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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.