coin and since both are equally dangerous- they cancel each other out.

            It just seems to me more reasonable, sensible, and safer, to say what
            the ancient texts say rather than importing into them things they didn't
            say but we wish they would have.


            Best as always.


            Jim

            --
            Jim West, ThD

            "Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat."

            http://web.infoave.net/~jwest -- Biblical Studies Resources
            http://petrosbaptistchurch.blogspot.com -- Weblog
          • Rikk Watts
            Hi Jim, I don t quite follow. Since I was not asserting that 1 Cor 11 proved anything either way about Judas (nor saying that something happened even when we
            Message 5 of 24 , May 9, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Jim,

              I don't quite follow. Since I was not asserting that 1 Cor 11 proved
              anything either way about Judas (nor saying that something happened even
              when we have no evidence for it), I'm not sure there's anything to cancel
              out. I was simply challenging Ted's argument from Paul's silence. How
              exactly is this dangerous or hazardous?

              Regards
              Rikk

              On 9/5/06 5:30 PM, "Jim West" <jwest@...> wrote:

              > Hi Rikk,
              >
              > I agree that we cannot dogmatically say things didn't happen just
              > because no one tells us they didn't. At the same time, it seems equally
              > hazardous, doesn't it, to say that something might have happened even
              > when we have no evidence for it. It's two sides of the same hazardous
              > coin and since both are equally dangerous- they cancel each other out.
              >
              > It just seems to me more reasonable, sensible, and safer, to say what
              > the ancient texts say rather than importing into them things they didn't
              > say but we wish they would have.
              >
              >
              > Best as always.
              >
              >
              > Jim
            • Jeff Peterson
              ... But the whole question with 1 Cor 11:23 is what the text means to say, and there are indicators pointing in at least two directions: 1) If Paul s usage of
              Message 6 of 24 , May 9, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On May 9, 2006, at 7:30 PM, Jim West wrote:
                > It just seems to me more reasonable, sensible, and safer, to say what
                > the ancient texts say rather than importing into them things they
                > didn't
                > say but we wish they would have.

                But the whole question with 1 Cor 11:23 is what the text means to
                say, and there are indicators pointing in at least two directions: 1)
                If Paul's usage of PARADIDWMI elsewhere is our guide, then we ought
                to take PAREDIDETO as a circumlocution for divine action, and we
                don't have any basis for asserting Paul's awareness of the Judas
                story. But 2) if we take seriously Paul's ascription of 11:23ff to
                tradition, and we recognize points of contact between these verses
                and the (pre?)Marcan passion narrative, then we might argue that the
                verb is used in 1 Cor as in Mark 14 passim and would imply a human
                agent for the act of "handing over."

                One consideration that might favor the latter option is the
                historical specificity of Paul's reference. It's one thing to say in
                a quasi-mythic narrative formulation that God "didn't spare his own
                Son but handed him over for us all"; it strikes me that there's
                something of an inconcinnity about referring to the meal the Lord
                Jesus consecrated "on the night in which" God handed him over, as
                though God were an actor on the level of the human actors. (Exod
                12:12 and Deut 16:1 show that such a usage isn't impossible, but it
                strikes me as less likely in the more intimate, less world-historical
                scale of the story from which 1 Cor 11:23–25 was abstracted, if the
                points of contact between that text and Mark 14 justify positing a
                relationship between them, as I think they do.) I'm not sure the
                evidence is sufficient to permit a firm conclusion for 2, but neither
                do I see it as excluded.

                I'm glad to see that Ted is able to rejoin the discussion.

                Jeff Peterson
                Austin, TX
              • Lee Edgar Tyler
                ... Existence of the antecedent Eucharist tradition would not, however, imply existence of an antecedent betrayal tradition simply because they are conjoined
                Message 7 of 24 , May 9, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jeff Peterson wrote:

                  >On May 9, 2006, at 7:30 PM, Jim West wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >>It just seems to me more reasonable, sensible, and safer, to say what
                  >>the ancient texts say rather than importing into them things they
                  >>didn't
                  >>say but we wish they would have.
                  >>
                  >>
                  >
                  >But the whole question with 1 Cor 11:23 is what the text means to
                  >say, and there are indicators pointing in at least two directions: 1)
                  >If Paul's usage of PARADIDWMI elsewhere is our guide, then we ought
                  >to take PAREDIDETO as a circumlocution for divine action, and we
                  >don't have any basis for asserting Paul's awareness of the Judas
                  >story. But 2) if we take seriously Paul's ascription of 11:23ff to
                  >tradition, and we recognize points of contact between these verses
                  >and the (pre?)Marcan passion narrative, then we might argue that the
                  >verb is used in 1 Cor as in Mark 14 passim and would imply a human
                  >agent for the act of "handing over."
                  >
                  >One consideration that might favor the latter option is the
                  >historical specificity of Paul's reference. It's one thing to say in
                  >a quasi-mythic narrative formulation that God "didn't spare his own
                  >Son but handed him over for us all"; it strikes me that there's
                  >something of an inconcinnity about referring to the meal the Lord
                  >Jesus consecrated "on the night in which" God handed him over, as
                  >though God were an actor on the level of the human actors. (Exod
                  >12:12 and Deut 16:1 show that such a usage isn't impossible, but it
                  >strikes me as less likely in the more intimate, less world-historical
                  >scale of the story from which 1 Cor 11:23–25 was abstracted, if the
                  >points of contact between that text and Mark 14 justify positing a
                  >relationship between them, as I think they do.) I'm not sure the
                  >evidence is sufficient to permit a firm conclusion for 2, but neither
                  >do I see it as excluded.
                  >
                  >I'm glad to see that Ted is able to rejoin the discussion.
                  >
                  >Jeff Peterson
                  >Austin, TX
                  >
                  >
                  Existence of the antecedent Eucharist tradition would not, however,
                  imply existence of an antecedent betrayal tradition simply because they
                  are conjoined in Mark. I'm not arguing that he did, but Mark could well
                  have set the familiar Eucharistic formula into a narrative frame
                  associating it with the betrayal as a way to account for its origin.

                  The form "paredideto" does not distinguish between passive and middle
                  voices; consequently one could (and might, if one does not have the
                  ubiquitous Passion Narrative in mind) read "on the night in which he
                  gave himself up...." which of course makes things even more difficult.
                  But at least it relieves the reader of the responsibility of deciding on
                  a subject for the clause.

                  Ed Tyler
                • Jeff Peterson
                  ... Good point, and I suppose it needs to be registered as a possibiilty, although when Paul wants to refer unambiguously to Jesus offer of himself, he uses
                  Message 8 of 24 , May 9, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On May 9, 2006, at 10:20 PM, Lee Edgar Tyler wrote:
                    >
                    > The form "paredideto" does not distinguish between passive and middle
                    > voices; consequently one could (and might, if one does not have the
                    > ubiquitous Passion Narrative in mind) read "on the night in which he
                    > gave himself up...." which of course makes things even more difficult.
                    > But at least it relieves the reader of the responsibility of
                    > deciding on
                    > a subject for the clause.

                    Good point, and I suppose it needs to be registered as a possibiilty,
                    although when Paul wants to refer unambiguously to Jesus' offer of
                    himself, he uses the simple stem DIDWMI and the reflexive pronoun
                    (Gal 1:4).

                    Jeff Peterson
                    Austin, Texas
                  • Lee Edgar Tyler
                    ... Right. For that reason alone I think was given up or words to that effect is the sense of the passage Paul intended, but one always has to consider the
                    Message 9 of 24 , May 10, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Jeff Peterson wrote:

                      >On May 9, 2006, at 10:20 PM, Lee Edgar Tyler wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >>The form "paredideto" does not distinguish between passive and middle
                      >>voices; consequently one could (and might, if one does not have the
                      >>ubiquitous Passion Narrative in mind) read "on the night in which he
                      >>gave himself up...." which of course makes things even more difficult.
                      >>But at least it relieves the reader of the responsibility of
                      >>deciding on
                      >>a subject for the clause.
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >Good point, and I suppose it needs to be registered as a possibiilty,
                      >although when Paul wants to refer unambiguously to Jesus' offer of
                      >himself, he uses the simple stem DIDWMI and the reflexive pronoun
                      >(Gal 1:4).
                      >
                      >Jeff Peterson
                      >Austin, Texas
                      >
                      >
                      Right. For that reason alone I think "was given up" or words to that
                      effect is the sense of the passage Paul intended, but one always has to
                      consider the complexities. The passive form is problematic, because
                      *who* gave Jesus up is obviously a very important bit of information it
                      leaves out. One presumes that Paul expected his audience to know, but
                      unfortunately we are not party to that audience's sensibilities.

                      I find that PARADIDWMI is used by numerous ancient authors with the
                      contextual connotation of betrayal, so I can't concur with Crossan's
                      assertion that it must be discounted categorically. This although I do
                      agree with Ted that the betrayal narrative is a Markan creation
                      (although I think Mark was working on an antecedent tale of betrayal).

                      Ed Tyler
                    • Tweeden@Rochester.rr.com
                      ... Rikk, I have been away for a speaking engagement since you sent your post, and have just found time while away to respond to you. Given the vagaries of
                      Message 10 of 24 , May 12, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Rikk Watts wrote on May 9, 2006:
                        > Others might have mentioned this, but my fundamental concern here
                        > is that appealing to Paul's silence on Judas as evidence that he didn't
                        > know about him or his betrayal of Jesus is fallacious. The underlying
                        > assumption appears to be that when anyone talks about a topic they
                        > must say everythingthey know about it. But that's hardly the case is
                        > it? In this respect the old adage is worth repeating: absence of
                        > evidence is not evidence of absence. 1 Cor 11 might not be
                        > evidence that Paul knew of Judas but it is surely not evidence that he didn't.
                        Rikk, I have been away for a speaking engagement since you sent your post, and have just found time while away to respond to you. Given the vagaries of working off-site via the internet, I hope this reply successfully reaches you through cyberspace.
                        You are correct that Paul's failure to mention Judas or the betrayal does not in itself mean that Paul did not know about it. But that is not my point. My point is we cannot turn to Paul for evidence that Judas and Judas' betrayal is a historical fact or even a part of Christian tradition as Paul knew it. Paul fails to allude or refer to Jesus' betrayal by Judas or any human being. All we know from Paul about the issue of Jesus being handed over is that Paul states that God delivered up Jesus (Roms 8:32; cf. 4:25). Moreover, as I pointed out in my post of May 9, the Pauline tradition after Paul makes Jesus the agent of his own deliverance and not God (Eph 5:2, 25; I Tim 2:6; Tit 2:14. In neither Paul nor the Pauline tradition after him is there any suggestion that Jesus was delivered up, much less betrayed, by human agency.
                        In the exchange of posts between you and Jim West on May 9, subsequent to your post directed to me, Jim challenged your use of the argument that "absence is not the evidence of absence," as a hazardous argument to rely upon. To demonstrate, Jim used the example that the NT never mentions that Jesus was sexually active, and, thus, based upon your principle of "the absence of evidence," one could draw that conclusion that he was. You retorted that Jim's example "is not really based on absence of evidence. Jesus was unmarried and as a good, Law-abiding Jew we have no reason to suppose that he engaged in illicit sexual expression." But as a rejoinder, how do you know Jesus was not married, as Dan Brown in his _The Da Vinci Code_ asserts, to the contrary, that he was? Are you not here making a claim which the very logic of your principle refutes: namely, contra your assertion that Jesus was unmarried, by the logic of your "absence of evidence" principle, the absence of re!
                        ferences
                        To pursue this theme further, I draw upon your "fundamental concern . . . that appealing to Paul's silence on Judas as evidence that he didn't know about him or his betrayal of Jesus is fallacious" because "the underlying assumption appears to be that when anyone talks about a topic they must say everything they know about it." It is rather striking that Darrell Bock in his refutation of Brown's claim that Jesus was married (_Breaking the Da Vinci Code_) cites 1 Cor 9:4-6 as what 'may be the most important text for this topic." After quoting the passage, which refers to the apostles and Jesus' brothers were married, Bock observes (42f.):
                        "Paul noted in this aside that the apostles, the Lord's brothers, and Cephas (Peter) had the right to a wife. In other words, they had every right to be married. It would have been simple for Paul to add that Jesus was married --- had He been. Such a point would have sealed the argument, but he did not make that point. . . . Paul was discussing precedent and rights. To raise the example of what someone did would be possible and logical, *had Jesus had such a status* [emphasis: Bock]. The conclusion is that Paul did not make the point because he could not make such a point."
                        Rikk, do you consider Bock's argument here to be fallacious on the basis, as presented above, that "anyone [who] talks about a topic . . . must say everything they know about it"? Thus, to use your argument against Bock, his conclusion about Paul's failure to cite Jesus in defense of himself does not mean that Jesus did not know about Jesus' marital status. Rather, Paul just did not choose to say everything he knew about Jesus and his marital status. I would agree with you generally that an argument from silence is not a sound or compelling reason to argue positively or negatively about an issue. But I do think in this case Bock has a point: namely, Paul's failure to draw Jesus into his argument, when it might have strengthened his case, suggests that Paul knew that Jesus was unmarried, and, thus, Jesus would not serve his apologia well.
                        I have made a similar argument for the likelihood that Paul did not know about Judas' betrayal of Jesus. Thus, I find it striking --- if Judas, in fact, was a trusted disciple in the inner circle who betrayed Jesus --- that Paul does not use that information to attack the "false/super apostles" in II Cor. 10-13, particularly II Cor. 11:13-15. Had Paul known about Judas, how could he have passed up the opportunity to cite Judas as an excellent example (to paraphrase Paul only slightly) of a false disciple, deceitful worker,disguising himself as a disciple of Christ, behind whom was Satan in disguise, a false disciple whose end matched his deeds?
                        But my bottom-line position is not, finally, whether Paul knew or did not know about Judas. We simply do not know, though Paul's failure to use Judas as an example against the Corinthian super apostles might be a logical inference that he did not know of a tradition about Judas' betrayal of Jesus. Rather, my bottom-line is that anyone arguing for the historicity of Judas and his betrayal of Jesus, cannot use Paul, leaving aside the pre-Pauline eucharistic tradition for the moment, or the Pauline tradition after Paul or the rest of the NT writings, except for the Gospels, in support of that argument and against my proposal that Judas and his betrayal are fictive creations.
                        You go on to state with respect to the meaning of PARADIDONAI in 1 Cor. 11:23, where I argue that God is understood as the implied subject of the act of handing over:
                        [Snip]
                        > The repeated assertion that God is alone the implied subject of the
                        > non-specific passive is problematic. First, of the examples cited,
                        > in Rom
                        > 8:32 God is explicitly the subject as you note and as is confirmed
                        > by the
                        > "for all of us." Rom 4:25 likewise requires God as the implied
                        > agent (note
                        > too the "because of us"). I.e. neither of these texts are as
                        > indeterminate as 1 Cor 11. Second, their interests are different.
                        > The two Romans texts
                        > deal with the theological implications of Jesus' death?so of
                        > course we would
                        > expect to see God in there somewhere?and do not purport to
                        > describe the
                        > events leading up to Jesus' death. 1 Cor 11 on the other hand does so
                        > purport, even if ever so briefly, and does not unpack the theological
                        > implications (interestingly, the subsequent warning about eating and
                        > drinking judgment to oneself would certainly cohere with Judas'
                        > behavior as
                        > reported in Mark, cf. John 13.8).
                        With respect to your parenthetical statement, it appears to me that you are shoehorning Mark and John, both latter than Paul into the Pauline context, when Mark upon whom John is dependent is the only first-century source upon which an argument for the historicity of Judas and his betrayal of Judas can be based, hardly passing the test of the methodological criterion of multiple attestation. Aside from Mark's dependent followers (Matthew, Luke and John), there is no reference or allusion to Judas or his betrayal in any Christian text prior to Papias, and I think his witness is suspect. In _Fragments of Papias_, to which Crossan refers as support for the historicity of Judas, Papias states (III): "Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out." That is n ot a lot to build the historicity of Judas !
                        upon. Si
                        You continue by refering to my stating that :
                        > this "handing over" could not involve an agent who
                        > betrayed him.
                        > This is again to confuse a theological perspective with events.
                        > Mark who on
                        > your lights invented this story can have Jesus speak of his death
                        > being"necessary" (8:31) and "written" (9:12) which surely implies
                        > at least divine
                        > necessity, and yet use the same verb (9:31; 10:33), and speak of
                        > Judas'betraying Jesus. Since 2 Cor 11 is the one instance that I
                        > can recall
                        > offhand where Paul is dealing directly with historical events, his
                        > paradidomai absent any guide to the agent could just as well mean, and
                        > perhaps probably does, the whole process: God's divine intention,
                        > Jesus'willingness, and Judas' betrayal.
                        Again, as I have stated previously, there is no allusion to Judas or his betrayal prior to Mark. Neither Q, nor Thomas nor the Didache, and, in particularly and most telling, the earliest eucharistic traditions (Did 10 and 9) reveal any awareness of Judas or a human betrayal of Jesus. It is only under the influence of the Markan account of Judas' betrayal and his depiction of the Last Supper, within which he presents his own eucharistic tradition, that one would have any reason to think that the term PAREDIDETO in the pre-Pauline tradition might be understood as "was betrayed." It is more likely in that tradition intended to PAREDIDETO to be understood as "handed over," understood by God, via the influence of Isa 53:12.
                        Again to quote from my post to which you are responding here:
                        "The pre-Pauline eucharistic tradition represents a later significant, even radically, new development, in which a Hellenistic Jewish community, I would posit Antioch (cf. Christiian Beker) has transformed the early eucharistic meals into an institutionalized, etiological ritualization of a martyrological meal, characteristic of Graeco-Roman martyrological texts (see Mack, 118f.; cf. Crossan, _Historical Jesus_, 365). In formulation of that tradition, Isaiah 53:2 particularly, is the hypotext (see Jeremias,112f.; Crossan, _Historical Jesus_, 364) upon which, along with the influence of martyological texts, the eucharistic hypertext is built. In that tradition the servant [PAIS] Jesus of the Didache traditions becomes understood as the suffering servant [PAIS] of Isa 52:13 whose PAREDIQH EIS QANATON hH ("life was delivered up to death [by God]) . . . . KAI AUTOS AMARTIAS POLLWN ANHNEGEN KAI DIA TAS AMARTIAS AUTWN PAREDIQH ("and he bore the sins of many and was delivered up!
                        [by God]
                        Best regards,
                        Ted
                        Theodore J. Weeden, Sr.


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Tweeden@Rochester.rr.com
                        Jeff Peterson wrote on May 9, 2006 at 9:00 PM ... Jeff, with regard to your insight on the quasi-mythical narrative of the pre-Pauline eucharistic tradition,
                        Message 11 of 24 , May 12, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jeff Peterson wrote on May 9, 2006 at 9:00 PM

                          > . . . the whole question with 1 Cor 11:23 is what the text means to
                          > say, and there are indicators pointing in at least two directions:
                          > 1)
                          > If Paul's usage of PARADIDWMI elsewhere is our guide, then we
                          > ought
                          > to take PAREDIDETO as a circumlocution for divine action, and we
                          > don't have any basis for asserting Paul's awareness of the Judas
                          > story. But 2) if we take seriously Paul's ascription of 11:23ff to
                          >
                          > tradition, and we recognize points of contact between these verses
                          >
                          > and the (pre?)Marcan passion narrative, then we might argue that
                          > the
                          > verb is used in 1 Cor as in Mark 14 passim and would imply a human
                          >
                          > agent for the act of "handing over."
                          >
                          > One consideration that might favor the latter option is the
                          > historical specificity of Paul's reference. It's one thing to say
                          > in
                          > a quasi-mythic narrative formulation that God "didn't spare his
                          > own
                          > Son but handed him over for us all"; it strikes me that there's
                          > something of an inconcinnity about referring to the meal the Lord
                          > Jesus consecrated "on the night in which" God handed him over, as
                          > though God were an actor on the level of the human actors. (Exod
                          > 12:12 and Deut 16:1 show that such a usage isn't impossible, but
                          > it
                          > strikes me as less likely in the more intimate, less world-
                          > historical
                          > scale of the story from which 1 Cor 11:23�25 was abstracted, if
                          > the
                          > points of contact between that text and Mark 14 justify positing a
                          >
                          > relationship between them, as I think they do.

                          Jeff, with regard to your insight on the quasi-mythical narrative of the pre-Pauline eucharistic tradition, in which it refers to the Lord Jesus being handed over: PAREDIDETO. It may be of interest to you that Dennis Smith (_From Symposium to Eucharist_) observes (189f.):

                          �It is important to note since we too easily assume that the canonical gospel story was the universal story of Jesus. In Paul, however, we do not find a story of the life of Jesus. Indeed, as Charles B. Cousar notes, we do not even find speculation about the events leading to the death of Jesus, or who killed Jesus. The Christ story for Paul operated on a mythic level. The phrase �Christ crucified� virtually summarizes the entire plot. For Paul it represented a negotiation between Jesus and God. Nowhere does he delineate any human actors in this drama. This perspective of Paul seems to be present in his Lord�s Supper text as well, for the meal pictured here is a meal of �the Lord Jesus.� That phrase removes the text from any historical imagining. To call Jesus *kyrios* as Paul understood the term is to identify him within the panoply of the divine. This is clear in the christological hymn in Phil. 2:6-11, another text Paul inherited that became foundational for his theology. . . . Consequently, the meal being pictured here takes place on a mythological level, borrowing by implication the motif of the messianic banquet, a meal that takes place in the heavenly sphere.� (189).

                          �But how could Jesus be �Lord� on the same night that he was �handed over� to die? Of such paradoxes are mythologies made. At least in Paul�s mind we can see how it was not a paradox, for him the Christ who dies on the cross, is already a divine agent. After all, the story for Paul is one in which God �hands over� Jesus, hardly a historical detail, but a rich mythodological/theological one.�

                          I will have further thoughts on Smith's observations here in my response to Lee Evans post, which is a response to your post here.

                          Best regards,

                          Ted
                          Theodore J. Weeden, Sr.


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Rikk Watts
                          Ted, good to hear from you and thanks for the clarification. Re Paul and Judas we are agreed: we cannot turn to him for evidence that Judas existed or betrayed
                          Message 12 of 24 , May 12, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Ted, good to hear from you and thanks for the clarification.

                            Re Paul and Judas we are agreed: we cannot turn to him for evidence that
                            Judas existed or betrayed Jesus.

                            But then it seems to me you go on to argue from silence again. As I noted
                            earlier, there are good theological reasons why Paul speaks of God and/or
                            Jesus giving him/himself up. But that says nothing about whether or not Paul
                            knew that God/Jesus involved a human agent in doing so. If you could show me
                            a place in Paul where we might reasonably expect him to have mentioned Judas
                            and he didn't then you might have a case. But I can't see one. The same
                            applies to Darrell's argument and to the absence of Judas' stories between
                            the canonical gospels and Papias‹if it can be shown that in a given context
                            one might reasonably expect Paul or others to make mention of something and
                            he/they do not, then one might have a case. But then even if they did
                            mention Judas, what would stop you from then claiming that they'd simply got
                            him from Mark (which is how you deal with the evidence from Matt, Luke, and
                            John even though e.g. Luke claims to have done his own homework, frequently
                            leaves Mark when it suits, and his words of institution are closer to Paul
                            than Matt or Mark, and John appears to have access to a different set of
                            traditions, espec his use of Ps 41)?
                            > I have made a similar argument for the likelihood that Paul did not know about
                            > Judas' betrayal of Jesus.
                            But have you? There is nothing I can see in the two Romans
                            passages‹concerned as they are with theological interpretation‹nor in 1 Cor
                            11‹given its brevity and the fact that it neither mentions the Romans nor
                            the Jewish leadership, etc.‹which would require the mention of Judas. In
                            fact, I would argue that the mention of Judas in any of the passages would
                            be incongruous.

                            > Thus, I find it striking --- if Judas, in fact, was
                            > a trusted disciple in the inner circle who betrayed Jesus --- that Paul does
                            > not use that information to attack the "false/super apostles" in II Cor.
                            > 10-13, particularly II Cor. 11:13-15. Had Paul known about Judas, how could
                            > he have passed up the opportunity to cite Judas as an excellent example (to
                            > paraphrase Paul only slightly) of a false disciple, deceitful
                            > worker,disguising himself as a disciple of Christ, behind whom was Satan in
                            > disguise, a false disciple whose end matched his deeds?
                            Absolutely. Paul is indeed aware of the need for an example. And it would be
                            odd if he didn't give one. So, of course, he does: "Even Satan disguises
                            himself as an angel of light." So yes you are right, Paul does give an
                            example but he goes for the jugular; why bother with the servant when you
                            can go for his master? In other words, the appropriate contrast given that
                            the issue is "whose apostles are they?", is not Christ-Judas, but
                            Christ-Satan which is exactly what you get.

                            My reference to Jesus being unmarried is obviously not based on any direct
                            evidence from the NT. But it does seem to be the fairly unified witness of
                            early church tradition in which case it's not really based on the absence of
                            evidence.

                            Re PARADIDONAI: since the only thing you take issue with is my parenthetical
                            remark‹which being just that I'm happy to let go‹can I assume you accept the
                            rest of the argument?

                            As Dale Allison and many others have noted, the multiple attestation
                            criteria is problematic. I.e. all it tells us is that a story was well known
                            (it could still be a widely disseminated false or misleading story, as I'm
                            sure you'd argue about the resurrection, so it doesn't really establish that
                            much), it is undoubtedly a non-sequitur to imply that just because a story
                            is only recorded once it cannot be reliable, and perhaps even more reliable
                            than the widely disseminated version/s.

                            > You continue by refering to my stating that :
                            >> this "handing over" could not involve an agent who
                            >> betrayed him.
                            >> This is again to confuse a theological perspective with events.
                            >> Mark who on
                            >> your lights invented this story can have Jesus speak of his death
                            >> being"necessary" (8:31) and "written" (9:12) which surely implies
                            >> at least divine
                            >> necessity, and yet use the same verb (9:31; 10:33), and speak of
                            >> Judas'betraying Jesus. Since 2 Cor 11 is the one instance that I
                            >> can recall
                            >> offhand where Paul is dealing directly with historical events, his
                            >> paradidomai absent any guide to the agent could just as well mean, and
                            >> perhaps probably does, the whole process: God's divine intention,
                            >> Jesus'willingness, and Judas' betrayal.
                            Not sure I see how your following response actually addresses my point: i.e.
                            my questioning of the apparent assumption that theological statements about
                            the involvement of God/Jesus rules out human participation in the actual
                            event.
                            > Again, as I have stated previously, there is no allusion to Judas or his
                            > betrayal prior to Mark. Neither Q, nor Thomas nor the Didache, and, in
                            > particularly and most telling, the earliest eucharistic traditions (Did 10 and
                            > 9) reveal any awareness of Judas or a human betrayal of Jesus.
                            Re Q and Thomas (assuming, a big assumption, that Thom is earlier?): is this
                            really surprising since both are concerned with sayings, and neither
                            contains any Passion material? Unfortunately, my copy of Did is at work so
                            I can't check the context there.

                            > It is only
                            > under the influence of the Markan account of Judas' betrayal and his depiction
                            > of the Last Supper, within which he presents his own eucharistic tradition,
                            > that one would have any reason to think that the term PAREDIDETO in the
                            > pre-Pauline tradition might be understood as "was betrayed." It is more
                            > likely in that tradition intended to PAREDIDETO to be understood as "handed
                            > over," understood by God, via the influence of Isa 53:12.
                            But that's to assume your argument. I happen to agree that Isa 53:12 is
                            involved here, but that's not a link you'd want to pursue since it actually
                            tells against your position. Given its relationship to Isa 50:4-9, 10-11,
                            and the language of 53:3, 7-9, I don't know of a single Isa scholar‹and I
                            know a few‹who would suggest that God's involvement was somehow antithetical
                            to human activity. The point of Isa 53 is that the speakers of vv.1ff
                            confess that they now see God's hand in the suffering the servant underwent
                            at the hands of others. I suggest that's what Paul is after too. He's not
                            denying that humans, including Judas, were involved. He's concerned to show
                            that God was mysteriously at work in it all so that we might be redeemed.
                            Judas is simply irrelevant to that point. So, again, I think it is a false
                            dichotomy, and unwarranted in the light of the interpenetration of divine
                            and human activity in the Heb Scriptures, to suggest that Paul's unspecified
                            PAREDIDTO cannot include human activity.

                            So yes, finally, I don't think we can find evidence for Judas in Paul. But
                            equally one cannot argue from Paul that Judas and the betrayal story is a
                            fabrication.

                            Take good care Ted, and thanks again for the rigorous engagement.

                            Rikk
                          • Ernest Pennells
                            I have only been able to keep half an eye on this interesting debate, being somewhat preoccupied facilitating Muslims throwing rocks at the devil (off-topic).
                            Message 13 of 24 , May 13, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I have only been able to keep half an eye on this interesting debate, being
                              somewhat preoccupied facilitating Muslims throwing rocks at the devil
                              (off-topic). However, there is a thought I would like to lob into the
                              arena if it has not already been presented. It seems to me there is an
                              important distinction to be made between evidence of literary dependency and
                              evidence of fiction. The culture in which GTrad developed was one of
                              limited literacy, and scripture was a primary model that influenced
                              narrative of all sorts. It is hardly surprising that their stories - fact
                              or fiction - show clear evidence of being couched in the language and
                              literary architecture of the primary source of literature they knew.

                              Regards,

                              Ernie Pennells,
                              25 La Mancha, Sierra Village,
                              Arabian Homes,
                              PO Box 11326
                              Jeddah 21453
                              KSA
                              Tel: (966) 2 662 4000 Ext 2225
                              Mobile 0557495540
                            • Theodore Weeden
                              ... Rikk, sorry for the delay in responding to this. I have had too many irons in the fire lately. One of those irons is a response to a post of Ed Tyler s
                              Message 14 of 24 , May 19, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Rikk Watts wrote on May 12, 2006:

                                > Ted, good to hear from you and thanks for the clarification.<

                                Rikk, sorry for the delay in responding to this. I have had too many irons
                                in the fire lately. One of those irons is a response to a post of Ed
                                Tyler's on this thread I have initiated, a response, still being drafted,
                                for which I have been doing extensive research, and which will deal with
                                some of the issues you raise here. So I will not go into those matters
                                now.

                                > Re Paul and Judas we are agreed: we cannot turn to him for evidence that
                                Judas existed or betrayed Jesus. <

                                Yes. I agree. Paul cannot be used to support evidence for or against the
                                existence of Judas and the betrayal of Judas. Paul is silent on the
                                matter, as is the rest of the NT and Christian tradition, with the exception
                                of the canonical Gospels, until Papias and then the Gospel of Judas. That
                                silence, does appear to me deafening, if such a betrayal by a trusted
                                disciple of Jesus was known.

                                > But then it seems to me you go on to argue from silence again. As I noted
                                earlier, there are good theological reasons why Paul speaks of God and/or
                                Jesus giving him/himself up. But that says nothing about whether or not Paul
                                knew that God/Jesus involved a human agent in doing so.<

                                If Paul, along with other early Christians, was aware of the heinous and
                                infamously celebrated betrayal of Judas, and if PARADIDONAI was a term used
                                to denote Judas' betrayal, as it is in Mark and his canonical cousins, then
                                it strikes me that Paul, who is careful and discriminate in his choice of
                                language in theological exposition, would have taken care in distinguishing
                                the meaning he intended when making his reference to God as the one who
                                PAREDWKEN Jesus (Rom. 8:32; Rom 4:25). For, if PARADIDONAI is used to
                                connote betrayal by a member of Jesus' self-created family, having disowned
                                his native family (see Mark 3:31-35), to use it also to denote God, as
                                Jesus' father, delivering up his son (see Mk 13:12, where PARADIDONAI is
                                used to depict delivering up [*betrayal*???]of Christians by their fathers
                                and other family members), could be confusing, if not plausibly misleading,
                                without clarification and a distinction made between Judas who PAREDWKEN
                                Jesus and God who PAREDWKEN Jesus, particularly when Paul is writing and
                                introducing himself to the Church at Rome.

                                > If you could show me a place in Paul where we might reasonably
                                expect him to have mentioned Judas and he didn't then you might
                                have a case. But I can't see one.<

                                See below.

                                > The same applies to Darrell's argument and to the absence of Judas'
                                > stories between
                                the canonical gospels and Papias one might reasonably expect Paul or others
                                to make mention of something and
                                he/they do not, then one might have a case. But then even if they did
                                mention Judas, what would stop you from then claiming that they'd simply got
                                him from Mark (which is how you deal with the evidence from Matt, Luke, and
                                John even though e.g. Luke claims to have done his own homework,
                                frequentlyleaves Mark when it suits, and his words of institution are closer
                                to Paul
                                than Matt or Mark, and John appears to have access to a different set of
                                traditions, espec his use of Ps 41)? <

                                Burton Mack (_A Myth of Innocence_, 298) and Crossan (_Historical Jesus_,
                                365) argue that Luke's eucharistic meal is a Lukan composition resulting
                                from his conflation of Mark and Paul's Last Supper accounts. William Walker,
                                in a paper presented to the Jesus Seminar, argued convincingly that Luke
                                knew the Pauline letters, so it is not surprisiing that Luke would have
                                merged Paul's account of the Last Supper with Mark's. With respect to Ps
                                41:9, Barnabas Lindars (_New Testament Apologetic_), John Donahue,
                                "Introduction: From Passion Traditions to Passion Narrative," in _The
                                Passion in Mark_, 4, ed. Werner Kelber), Vernon Robbins ("Last Meal:
                                Persecution, Betrayal, and Absence," in _Passion in Mark_, 29) and Mack
                                (256) have all argued that Mark uses Ps 41:9 as a hypotext for his hypertext
                                of 14:18.

                                >> I have made a similar argument for the likelihood that Paul did not know
                                >> about
                                >> Judas' betrayal of Jesus.

                                > But have you? There is nothing I can see in the two Romans
                                passages 11 the Jewish leadership, etc. fact, I would argue that the mention
                                of Judas in any of the passages would
                                be incongruous.<

                                See above.

                                >> Thus, I find it striking --- if Judas, in fact, was
                                >> a trusted disciple in the inner circle who betrayed Jesus --- that Paul
                                >> does
                                >> not use that information to attack the "false/super apostles" in II Cor.
                                >> 10-13, particularly II Cor. 11:13-15. Had Paul known about Judas, how
                                >> could
                                >> he have passed up the opportunity to cite Judas as an excellent example
                                >> (to
                                >> paraphrase Paul only slightly) of a false disciple, deceitful
                                >> worker,disguising himself as a disciple of Christ, behind whom was Satan
                                >> in
                                >> disguise, a false disciple whose end matched his deeds?

                                > Absolutely. Paul is indeed aware of the need for an example. And it would
                                > be
                                odd if he didn't give one. So, of course, he does: "Even Satan disguises
                                himself as an angel of light." So yes you are right, Paul does give an
                                example but he goes for the jugular; why bother with the servant when you
                                can go for his master? In other words, the appropriate contrast given that
                                the issue is "whose apostles are they?", is not Christ-Judas, but
                                Christ-Satan which is exactly what you get <.

                                Note how Luke (22:2-4) and John (13::26f.) indicate that Judas' betrayal is
                                the result of Satan working within him So, an example of Judas-Satan, had
                                Paul know of the betrayal, would have served him well as an example of the
                                way, to paraphrase Paul, Satan disguised himself as a disciple of Jesus.

                                > My reference to Jesus being unmarried is obviously not based on any direct
                                evidence from the NT. But it does seem to be the fairly unified witness of
                                early church tradition in which case it's not really based on the absence of
                                evidence. <

                                Where is it stated anywhere in Christian literature in the first or second
                                century CE that Jesus was unmarried? Please point me to where Jesus'
                                unmarried status is a unified witness of early church tradition. Without
                                such tangible and specific evidence, you are arguing, in my judgment, via an
                                argument from silence.

                                > Allison and many others have noted, the multiple attestation
                                criteria is problematic. I.e. all it tells us is that a story was well known
                                (it could still be a widely disseminated false or misleading story, as I'm
                                sure you'd argue about the resurrection, so it doesn't really establish that
                                much), it is undoubtedly a non-sequitur to imply that just because a story
                                is only recorded once it cannot be reliable, and perhaps even more reliable
                                than the widely disseminated version/s. <

                                I agree that the criterion of multiple attestation criterion is problematic.
                                But if one applied the usual methodological criteria, a la Meyer, used for
                                identifying what goes back to the historical Jesus to determining whether
                                Judas and Judas' betrayal were historical, none of those criteria would
                                provide cogent evidence for the historicity of Judas or the betrayal. We
                                have only Mark as the first and only witness to Judas. And Matthew, Luke
                                and John got their Judas tradition from Mark. Scholars have argued for a
                                pre-Markan passion narrative, but no one has been able to reconstruct one
                                that has won significant support of other scholars (see Marion Soards, "The
                                Question of a PreMarcan Passion Narrative," 1492-1524, in Raymond Brown's
                                _The Death of the Messiah_).

                                > You continue by refering to my stating that :
                                >> this "handing over" could not involve an agent who
                                >> betrayed him.
                                >> This is again to confuse a theological perspective with events.
                                >> Mark who on
                                >> your lights invented this story can have Jesus speak of his death
                                >> being"necessary" (8:31) and "written" (9:12) which surely implies
                                >> at least divine
                                >> necessity, and yet use the same verb (9:31; 10:33), and speak of
                                >> Judas'betraying Jesus. Since 2 Cor 11 is the one instance that I
                                >> can recall
                                >> offhand where Paul is dealing directly with historical events, his
                                >> paradidomai absent any guide to the agent could just as well mean, and
                                >> perhaps probably does, the whole process: God's divine intention,
                                >> Jesus'willingness, and Judas' betrayal.

                                > Not sure I see how your following response actually addresses my point:
                                > i.e.
                                my questioning of the apparent assumption that theological statements about
                                the involvement of God/Jesus rules out human participation in the actual
                                event.<

                                >> Again, as I have stated previously, there is no allusion to Judas or his
                                >> betrayal prior to Mark. Neither Q, nor Thomas nor the Didache, and, in
                                >> particularly and most telling, the earliest eucharistic traditions (Did
                                >> 10 and
                                >> 9) reveal any awareness of Judas or a human betrayal of Jesus.

                                The Markan passages, 8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:33, to which you refer above, are
                                all allusions to Isa 53:6, 12, and God in the Isaianic text is the only
                                agent who delivers up the servant. There is no human pawn which God uses
                                to accomplish his purpose, as Mark envisions it. I will have much to say
                                about this in my forthcoming post in reply to Ed Tyler's post.

                                > Re Q and Thomas (assuming, a big assumption, that Thom is earlier?): is
                                > this
                                really surprising since both are concerned with sayings, and neither
                                contains any Passion material? Unfortunately, my copy of Did is at work so
                                I can't check the context there.<

                                >> It is only
                                >> under the influence of the Markan account of Judas' betrayal and his
                                >> depiction
                                >> of the Last Supper, within which he presents his own eucharistic
                                >> tradition,
                                >> that one would have any reason to think that the term PAREDIDETO in the
                                >> pre-Pauline tradition might be understood as "was betrayed." It is more
                                >> likely in that tradition intended to PAREDIDETO to be understood as
                                >> "handed
                                >> over," understood by God, via the influence of Isa 53:12.

                                >But that's to assume your argument. I happen to agree that Isa 53:12 is
                                involved here, but that's not a link you'd want to pursue since it actually
                                tells against your position. Given its relationship to Isa 50:4-9, 10-11,
                                and the language of 53:3, 7-9, I don't know of a single Isa scholar know a
                                few to human activity. The point of Isa 53 is that the speakers of vv.1ff
                                confess that they now see God's hand in the suffering the servant underwent
                                at the hands of others. I suggest that's what Paul is after too. He's not
                                denying that humans, including Judas, were involved. He's concerned to show
                                that God was mysteriously at work in it all so that we might be redeemed.
                                Judas is simply irrelevant to that point. So, again, I think it is a false
                                dichotomy, and unwarranted in the light of the interpenetration of divine
                                and human activity in the Heb Scriptures, to suggest that Paul's unspecified
                                PAREDIDTO cannot include human activity.<

                                See my forthcoming reply to Ed Tyler on this matter.

                                > So yes, finally, I don't think we can find evidence for Judas in Paul. But
                                equally one cannot argue from Paul that Judas and the betrayal story is a
                                fabrication.<

                                > Take good care Ted, and thanks again for the rigorous engagement.<

                                Thank you, Rikk.

                                Ted
                                Theodore J. Weeden, Sr.
                                Retired
                                Ph.D., Claremont Graduate University





                                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


                                Yahoo! Groups Links
                              • Rikk Watts
                                Hi Ted, sorry about the delay... I ve snipped some things. ... Ted we appear to be going around in circles on this one. This seems to me to be simply another
                                Message 15 of 24 , May 26, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Ted, sorry about the delay... I've snipped some things.

                                  On 19/5/06 7:22 PM, "Theodore Weeden" <Tweeden@...> wrote:

                                  > If Paul, along with other early Christians, was aware of the heinous and
                                  > infamously celebrated betrayal of Judas, and if PARADIDONAI was a term used
                                  > to denote Judas' betrayal, as it is in Mark and his canonical cousins, then
                                  > it strikes me that Paul, who is careful and discriminate in his choice of
                                  > language in theological exposition, would have taken care in distinguishing
                                  > the meaning he intended when making his reference to God as the one who
                                  > PAREDWKEN Jesus (Rom. 8:32; Rom 4:25). For, if PARADIDONAI is used to
                                  > connote betrayal by a member of Jesus' self-created family, having disowned
                                  > his native family (see Mark 3:31-35), to use it also to denote God, as
                                  > Jesus' father, delivering up his son (see Mk 13:12, where PARADIDONAI is
                                  > used to depict delivering up [*betrayal*???]of Christians by their fathers
                                  > and other family members), could be confusing, if not plausibly misleading,
                                  > without clarification and a distinction made between Judas who PAREDWKEN
                                  > Jesus and God who PAREDWKEN Jesus, particularly when Paul is writing and
                                  > introducing himself to the Church at Rome.
                                  Ted we appear to be going around in circles on this one. This seems to me to
                                  be simply another variation of the "if God was in it Judas could not be
                                  involved" assumption to which I have already responded. Though the word is
                                  widely used there is no danger of confusion since although both God and
                                  Judas were involved Paul's context makes it clear whom of the two he has in
                                  mind, and as noted earlier there is no reason why Judas should be invoked in
                                  either of the Romans passages. If the writers of the four canonical gospels
                                  apparently saw no cause for confusion here, why should we assume that the
                                  Roman Christians would?

                                  >> But then even if they did mention Judas, what would stop you from then
                                  claiming that they'd simply got him from Mark (which is how you deal with the
                                  evidence from Matt, Luke, and John even though e.g. Luke claims to have done his
                                  own homework, frequentlyleaves Mark when it suits, and his words of institution
                                  are closer to Paul than Matt or Mark, and John appears to have access to a
                                  different set of traditions, espec his use of Ps 41)? <
                                  >
                                  > Burton Mack (_A Myth of Innocence_, 298) and Crossan (_Historical Jesus_,
                                  > 365) argue that Luke's eucharistic meal is a Lukan composition resulting
                                  > from his conflation of Mark and Paul's Last Supper accounts. William Walker,
                                  > in a paper presented to the Jesus Seminar, argued convincingly that Luke
                                  > knew the Pauline letters, so it is not surprisiing that Luke would have
                                  > merged Paul's account of the Last Supper with Mark's.
                                  I'm not sure this meets my objection and suspect instead that it illustrates
                                  the problem with this kind of argumentation. Just because Luke knew of
                                  Paul's letters doesn't mean that he does not therefore also do his own
                                  homework (even if the precise meaning is unclear) nor does it mean that he
                                  simply slavishly follows whatever is in front of him since he manifestly
                                  does not. As Sandmel noted long ago in his article on parallelomania,
                                  parallels might just as well indicate dependence on a common third tradition
                                  as direct borrowing. If there was a common underlying tradition what would
                                  we expect if not commonalities and parallels? I'm not sure then how one can
                                  tell the difference between parallels arising from a shared common source or
                                  from direct borrowing and for that reason I suspect Mack and Crossan are
                                  guilty of an improper assumption. Based on what Luke himself says I can only
                                  assume, unless there is strong counter evidence, that whether he includes
                                  his own material or Mark's or Paul's unchanged/modified he does so because
                                  he is convinced on the basis of his own work that those traditions reflect
                                  what happened. It's a bit like the danger inherent in redaction criticism
                                  which could lead careless practitioners to seek an author's theology soley
                                  in those places where he differs from his sources whereas a decision to
                                  include something unchanged might be just as important an indicator of the
                                  redactor's theology.

                                  Be that as it may, my primary point was that your appeal to absence of
                                  evidence prior Papias lacks conviction since if there was evidence what
                                  would stop you from just as easily dismissing it as having originated in
                                  Mark? Further, if you hold John 13.1-20's use of Ps 41 to be dependent on
                                  Mark (as you seem to below) even though John 13 is very different, then I
                                  find it difficult to imagine what you would accept as being independent
                                  testimony.

                                  > With respect to Ps
                                  > 41:9, Barnabas Lindars (_New Testament Apologetic_), John Donahue,
                                  > "Introduction: From Passion Traditions to Passion Narrative," in _The
                                  > Passion in Mark_, 4, ed. Werner Kelber), Vernon Robbins ("Last Meal:
                                  > Persecution, Betrayal, and Absence," in _Passion in Mark_, 29) and Mack
                                  > (256) have all argued that Mark uses Ps 41:9 as a hypotext for his hypertext
                                  > of 14:18.
                                  Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The issue for me was not whether Ps 41:9 might
                                  have been in Jesus' mind in Mark (if the gospel writers had enough wit to
                                  see some connection, why not Jesus himself?) but the way in which the
                                  tradition is recorded in John vis-à-vis Mark (hence "use"). Are you
                                  suggesting that John 13:1-20 is dependent on Mark? If not, then what we have
                                  here is an independent tradition that bears witness to an earlier shared
                                  core and thus perhaps evidence that Mark did not invent the Judas story. If
                                  you think it is, then I'm not sure what to say.

                                  Re 2 Cor 11:
                                  > Note how Luke (22:2-4) and John (13::26f.) indicate that Judas' betrayal is
                                  > the result of Satan working within him So, an example of Judas-Satan, had
                                  > Paul know of the betrayal, would have served him well as an example of the
                                  > way, to paraphrase Paul, Satan disguised himself as a disciple of Jesus.
                                  As I said earlier the issue concerns who is really the key player and it is
                                  clearly Satan as even your own examples indicate. Why would Paul bother with
                                  Judas when he can say even Satan presents himself as an angel of light? Bit
                                  hard to top that one.

                                  > Where is it stated anywhere in Christian literature in the first or second
                                  > century CE that Jesus was unmarried? Please point me to where Jesus'
                                  > unmarried status is a unified witness of early church tradition. Without
                                  > such tangible and specific evidence, you are arguing, in my judgment, via an
                                  > argument from silence.
                                  Thanks Ted‹bit ironic to be rebuked on this one given some of your arguments
                                  above? However, although I'm not sure why you imposed the limitation of
                                  first or second century, let me cite the kinds of things I had in mind,
                                  though I make no claim to being an expert here: e.g. Justin Martyr, Frags of
                                  Lost Work on Resurrection, III, holds that Jesus did not engage in sexual
                                  activity which in the context clearly means marry, and Clement of Alexandria
                                  in Elucidations VI, cites heretics that appeal to Christ's example as a
                                  reason for not marrying and then in agreeing that Christ did not gives his
                                  reasons why Christ was the exception. cf. Ignatius, Phil, IV, who in
                                  discussing marriage appeals to the apostles being so but not to Jesus,
                                  surely on your own lights a significant omission, and Ireneus, Ag. Her. 1.24
                                  who in attacking Saturninus' demonization of marriage misses a wonderful
                                  opportunity to comprehensively defeat him by stating that Jesus himself was
                                  married.
                                  Given that I've done my bit, can you show me any evidence in the fathers
                                  that Jesus was married? Re the NT itself: Meier seems to me to make a
                                  strong case from that silence (A Marginal Jew, 332-45).

                                  > I agree that the criterion of multiple attestation criterion is problematic.
                                  Fine. So why continue to apply it as though a single witness is somehow less
                                  true? Given your concern for hard evidence, rightly so, where's the hard
                                  evidence that Judas did not betray Jesus?

                                  > But if one applied the usual methodological criteria, a la Meyer, used for
                                  > identifying what goes back to the historical Jesus to determining whether
                                  > Judas and Judas' betrayal were historical, none of those criteria would
                                  > provide cogent evidence for the historicity of Judas or the betrayal. We
                                  > have only Mark as the first and only witness to Judas. And Matthew, Luke
                                  > and John got their Judas tradition from Mark.
                                  But again it's the usual methodological criteria that are problematic, as is
                                  the to my mind extraordinary assumption that Matt, Lk, and John simply copy
                                  Mark as though he is already the last canonical word when they clearly do
                                  not so regard him elsewhere.

                                  > Scholars have argued for a
                                  > pre-Markan passion narrative, but no one has been able to reconstruct one
                                  > that has won significant support of other scholars (see Marion Soards, "The
                                  > Question of a PreMarcan Passion Narrative," 1492-1524, in Raymond Brown's
                                  > _The Death of the Messiah_).
                                  But even if we came up with one, what would prevent you from arguing that
                                  the pre-pre-pre-Marcan passion narrative was an invention? But as you have
                                  rightly asked on numerous occasions: where's the hard evidence? I can at
                                  least point to texts from various authors, none of whom are slavish copyists
                                  and all of whom are happy to go with their own traditions when it suits
                                  (including the minor agreements against Mk) who bear witness to this. I'd be
                                  interested to see one piece of "tangible and specific evidence" that says
                                  that Judas did not betray Jesus.

                                  > The Markan passages, 8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:33, to which you refer above, are
                                  > all allusions to Isa 53:6, 12, and God in the Isaianic text is the only
                                  > agent who delivers up the servant. There is no human pawn which God uses
                                  > to accomplish his purpose, as Mark envisions it. I will have much to say
                                  > about this in my forthcoming post in reply to Ed Tyler's post.
                                  Ted, sorry but this seems to verge on proof-texting in that you cannot
                                  separate Is 53:6, 12 from the larger context of Isaiah. I feel I can say
                                  without fear of contradiction, having spent a great deal of time in Isaiah,
                                  that there is not an Isaiah scholar alive who would argue that the servant's
                                  suffering did not involve human activity. The problem with emotive and value
                                  laden language like "human pawn" is that it does not as far as I can see
                                  fairly describe how either Isaiah, Ps 41, or Mark understand human
                                  involvement.

                                  Anyway Ted, thanks again (I really do appreciate the way you stretch my
                                  thinking even if we mostly end up disagreeing). Take good care
                                  Rikk
                                • Theodore Weeden
                                  Rikk Watts wrote on May 26, 2006: Hi Ted, sorry about the delay... I ve snipped some things. Hi Rikk, I am sorry, too, about my delay in response to your post
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Jun 2, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Rikk Watts wrote on May 26, 2006:


                                    Hi Ted, sorry about the delay... I've snipped some things.

                                    Hi Rikk,

                                    I am sorry, too, about my delay in response to your post here. I have been
                                    away for a week to my grandson's graduation, just got back and am away for a
                                    couple days again.. When I return, I hope to complete a short essay in a
                                    belated response to a suggestive comment Ed Tyler made in a post of 5/09.
                                    I have been working for some time, doing substantial research and lots of
                                    thinking about the argument I will present. My essay will speak to some of
                                    the matters we have engaged each other on with respect to the historicity of
                                    Judas, etc. What I have not treated there, in reply to your response below,
                                    I will do so separately and subsequently.

                                    Regards,

                                    Ted

                                    On 19/5/06 7:22 PM, "Theodore Weeden" <Tweeden@...> wrote:

                                    > If Paul, along with other early Christians, was aware of the heinous and
                                    > infamously celebrated betrayal of Judas, and if PARADIDONAI was a term
                                    > used
                                    > to denote Judas' betrayal, as it is in Mark and his canonical cousins,
                                    > then
                                    > it strikes me that Paul, who is careful and discriminate in his choice of
                                    > language in theological exposition, would have taken care in
                                    > distinguishing
                                    > the meaning he intended when making his reference to God as the one who
                                    > PAREDWKEN Jesus (Rom. 8:32; Rom 4:25). For, if PARADIDONAI is used to
                                    > connote betrayal by a member of Jesus' self-created family, having
                                    > disowned
                                    > his native family (see Mark 3:31-35), to use it also to denote God, as
                                    > Jesus' father, delivering up his son (see Mk 13:12, where PARADIDONAI is
                                    > used to depict delivering up [*betrayal*???]of Christians by their fathers
                                    > and other family members), could be confusing, if not plausibly
                                    > misleading,
                                    > without clarification and a distinction made between Judas who PAREDWKEN
                                    > Jesus and God who PAREDWKEN Jesus, particularly when Paul is writing and
                                    > introducing himself to the Church at Rome.
                                    Ted we appear to be going around in circles on this one. This seems to me to
                                    be simply another variation of the "if God was in it Judas could not be
                                    involved" assumption to which I have already responded. Though the word is
                                    widely used there is no danger of confusion since although both God and
                                    Judas were involved Paul's context makes it clear whom of the two he has in
                                    mind, and as noted earlier there is no reason why Judas should be invoked in
                                    either of the Romans passages. If the writers of the four canonical gospels
                                    apparently saw no cause for confusion here, why should we assume that the
                                    Roman Christians would?

                                    >> But then even if they did mention Judas, what would stop you from then
                                    claiming that they'd simply got him from Mark (which is how you deal with
                                    the
                                    evidence from Matt, Luke, and John even though e.g. Luke claims to have done
                                    his
                                    own homework, frequentlyleaves Mark when it suits, and his words of
                                    institution
                                    are closer to Paul than Matt or Mark, and John appears to have access to a
                                    different set of traditions, espec his use of Ps 41)? <
                                    >
                                    > Burton Mack (_A Myth of Innocence_, 298) and Crossan (_Historical Jesus_,
                                    > 365) argue that Luke's eucharistic meal is a Lukan composition resulting
                                    > from his conflation of Mark and Paul's Last Supper accounts. William
                                    > Walker,
                                    > in a paper presented to the Jesus Seminar, argued convincingly that Luke
                                    > knew the Pauline letters, so it is not surprisiing that Luke would have
                                    > merged Paul's account of the Last Supper with Mark's.
                                    I'm not sure this meets my objection and suspect instead that it illustrates
                                    the problem with this kind of argumentation. Just because Luke knew of
                                    Paul's letters doesn't mean that he does not therefore also do his own
                                    homework (even if the precise meaning is unclear) nor does it mean that he
                                    simply slavishly follows whatever is in front of him since he manifestly
                                    does not. As Sandmel noted long ago in his article on parallelomania,
                                    parallels might just as well indicate dependence on a common third tradition
                                    as direct borrowing. If there was a common underlying tradition what would
                                    we expect if not commonalities and parallels? I'm not sure then how one can
                                    tell the difference between parallels arising from a shared common source or
                                    from direct borrowing and for that reason I suspect Mack and Crossan are
                                    guilty of an improper assumption. Based on what Luke himself says I can only
                                    assume, unless there is strong counter evidence, that whether he includes
                                    his own material or Mark's or Paul's unchanged/modified he does so because
                                    he is convinced on the basis of his own work that those traditions reflect
                                    what happened. It's a bit like the danger inherent in redaction criticism
                                    which could lead careless practitioners to seek an author's theology soley
                                    in those places where he differs from his sources whereas a decision to
                                    include something unchanged might be just as important an indicator of the
                                    redactor's theology.

                                    Be that as it may, my primary point was that your appeal to absence of
                                    evidence prior Papias lacks conviction since if there was evidence what
                                    would stop you from just as easily dismissing it as having originated in
                                    Mark? Further, if you hold John 13.1-20's use of Ps 41 to be dependent on
                                    Mark (as you seem to below) even though John 13 is very different, then I
                                    find it difficult to imagine what you would accept as being independent
                                    testimony.

                                    > With respect to Ps
                                    > 41:9, Barnabas Lindars (_New Testament Apologetic_), John Donahue,
                                    > "Introduction: From Passion Traditions to Passion Narrative," in _The
                                    > Passion in Mark_, 4, ed. Werner Kelber), Vernon Robbins ("Last Meal:
                                    > Persecution, Betrayal, and Absence," in _Passion in Mark_, 29) and Mack
                                    > (256) have all argued that Mark uses Ps 41:9 as a hypotext for his
                                    > hypertext
                                    > of 14:18.
                                    Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The issue for me was not whether Ps 41:9 might
                                    have been in Jesus' mind in Mark (if the gospel writers had enough wit to
                                    see some connection, why not Jesus himself?) but the way in which the
                                    tradition is recorded in John vis-à-vis Mark (hence "use"). Are you
                                    suggesting that John 13:1-20 is dependent on Mark? If not, then what we have
                                    here is an independent tradition that bears witness to an earlier shared
                                    core and thus perhaps evidence that Mark did not invent the Judas story. If
                                    you think it is, then I'm not sure what to say.

                                    Re 2 Cor 11:
                                    > Note how Luke (22:2-4) and John (13::26f.) indicate that Judas' betrayal
                                    > is
                                    > the result of Satan working within him So, an example of Judas-Satan,
                                    > had
                                    > Paul know of the betrayal, would have served him well as an example of the
                                    > way, to paraphrase Paul, Satan disguised himself as a disciple of Jesus.
                                    As I said earlier the issue concerns who is really the key player and it is
                                    clearly Satan as even your own examples indicate. Why would Paul bother with
                                    Judas when he can say even Satan presents himself as an angel of light? Bit
                                    hard to top that one.

                                    > Where is it stated anywhere in Christian literature in the first or second
                                    > century CE that Jesus was unmarried? Please point me to where Jesus'
                                    > unmarried status is a unified witness of early church tradition. Without
                                    > such tangible and specific evidence, you are arguing, in my judgment, via
                                    > an
                                    > argument from silence.
                                    Thanks Ted above? However, although I'm not sure why you imposed the
                                    limitation of
                                    first or second century, let me cite the kinds of things I had in mind,
                                    though I make no claim to being an expert here: e.g. Justin Martyr, Frags of
                                    Lost Work on Resurrection, III, holds that Jesus did not engage in sexual
                                    activity which in the context clearly means marry, and Clement of Alexandria
                                    in Elucidations VI, cites heretics that appeal to Christ's example as a
                                    reason for not marrying and then in agreeing that Christ did not gives his
                                    reasons why Christ was the exception. cf. Ignatius, Phil, IV, who in
                                    discussing marriage appeals to the apostles being so but not to Jesus,
                                    surely on your own lights a significant omission, and Ireneus, Ag. Her. 1.24
                                    who in attacking Saturninus' demonization of marriage misses a wonderful
                                    opportunity to comprehensively defeat him by stating that Jesus himself was
                                    married.
                                    Given that I've done my bit, can you show me any evidence in the fathers
                                    that Jesus was married? Re the NT itself: Meier seems to me to make a
                                    strong case from that silence (A Marginal Jew, 332-45).

                                    > I agree that the criterion of multiple attestation criterion is
                                    > problematic.
                                    Fine. So why continue to apply it as though a single witness is somehow less
                                    true? Given your concern for hard evidence, rightly so, where's the hard
                                    evidence that Judas did not betray Jesus?

                                    > But if one applied the usual methodological criteria, a la Meyer, used for
                                    > identifying what goes back to the historical Jesus to determining whether
                                    > Judas and Judas' betrayal were historical, none of those criteria would
                                    > provide cogent evidence for the historicity of Judas or the betrayal. We
                                    > have only Mark as the first and only witness to Judas. And Matthew, Luke
                                    > and John got their Judas tradition from Mark.
                                    But again it's the usual methodological criteria that are problematic, as is
                                    the to my mind extraordinary assumption that Matt, Lk, and John simply copy
                                    Mark as though he is already the last canonical word when they clearly do
                                    not so regard him elsewhere.

                                    > Scholars have argued for a
                                    > pre-Markan passion narrative, but no one has been able to reconstruct one
                                    > that has won significant support of other scholars (see Marion Soards,
                                    > "The
                                    > Question of a PreMarcan Passion Narrative," 1492-1524, in Raymond Brown's
                                    > _The Death of the Messiah_).
                                    But even if we came up with one, what would prevent you from arguing that
                                    the pre-pre-pre-Marcan passion narrative was an invention? But as you have
                                    rightly asked on numerous occasions: where's the hard evidence? I can at
                                    least point to texts from various authors, none of whom are slavish copyists
                                    and all of whom are happy to go with their own traditions when it suits
                                    (including the minor agreements against Mk) who bear witness to this. I'd be
                                    interested to see one piece of "tangible and specific evidence" that says
                                    that Judas did not betray Jesus.

                                    > The Markan passages, 8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:33, to which you refer above, are
                                    > all allusions to Isa 53:6, 12, and God in the Isaianic text is the only
                                    > agent who delivers up the servant. There is no human pawn which God uses
                                    > to accomplish his purpose, as Mark envisions it. I will have much to say
                                    > about this in my forthcoming post in reply to Ed Tyler's post.
                                    Ted, sorry but this seems to verge on proof-texting in that you cannot
                                    separate Is 53:6, 12 from the larger context of Isaiah. I feel I can say
                                    without fear of contradiction, having spent a great deal of time in Isaiah,
                                    that there is not an Isaiah scholar alive who would argue that the servant's
                                    suffering did not involve human activity. The problem with emotive and value
                                    laden language like "human pawn" is that it does not as far as I can see
                                    fairly describe how either Isaiah, Ps 41, or Mark understand human
                                    involvement.

                                    Anyway Ted, thanks again (I really do appreciate the way you stretch my
                                    thinking even if we mostly end up disagreeing). Take good care
                                    Rikk





                                    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


                                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.