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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.