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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , May 9, 2006
      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 2 of 24 , May 9, 2006
        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 3 of 24 , May 9, 2006
          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 4 of 24 , May 10, 2006
            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 5 of 24 , May 12, 2006
              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 6 of 24 , May 12, 2006
                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 7 of 24 , May 12, 2006
                  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 8 of 24 , May 13, 2006
                    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 9 of 24 , May 19, 2006
                      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 10 of 24 , May 26, 2006
                        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 11 of 24 , Jun 2, 2006
                          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.