Thomas L Brodie on Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist?'and oral traditions

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Thomas L Brodie on Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist?'and oral traditions

Post by MrMacSon »

Here is Klinghardt's proposed schema as outlined by Dieter Roth) [I am awaiting Klinghardt's latest book, so maybe it's premature posting a third party depiction, but it is pertinent, and there's always/hopefully another day to clarify [<- word of the day]] -

The curved lines represent down arrows (without arrowheads obviously) -

Klinghardt post-Marcion schema.PNG
Klinghardt post-Marcion schema.PNG (59.34 KiB) Viewed 9176 times
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Thomas L Brodie on Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist?'and oral traditions

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:10 pmMainly, here is a question for you for clarification for me about the Hebrew Bible Scriptures 'literary pyramid' that Brodie provided, based on Freedman 1991: I presume it reflects a 'flow' as depicted by the orange arrows in this diagram....
I would have thought that the arrow on the right would go in the other direction: from Deuteronomy to Kings. Brodie writes on page 29 that Deuteronomy "culminates the Pentateuch and colors all of Joshua-2 Kings" (italics mine). To culminate something would seem to entail coming after it, while to color something seems to me to entail coming before it and influencing it. Also, he writes, "Within the Bible's foundational narrative (Genesis-Kings), Deuteronomy and Elijah-Elisha constitute, respectively, the center and the final prophetic interlude." Deuteronomy is in the center, Elijah-Elisha at the end. But Brodie is not really talking about strict direction of dependence here; it may be best to leave those arrows out. He does say on page xxviii that "[t]his is the literary backbone. The full pattern of dependence is far more complex, with influences from other writings and from the intense social and historical events of the first century."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Thomas L Brodie on Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist?'and oral traditions

Post by MrMacSon »

If Brodie's Proto-Luke = 'Mcn's' Gospel or = a proto-Marcion gospel, it would seem possible that proposed gospel literary activities^ (ie. subsequent to the advent of those texts) could have happened before Marcion (Vinzent, however, thinks the synoptic gospels and Marcion's 'gospeltext' were all developed and edited in close proximity time-wise and spatially).
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Thomas L Brodie on Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist?'and oral traditions

Post by Ben C. Smith »

(To be clear, I was referring to the orange arrow on your chart with Deuteronomy at the top, not to any arrow on your more recently posted chart. Our posts crossed.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Thomas L Brodie on Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist?'and oral traditions

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: (To be clear, I was referring to the orange arrow on your chart with Deuteronomy at the top, not to any arrow on your more recently posted chart. Our posts crossed.)
Cheers Ben. I got that :)
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:28 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:10 pmMainly, here is a question for you for clarification for me about the Hebrew Bible Scriptures 'literary pyramid' that Brodie provided, based on Freedman 1991: I presume it reflects a 'flow' as depicted by the orange arrows in this diagram....
I would have thought that the arrow on the right would go in the other direction: from Deuteronomy to Kings. Brodie writes on page 29 that Deuteronomy "culminates the Pentateuch and colors all of Joshua-2 Kings" (italics mine). To culminate something would seem to entail coming after it, while to color something seems to me to entail coming before it and influencing it. Also, he writes, "Within the Bible's foundational narrative (Genesis-Kings), Deuteronomy and Elijah-Elisha constitute, respectively, the center and the final prophetic interlude." Deuteronomy is in the center, Elijah-Elisha at the end. But Brodie is not really talking about strict direction of dependence here; it may be best to leave those arrows out. He does say on page xxviii that "[t]his is the literary backbone. The full pattern of dependence is far more complex, with influences from other writings and from the intense social and historical events of the first century."
Cheers.. When Brodie said "on page xxviii that '[t]his is the literary backbone. The full pattern of dependence is far more complex, with influences from other writings and from the intense social and historical events of the first century'," I wondered whether he was referring to the NT, or ongoing editing of the OT stuff (as it is known some of the Jewish texts were still being edited and the Hebrew Bible was apparently being canonised in the first and second century, esp. the Ketuvim), or both.

eta: I will edit the post with my Brodie 2.0 diagram to reflect this (including replacing the image itself).

and, doh, of course the Elijah-Elisha Narrative is the key focus for Brodie, and a few other scholars (including R.G. Price)
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Thomas L Brodie on Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist?'and oral traditions

Post by GakuseiDon »

Does anyone understand what Brodie meant by the following (as kindly reproduced by Ben Smith earlier in this thread):

Ehrman's book could seem to set up a false dilemma: stay with a claim to a historical Jesus, or lose Jesus and, with him, lose God. But there is a further option. Rediscover Jesus as a fresh scripture-based expression of suffering humanity's deepest strengths and hopes, and thereby rediscover a new sense of the reality we often refer to glibly as God.

Am I reading this wrong, or is Brodie proposing some kind of mystical reading to the Gospels?
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Thomas L Brodie on Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist?'and oral traditions

Post by GakuseiDon »

To me, Brodie's view (as I understand it) is a reflection what may have happened at the primary event of the writing of gMark: what sources did the author of gMark have when he/she sat down to write that Gospel?

I assume that the author was part of a Christian community that had sources either oral or written. I'd also see that these sources would rely heavily on the (OT) Scriptures. We see that in Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" that Justin converted to Christianity based on the OT. Justin shows how the writings of the OT -- rather than any Gospel stories about a historical Jesus -- is the primary source for his own conversion to Christianity.

We see that even more obviously in "Acts of the Apostles": http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... s-kjv.html

Acts.17
1. Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
2. And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
3. Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead
; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

11. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
12. Therefore many of them believed
...


What that suggests is that stories about Jesus that could be tied to the OT were more useful as a conversion tool to early Christians than stories that could not be tied to the OT, and thus more likely to survive. Indeed, non-OT based stories and sayings regarding Jesus would probably NOT survive within the repertoire of apostles like Paul, if Acts is any guide. If they were unlikely to survive beyond Paul and the first apostles, then the next generation of Christians like the author of Mark simply wouldn't have those stories available.

Whether those stories originated from some historical event or not would be hard to tell. It could be argued that the less likely a surviving pericope can be connected to the OT then the more likely it is based on some tradition (oral or written) not coming from the OT. But given that Brodie believes that other ancient non-OT sources may have provided inspiration as sources for the author of gMark, even there one could argue that there is no need to speculate that those stories go back to some historical event.

I'd love to see a debate between Ehrman and Brodie on the topic, to see if they could agree on even one thing that is likely to have gone back to a historical founder, or at least not inspired by some other source. But if the only stories the author of Mark had before him were those that survived BECAUSE they were based on the OT, that may not even be possible. And if he was going to make up stories, he'd use the OT as his source.

I've noted this irony before: it wasn't that long ago that people argued that the Gospel stories showed that Jesus wasn't the 'predicted' Christ from the OT, since the Gospel stories so poorly fit the OT.

But now it seems the argument is that the Gospel stories match the OT so well, that they were obviously modelled on the OT in the first place!
It is really important, in life, to concentrate our minds on our enthusiasms, not on our dislikes. -- Roger Pearse
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Thomas L Brodie on Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist?'and oral traditions

Post by Ben C. Smith »

GakuseiDon wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:58 am Does anyone understand what Brodie meant by the following (as kindly reproduced by Ben Smith earlier in this thread):

Ehrman's book could seem to set up a false dilemma: stay with a claim to a historical Jesus, or lose Jesus and, with him, lose God. But there is a further option. Rediscover Jesus as a fresh scripture-based expression of suffering humanity's deepest strengths and hopes, and thereby rediscover a new sense of the reality we often refer to glibly as God.

Am I reading this wrong, or is Brodie proposing some kind of mystical reading to the Gospels?
Well, he is a Dominican monk. That part (and others) did sound a bit mystical to me, too. At least, it sounds like he is getting more out of his research than just the feeling of having uncovered some history. But I may be mistaken.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Thomas L Brodie on Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist?'and oral traditions

Post by Irish1975 »

GakuseiDon wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 2:58 am Does anyone understand what Brodie meant by the following (as kindly reproduced by Ben Smith earlier in this thread):

Ehrman's book could seem to set up a false dilemma: stay with a claim to a historical Jesus, or lose Jesus and, with him, lose God. But there is a further option. Rediscover Jesus as a fresh scripture-based expression of suffering humanity's deepest strengths and hopes, and thereby rediscover a new sense of the reality we often refer to glibly as God.

Am I reading this wrong, or is Brodie proposing some kind of mystical reading to the Gospels?
No, I don't think this is an invitation to mysticism, or about his being a Dominican. It reads to me as a direct response to Ehrman.

Ehrman, in various books, does write as if his purpose is to maintain the ambiguity of Christianity as both (1) necessary for (American? global?) civilization, and (2) essentially not credible because of this or that issue (suffering, the resurrection miralce, etc.). Maybe he is convinced by Dostoyevksy's famous line, if God does not exist, everything is allowed, which has led many modern thinkers (neoconservatives, basically) to think that human decency and lawfulness cannot survive the demise of biblical religion. However that may be, his commitment to a historical Jesus reads to me as part and parcel of this agenda. Which is not to say that he is not mostly even-handed and empiricist about what can be known historically. I'm speaking more about his stance as a NYT-best-selling author of popular books, i.e., a cultural authority figure.

Brodie thinks the opposite is true. We don't need to ground Christianity in history, and we are being less than historically honest if we continue to do so. It's not as if the meaning of religion vanishes altogether once we start reading the Bible as a work of imagination. Feuerbach, Durkheim, Jung, and many other modern theorists of religion have laid the groundwork. If we just stick to the old idea that Jesus Christ is a god in whom the masses believe and will probably always believe, we are being more honest and grounded about the true state of religion.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Thomas L Brodie on Ehrman's 'Did Jesus Exist?'and oral traditions

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Irish1975 wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:53 pmEhrman, in various books, does write as if his purpose is to maintain the ambiguity of Christianity as both (1) necessary for (American? global?) civilization, and (2) essentially not credible because of this or that issue (suffering, the resurrection miralce, etc.).
Thanks. Can you give an example or two of this species of writing on his part (mainly your point #1)? I have read two or three of his books, but I admit I sometimes tend to skim materials that go into those kinds of directions.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply