Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think it's at least curious that neither Q or Thomas have any reference to a passion or resurrection of any sort. They are only sayings collections yes, but it's odd that there's NO reference to the crucifixion. Do they represent pre-Marcan traditions of Jesus simply as a wisdom teacher, or were separate wisdom sayings tacked onto the Marcan passion? Even if the latter is the case, Thomas at least, and maybe Q too, circulated independently of the passion/resurrection traditions, indicating they ither didn't think it was very important or had never heard of it.

[maryhelena]

I think it's at least curious that neither Q or Thomas have any reference to a passion or resurrection of any sort. They are only sayings collections yes, but it's odd that there's NO reference to the crucifixion. Do they represent pre-Marcan traditions of Jesus simply as a wisdom teacher, or were separate wisdom sayings tacked onto the Marcan passion? Even if the latter is the case, Thomas at least, and maybe Q too, circulated independently of the passion/resurrection traditions, indicating they ither didn't think it was very important or had never heard of it.

Yep, a curiosity that can be explained by proposing a composite Jesus figure. A composite literary creation that allows for the inclusion of both a crucified/hung on a cross historical figure - as well as a historical figure that was not crucified. Traditions about two historical figures fused together in the gospel figure of Jesus and the gospel story. Elements of the individual figures being reflected in the Jesus tradition - as in no crucifixion in Q. Additionally, a composite Jesus figure allows light to be thrown on the idea that Jesus was not crucified because someone else took his place. The idea that the crucifixion took place in the time of Claudius (when Pilate was not in Judea) would suggest that one of the historical figures that has been used for the gospel composite Jesus - lived until that time.

All the above would indicate that the gospel Jesus story covers a far wider time frame than is usually assigned to it.

[andrewcriddle]

I think it's at least curious that neither Q or Thomas have any reference to a passion or resurrection of any sort. They are only sayings collections yes, but it's odd that there's NO reference to the crucifixion. Do they represent pre-Marcan traditions of Jesus simply as a wisdom teacher, or were separate wisdom sayings tacked onto the Marcan passion? Even if the latter is the case, Thomas at least, and maybe Q too, circulated independently of the passion/resurrection traditions, indicating they ither didn't think it was very important or had never heard of it.

Gospel of Thomas 55

) Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate his father and his mother cannot become a disciple to me. And whoever does not hate his brothers and sisters and take up his cross in my way will not be worthy of me."

(Similar in Q according to most reconstructions)

Andrew Criddle

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Good point. I forgot about that one. Probably from a later layer, though.

[Peter Kirby]

Good point. I forgot about that one. Probably from a later layer, though.

Maybe, but... if "Q" were not a separate, actual document and if the Gospel of Thomas were a second century text dependent on previous gospels, there'd be little reason to assume that.

[Michael BG]

I think it's at least curious that neither Q or Thomas have any reference to a passion or resurrection of any sort. They are only sayings collections yes, but it's odd that there's NO reference to the crucifixion. Do they represent pre-Marcan traditions of Jesus simply as a wisdom teacher, or were separate wisdom sayings tacked onto the Marcan passion? Even if the latter is the case, Thomas at least, and maybe Q too, circulated independently of the passion/resurrection traditions, indicating they ither didn't think it was very important or had never heard of it.

I thought it was generally accepted that Q knew that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem, when it talks of the prophets being killed and sees Jesus in the same tradition.

There is Lk 14:27 – Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
Par. Mt 10:38 - and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

“σταυρον” is the word translated as cross here, which is the same word used by Mark (15:21) when talking about the cross-beam being carried by Simon a Cyrenian.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Good point. It's a saying that can't be genuine, though, so it would seem to be an addition to the original sayings collection..

[Michael BG]

Good point. It's a saying that can't be genuine, though, so it would seem to be an addition to the original sayings collection..

I don’t know what you mean by “genuine”. (I thought it was normally used when referring to going back to Jesus, but I didn’t think we were discussing that. I thought we were discussing the likelihood that Q “had any reference to a passion ... of any sort.”)

Burton Mack puts this saying {Lk14:27} in Q1. The tradition in Q that Kloppenborg see as Deuteronomistic theology sees Jesus in the tradition of the prophets who have been killed, (i.e. some of the Woes to Pharisees {Lk 11:47,49-51 & par.} and the Lament over Jerusalem {Lk 13:34}) Don’t you see all these in Q when Matthew and Luke used it? (Also Q is more than a sayings collection because it includes events such as the Temptation, the Curing of the Centurion’s slave and the section about John the Baptist {Lk7:18-35}.)

[FelixAndor]

Some of this discussion seems infantile.

The whole point of the Bible, in my reading anyway, is to open eyes to perception of a spiritual world--aka Wisdom.

If one wishes to subject the Bible to "scientific" analysis, then there are easier points to attack, such as the raising of Lazarus after his corpse had begun stinking.

Not to mention all the other bodies raised up out of their graves after the crucifixion.

But I think the miracles, the stories outside our experience, are gateways to another way of seeing, and one at least equally as valid.

Keep in mind, scientists now assert that most of the matter and energy of the universe is totally invisible--undetectable even by the most powerful laboratories on Earth like CERN.

Is that substitution of man's postulate (to plug a gap or "error" in cosmological equations) a better way to think than the spiritual knowledge of thousands of years?

Not for me.

[spin]

Some of this discussion seems infantile.

This has the appearance of a pot in search of a kettle.

The whole point of the Bible, in my reading anyway, is to open eyes to perception of a spiritual world--aka Wisdom.

Before making sweeping generalizations, it is usually good to justify your terms and then use them to support your thesis. (And you'll have fun giving real world significance to your notion of "spiritual", then demonstrating the epistemology behind your phrase "spiritual world" necessary to make it more than a religious buzz-phrase.)

If one wishes to subject the Bible to "scientific" analysis, then there are easier points to attack, such as the raising of Lazarus after his corpse had begun stinking.

Not to mention all the other bodies raised up out of their graves after the crucifixion.

But I think the miracles, the stories outside our experience, are gateways to another way of seeing, and one at least equally as valid.

If efficacy of attack were the point, you might have a chance of being right. But if you don't know what you are talking about you probably don't have a chance. You don't jump into a group that has existed for well over a decade in various venues and presume to know anything about the discourse. Why not be quiet for a while and get to know what is going on, rather than shooting from the hip with uninformed and ill-directed bullets?

Keep in mind, scientists now assert that most of the matter and energy of the universe is totally invisible--undetectable even by the most powerful laboratories on Earth like CERN.

Yet, given that it is not detectable, you cannot (at least now) know anything about it. You cannot presume to base arguments on what you know nothing about, so mentioning it here is a pure red herring.

Is that substitution of man's postulate (to plug a gap or "error" in cosmological equations) a better way to think than the spiritual knowledge of thousands of years?

If you are trying to communicate with anyone here, you need to make an effort to do so, rather than rehearse received ideas which seem to have no connection to the real world. I guess you'd say that your "spiritual world" needs some connection to the real world, otherwise your religious ancestors couldn't have known anything about it to leave you with the idea. But again, your ontological commitment to stuff you don't have a functional epistemology for just leaves you talking about what you have no way of knowing.