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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , May 12 12:36 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Ted, good to hear from you and thanks for the clarification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Rikk
    • Ernest Pennells
      I have only been able to keep half an eye on this interesting debate, being somewhat preoccupied facilitating Muslims throwing rocks at the devil (off-topic).
      Message 2 of 24 , May 13 8:53 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        I have only been able to keep half an eye on this interesting debate, being
        somewhat preoccupied facilitating Muslims throwing rocks at the devil
        (off-topic). However, there is a thought I would like to lob into the
        arena if it has not already been presented. It seems to me there is an
        important distinction to be made between evidence of literary dependency and
        evidence of fiction. The culture in which GTrad developed was one of
        limited literacy, and scripture was a primary model that influenced
        narrative of all sorts. It is hardly surprising that their stories - fact
        or fiction - show clear evidence of being couched in the language and
        literary architecture of the primary source of literature they knew.

        Regards,

        Ernie Pennells,
        25 La Mancha, Sierra Village,
        Arabian Homes,
        PO Box 11326
        Jeddah 21453
        KSA
        Tel: (966) 2 662 4000 Ext 2225
        Mobile 0557495540
      • Theodore Weeden
        ... Rikk, sorry for the delay in responding to this. I have had too many irons in the fire lately. One of those irons is a response to a post of Ed Tyler s
        Message 3 of 24 , May 19 7:22 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Rikk Watts wrote on May 12, 2006:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          See below.

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

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

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

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

          See above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          See my forthcoming reply to Ed Tyler on this matter.

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

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

          Thank you, Rikk.

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





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

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

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

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


          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Rikk Watts
          Hi Ted, sorry about the delay... I ve snipped some things. ... Ted we appear to be going around in circles on this one. This seems to me to be simply another
          Message 4 of 24 , May 26 12:40 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Ted, sorry about the delay... I've snipped some things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            Anyway Ted, thanks again (I really do appreciate the way you stretch my
            thinking even if we mostly end up disagreeing). Take good care
            Rikk
          • Theodore Weeden
            Rikk Watts wrote on May 26, 2006: Hi Ted, sorry about the delay... I ve snipped some things. Hi Rikk, I am sorry, too, about my delay in response to your post
            Message 5 of 24 , Jun 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Rikk Watts wrote on May 26, 2006:


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

              Hi Rikk,

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

              Regards,

              Ted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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


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